N over lack of comprehensive baseline study on fishing

Ys studies meet `international standards’

line study done of what the migratory patterns are of commercial or non-commercial fish compared to that whole zone, the mud that extends all the way to northern Brazil,” she said.

She added that there is no description - material or financial – of the fisheries value chain, no quantification of the economic value, direct economic-financial value, both in terms of its contribution to the economy and the subsistence economy. In addition, the environmentalist said there was no quantification of the socio-economic value of the fishing industry in terms of livelihood, family dependency, or the importance of fish consumption to the people of Guyana.

“There is no information on any chemical testing of fish there. No baseline data had ever been collected before you began to use extensive seismic surveys offshore of Guyana, extensive and continue to do so and you continue to drill. So, there is absolutely no baseline data whatsoever for the most elementary thing that one could be possibly socially responsible about, which is fishing.

ExxonMobil found oil here in 2015 and had been carrying out seismic surveys prior to this.

“Esso has been conducting, and in this EIA you’re talking about, 4D surveys which means this stuff is going on over time. So we are in a situation where our regulatory authority under the previous administration permitted this to occur and our regulatory authority under the present administration is continuing with this,” Mangal-Joly posited.

She told the consultation that ERM and ExxonMobil cannot submit an EIA where they have failed to treat with fisheries, nurseries, migratory patterns, catch per unit effort and how their activities have caused changes. Referencing the participatory study, done by

ExxonMobil and partners, Mangal-Joly said that the relevant information could not be collected by seeking information from “one guy