By Danuta Radzik
(Danuta Radzik is a woman and child rights advocate, counsellor, educator for over 40 years and environmental defender)
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on Judge Morris- Ramlall’s ruling on May 3, 2024 in the case, Danuta Radzik and the Environmental Assessment Board, and on some of the events which led up to the filing of this court case.
In her ruling, Judge Morris- Ramlall declined to grant the reliefs sought due to “undue delay and consequential possibility of prejudice to third parties,” but also stated clearly that “this court ….. is satisfied that Mahender Sharma and Joslyn Mckenzie ought to have recused themselves from the decision-making process of the EAB regarding the exemption of the power plant from an environmental impact assessment for the reasons contended by the Applicants.”
Even though it is disappointing that Judge Morris- Ramlall did not grant the reliefs sought, this part of her ruling vindicates this court action and the evidence presented, which substantiated the conflicts of interest of EAB Chairman Mahender Sharma and EAB member Joslyn Mckenzie, with regard to the hearing and upholding of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) exemption of an EIA for the 300mw Gas Fired Power Plant.
The EAB’s press statement which was released on the same day as Judge Morris- Ramlall’s ruling, failed to mention that the judge had indeed ruled that both Mr. Mahender Sharma and Mr. Joslyn Mc Kenzie should have recused themselves from the hearing. The failure to include this in their statement says much about the EAB. By omitting this important section of Judge Morris- Ramlall’s ruling. Mr. Mahender Sharma and the EAB are refusing to accept or concede that they should have recused themselves as they were in breach of Paragraph 8 (b) of the Third Schedule of the Environmental Protection Act Cap. 20:05, which clearly says “ Any member of the Board who has any interest, directly or indirectly, in any matter before the Board (a) shall disclose the nature of his interest to the Board; and shall not take part in any deliberation or decisions of the Board with respect to that matter.” And (b) “any disclosure under this section shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board.”
When Judge Morris- Ramlall referred in her ruling to the reasons contended by the applicants which should have resulted in both Mr. Sharma and Mr. Mckenzie recusing themselves, these would have included the numerous documentary evidence of conflicts of interests on the part of Mr. Sharma and Mr. Mc Kenzie which now forms part of record.
While Judge Morris- Ramlall found that it was not disputed by evidence that the project was in an advanced stage, the power plant is most certainly not in any advanced stage. Although deemed inadmissible by the Judge, photos taken in November 2023 and March 2024 show clearly that the site earmarked for the power plant has to date only been sand filled with a few container buildings erected. No foundations have been cast for the 300 MW Power Plant; there is no building construction; the site is not even fenced. Additionally, the Head of Guyana’s Gas to Energy Taskforce, Mr. Winston Brassington, is quoted in several media reports locally and internationally stating that Guyana $1.9 Billion Gas to Power Project is delayed until the fourth quarter of 2025. These delays are attributed to late equipment deliveries and foundation issues at the chosen site. To compound matters, the contractors for the power plant Lindsayca and CH4 have initiated legal proceedings against the Government of Guyana for US 90 million due to cost overruns. In light of all this, there is surely more than enough time for a new EAB, one without conflicts of interest, to be appointed and hold new hearings into the exemption of an EIA for the GtE power plant
Prior to bringing the court action, every effort was made to have Mr. Mahender Sharma and other EAB members recuse themselves from deliberations or hearings into the EPA’s exemption of an EIA for the 300 MW Power Plant. A letter first sent to the EAB Chairman in March 2023 and later released to the Press, expressed a lack of confidence in the presently constituted EAB’s ability to hold a fair hearing due to conflicts of interest of EAB members and their public duties as government employees – in particular Mr. Mahender Sharma’s triple conflict of interest as Head of the Guyana Energy Agency; Director of Guyana Power and Light, a party to the application for the power plant; and spouse of Mrs. Nadir Sharma, Director of the company that applied for the environmental permit.
