Environmentalist raps Exxon over lack of comprehensive baseline study on fishing

in Region Six, one guy in Region Two and one guy in Region Four.”

Participatory fish study

According to the EIA document, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) implemented the Participatory Fish Study in 2017. It is being done with the involvement of local consultants and the first phase was concluded in March 2020. The study is in its second stage “with the intent of building on the existing knowledge base.”

The EIA document states that “the study has researched artisanal fishing including information and patterns in gear type, target species, fishing grounds, and other factors.”

The study, has so far, found that persistent heavy rainfalls during the 2021 floods also affected shrimping activities by increasing freshwater loads. It noted that fisher folk in Regions 3 and 4 had to find new grounds to be productive. It focused on the Regions along Guyana’s coast and is still ongoing.

However, Mangal-Joly said Exxon has the financial resources to contract a company to do a comprehensive study of the effects of its operations on the fishery resources.

“You could have hired a firm to do it for Guyana and I think that you have not done well. You have not done well by the fishery sector of our country and they have an incredible, incredibly important role to play in the life of Guyana. Both in terms of all of the downstream value that comes from them but also the subsistence value of fisheries in an incredibly impoverished environment.

“So I would like to know where you’re going to go now in terms of addressing this huge deficiency in this EIA and in all of the work that’s been done in the oil industry because you have no baseline. So today our fishers are not getting fish, and you’re in a position where you don’t have to be held accountable or responsible and that doesn’t help your credibility,” she said.

The environmentalist, while making reference to the continuous flaring offshore Guyana, said that one of Exxon’s biggest issues is its credibility since it has continuously breached its word.

Internationally accepted standard

In response to Mangal-Joly’s queries, ERM related that the way it conducted its data collection is in keeping with internationally accepted standards.

ERM’s Jason Willey explained that they have collected over two years of “baseline” data for fish and this was done in two different ways.

“That was collected with what we call a biological fish study which was conducted in 2017-2019. So it was two study years - two dry seasons, two wet seasons – and it incorporates the full length of the EEZ from the deep waters in the block all the way to the estuaries and that was done from late 2017 to early 2019.

“We also collected the more fisheriesrelated data, not the biological fishery work, but the fisheries-related data also in two study years and that report is included…we do have baseline data for multiple years, for that particular receptor. Generally speaking, if you look at international best practices it is generally accepted when you have an environment that has a strong seasonal component … you at least collect one year of dry season data and one year of wet season data. If you can get two that’s better but the minimum acceptable practice is at least one year of baseline data and that’s accepted by a wide range of governments and also lending institutions. So we did meet that expectation,” Willey defended.

He added that the perceived lack of baseline data is being addressed and more baseline data is being collected directly from participants in the fishing industry, through the participatory fish study.