Environmentalist stresses need for fair hearing of appeals against EPA decisions
National importance of these projects”.
Merits
Mangal-Joly in her reply of October 16 said that she fully expected the EAB to hold the hearings regarding the merits of the EPA’s decisions and not to adjudicate on whether the EPA was in breach of statutory requirements. “However, the EPA’s breaches are consequential for the credibility of any hearing the EAB holds on the merits of the Agency’s decision, as such breaches serve to deprive Appellants and the public at large of relevant information we need to participate on a fair and equitable basis in any discussion on the merits of the EPA’s decision. “Whereas the EPA and Applicant(s) are both in full possession of relevant information from the date of an application for an Environmental Permit, the public are entirely dependent on the EPA to provide the relevant information and its reasons when it publishes a notice indicating whether an EIA is required. It would be prejudicial if the EAB were to proceed with a hearing in any circumstance where such information is not yet forthcoming from the EPA. Fortunately, for the public and the EAB, one does not need to go to a Court of Law to establish the absence of a publication containing the information set out in plain English in Section 11 of the Environmental Protection Act”, Mangal-Joly wrote.
She added, however, that both the public and the professionals who serve on the EAB have reasons to be concerned about prejudice in the EAB’s public hearings. She said that this matter has been brought the EAB’s attention on numerous occasions and cited several examples among which were:
“-On September 9, 2021, at the EAB’s hearing on the waiver of an EIA requirement for NonDestructive Testers Guyana Limited, Coverden, East Bank Demerara, Appellant Trotz drew the
EAB’s attention to the fact that the EPA had not met the statutory requirements of Section 11 of the Environmental Protection Act prior to the hearing and provided reasons for its decision.
Appellant Howell specifically stated that it was unprofessional and unethical that the EAB was Zoom selecting whom to let into and keep out of the meeting. I, in fact, was not permitted in, and waited for 23 minutes only to be let in after multiple requests from the Appellants and others. At that hearing the Appellants also told the EAB that hosting a meeting at 2:00 p.m. on a workday at the EPA’s office was prejudiced against the residents of the communities affected, many of whom could not leave work to attend or participate by Zoom. This practice is particularly prejudiced against poorest members of communities who are least able to take time off wage-labour employment to attend public hearings”.
Short notice
On the postponement of the hearings of the appeals, Mangal-Joly cited a Stabroek News report of October 13 wherein the Executive Director of the EPA, Kemraj Parsram had been reported as saying that the EAB had submit ted to it at very short notice questions that the appellants wanted answered.
Mangal-Joly wrote: “I find it extraordinary that the EPA was unaware of the contents of Appellants’ objection let ters sent to the EAB, as these are received and processed by the EPA. Equally extraordinary, is that the EAB did not share the contents of such objections prior to setting and publishing a time for the public hearings, especially given that the EAB has deemed both projects of such `National importance’ as to grant a postponement of the hear ings to give the EPA more time to prepare.
“Even if the EPA had no idea what information was contained in the Appellants’ letters, that should not be a cause for requiring more time to provide information. Section 11 of the Environmental Protection
Act makes clear that the EPA’s reasons should exist at the time it renders its decision. Surely the EPA has this information readily at its disposal and should require little time to provide it. The EAB’s very generous and open-ended extension of time to the EPA should not be taken as an opportunity for the EPA to bootstrap its case. It has already had a full two months since publishing its decisions.
I trust that the EAB will take into consideration all matters concerning fair and equitable hearings raised here and by appellants in other cases and strive for public hearings free of any form of prejudice against the public, specific appellants, and the EPA”.
She added that public hearings should afford unfettered public access and should not in principle limit any member of the public from contributing to the proceedings. She also contended that an EAB public hearing must be based on the information that was available to the EPA at the time that it made its decision.
“Permitting the EPA to bootstrap its case in between the time of its decisions and the time of the EAB’s hearings is a clear violation of the law and professional code of ethics and would make the EAB complicit in reckless and dangerous conduct when it comes to the sacred duty of safeguarding our health and country’s natural assets”, she said.
It remains unclear how much time the EPA has been given by the EAB and what exactly is to be provided by the EPA to the EAB.