In that letter, I expressed my deep concern that Mr. Mahender Sharma did not refuse the appointment as Chair of the EAB on February 10, 2023, when it was publicly known that an appeal against the EIA waiver for the power plant was before the EAB and as Chair he would be heading this appeals’ process. Objections were also made to the prejudicial way in which the EAB hearing was being held, including the refusal to allow the use of Zoom platforms, used widely throughout Guyana, which restricted ordinary citizens, poor communities and working peoples who might not be able to travel to participate. Unlike private companies and the Government, neither appellants nor community persons could reasonably afford to fly experts to Guyana to participate in hearings, and members of the diaspora with expertise and a legitimate stake in such matters were likewise restricted. Concern was also expressed that the Environmental Protection Agency was relying on certain documents for its decision to exempt an EIA for power plant, while at the same time refusing to provide these documents to appellants. This blatant lack of transparency and accountability was deeply concerning and raised questions about the fairness of the decision-making process. The only publicly available document the EPA referred to in its Public Notice of its waiver was the Gas to Energy Environmental Impact Assessment (GtE EIA). I ended my letter respectfully requesting that Mr. Sharma as chairman of the EAB step down and resign his post at the EAB. I never received a reply to my letter to the EAB Chairman.
At the EAB hearing I once again stated my objections to Mr. Sharma and members to hold an independent unbiased hearing and raised the following objections to the EPA’s exemption of an EIA for the 300Mw Power Plant:
● The gas to energy Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) stated that it does not cover the Power Plant in any detail save and except when addressing cumulative impacts; as such it cannot act as a substitute for a separate and comprehensive Power Plant EIA.
● Exemption from a separate power plant EIA would be a violation of the Environmental Protection Act and an attempt to deny stakeholders the right to access all necessary information through EIAs as set out in Guyana’s Environment-al Act – Fifth Schedule (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13).
● The EPA notice to exempt an EIA for the power plant fails to comprehensively or cumulatively address or reflect the World Health Organization’s (WHO) statement that “clean air is a basic human right – it is the greatest environmental threat to health and a leading cause of non-communicable diseases such as heart attacks or stroke. There are 7 million premature deaths every year due to the combined effects of air pollution and more than half of these deaths are from developing countries.“
● The said cumulative impacts in the GtE EIA on air emissions fail to fully account for the scope, amounts and types of air emissions as modelling air emissions for a power plant that is not designed, including size, construction, electrical substations, transmission lines and towers is unacceptable and speculative.
● Even though the Power Plant will emit 105.4 more tonnes of nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds than the Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) plant and 1, 374.3 more kilotonnes of greenhouse gases during the operations phase, the EPA exempted the Power Plant from a separate EIA.
● EIA Table 5.5.2 Volume 1 – Air Emissions for Construction does not include construction emissions for the power plant and there is no data anywhere in the GtE EIIA
● In table 4-6 Volume 2 – Summary Modeling Results of Cumulative Emissions including Background Concentrations, particulate matter (2.5) was found to be 354% higher than WHO standards for a 24 hr period and approx. 200% higher annually (99 percentile) than WHO standards.
● Why ambient background concentrations were not taken for the West Bank areas earmarked for pipelines, NGL and Power Plant has not been explained, especially as particulate matter can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream affecting the heart, respiratory system and other organs. In 2013 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO agency, classified particulate matter as carcinogenic.
● No emissions for methane are recorded even though natural gas flowing through pipelines will consist of 94% methane.
● The impact on Guyana’s water resources was not addressed at all, even though reference was made to shallow ground water using piezometers, confirming that “The A sand aquifer serves as the principal water source for Georgetown and the coastal regions. This coastal aquifer system is the source of most of the Region 3’s ground water resources and supplies nearly 90% of groundwater produced from wells on coastal regions.” In contrast, Guyana Power and Light’s (GPL) project summary for the power plant identified ground water pollution as a serious concern.
● EIA 10.2.6.3 on loss of integrity of onshore pipeline concedes that loss of integrity “in more heavily populated areas could result in structure fires and/or could expose community receptors to elevated/high pollutant concentrations in ambient air,” while “other types of natural gas releases from the NGL Plant could be caused by leaks, vessels, operations and maintenance errors.”
● Human life, good health, environmental health and safety of residents and citizens must be paramount yet there is no community evacuation plan, nor risk assessment plan, nor fire assessment plan in the GtE EIA. This EIA assesses risks only to those immediately working in or for the oil and gas industry, with no mention of the potential impacts on communities.
The refusal of Mahender Sharma and Joslyn Mckenzie to disclose their conflicts of interest at the EAB and recuse themselves, shows a blatant disregard and clear violation of the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and highlights the pressing need for an EAB of independent expertise.
