Civil society activists urge deferral of gas-to-shore project hearings
– call for establishment of tribunal
A group of civil society activists are calling for the postponement of the public hearings on the Wales gas to shore project, citing among other reasons, that having Head of the Guyana Energy Agency Dr Mahender Sharma on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) was a conflict of interest.
If he recused himself from the hearings, the group charged, because of the government’s recent appointment of only three persons to a board that required five, only two members would remain, resulting in there not being a quorum. They therefore called for the EAB Tribunal, as stipulated under the laws of this country, to be activated.
However, Sharma said that he saw no conflict and would execute his duties impartially and in the best interest of the Guyanese people and environment.
“We have called on the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) by letter dated March 16 to postpone its Public Hearing scheduled for March 22 on the 300 MW Gas-Fired Power Plant to be located at Wales, West Demerara,” a letter signed by Vanda
Razik, Elizabeth DeanHughes and other appellants stated.
The Official Gazette of February 10, 2023 informed that Cabinet had approved the appointment of Sharma (chair) and members Dr Garvin Cummings and Joslyn McKenzie to the EAB on the 5th January 2023 but with effect from January 1st 2023. Dr Cummings is the Chief Hydrometeorological Officer McKenzie is the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources.
The activists noted that the EPA had waived the requirement for an EIA for the gas to shore project and that some citizens had formally submitted written appeals to the EAB, and along with other stakeholders, expected to make oral presentations at a hearing. In early January, the EPA had notified the public that the government’s planned 300 MW natural gas power plant would not require an impact study.
The decision came months after 54 citizens had written to Executive Director of the EPA Kemraj Parsram; Chairperson of the EPA Board of Directors Omkar Lochan; then EAB chair Pradeepa
Bholanath and members Cummings and McKenzie, pleading that the EPA and EAB stop waiving impact studies for oil and gas facilities.
‘Compounded’
Yesterday, the group underscored that it was “now publicly calling for this postponement for a number of reasons: 1. Under Article 8.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EP Act), the newly appointed Chair of EAB, Mr Mahender Sharma, has a direct conflict of interest in this project since he is a longstanding Guyana Power and Light Inc (GPL) board member – and it is on the GPL letterhead that the application with project summary was submitted to the EPA for an environmental permit to construct and operate the Wales Gas Plant. Does this mean that the Chair of the EAB will preside over a matter of which he is also the applicant?
“Further, Ms Maria Nadir Sharma, the wife of Mr Mahender Sharma, is a prominent member of the company board which was specifically established in relation to the development of the Gas to Energy project. This situation of both the EAB Chair and his wife holding Board positions on both companies’ presents, in our opinion, clear conflict of interest. This situation is compounded by the fact that there are only three persons appointed to the EAB – all of whom are senior level public servants and employees of the government. Provision is made in the EP Act for up to 5 EAB members – but there are only these 3. The EAB, as it stands, needs to put its own house in order. To be genuinely independent, the EAB must have representation on it from professional and upstanding members from the nongovernmental sector who are qualified environmental professionals.”
‘Unbiased’
Sharma told the Stabroek News that he will be professional and impartial and all decisions the EAB takes will be in accordance with the laws.
“The EAB is currently made up of three members. All decisions of the EAB will be based on the facts in a fair, unbiased manner after a hearing of the parties. All appeals will be carefully reviewed and the statutory responsibilities of the EAB will be discharged
in accordance with the EPA Act without fear or favour,” Sharma said.
“Following appeals against a decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to exempt the construction and Operation of [a] 300 MW Gas-fired Power Plant for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under Sec.11 (2) (a) of the Act, the EAB has decided to conduct a public hearing under Sec.18 (2) of the Act, to hear the views of the appellants, developer and other key stakeholders. I wish to assure that I will continue to conduct myself in a professional manner, as I have always done, in any portfolio I undertake,” he added.
The activists pointed out that they have requested a number of documents and other information, which they consider essential to the case, but have not yet received them. “These include: the methodology for assessing the cumulative impacts of the project, inclusive of the gas plant, the NGL facility and the gas pipeline; the rules of engagement for the conduct of EAB hearings; the mechanism for the recording of EAB hearings and access of such by the public – since EAB hearings
are public hearings. It is not feasible that up to the week in which the hearing is scheduled to take place that the EAB and EPA are unable to furnish us with these standard documents governing procedures and information mechanisms. The EAB’s response as to its rules of engagement was to say that it was still developing these,” the letter highlighted.
It also noted that the combined Gas to Energy/Gas to Shore project was the most expensive infrastructural project to date in Guyana. The Wales gas plant alone is estimated at US$3 million and the project will span the entire Demerara-Berbice Interconnected system, which is where the largest proportion of Guyana’s population lives.
“In view of these facts from the GPL’s project summary, it is unacceptable that the EAB declined our request for Zoom. A second letter was sent pointing out the necessity for Zoom facility, in order to maximise stakeholder participation in the public hearing - given the geographic scope and widespread stakeholder interest. It was pointed out that it is not fair to disadvantage citizens and key stakeholders from participating in the hearing because they do not live in Georgetown,” the activists’ letter stated. “We further point out that there is precedent for EAB hearings where Zoom was made available (eg the Coverden hearing held in July 2022); and that it is now the norm for national and international stakeholder meetings to be blended with physical and virtual participation.”
It added, “We have checked with Cara
Lodge, the venue for the Hearing and Zoom facility is most certainly available there. It is also improper for the EAB to refuse to accommodate our own technical and legal advisors, whom EAB asked us to contact and invite, but who are unavoidably out of the jurisdiction at present. Of particular note is a gender discrimination issue: The fact is that grassroots and community-based women who have publicly raised their voices and expressed concerns about the project and who expect to make oral submissions at the hearing might now be denied the opportunity by the EAB to join by Zoom. They feel discriminated against because of the realities of their childcare and family care responsibilities and their scattered community locations that are outside of the city and region.
“The EAB is simply not in good enough order currently to preside fairly and independently over the hearing on March 22nd. We call on the EAB to postpone the hearing. We call on the Chair to disclose his conflict of interest and to recuse himself or resign. We call on the President and relevant government authorities to establish an EAB that is not dominated by governmental employees and which includes equitable non-governmental and civil society members of high standing. All EAB appointees must be vetted with strict due diligence applied prior to being appointed and an independent committee should preside over their selection, review and approvals.”
Tribunal
“We call for the establishment of the Tribunal as outlined in the EP Act. This body is required under the law and, does not, to date, exist. This breach of the Act needs to be addressed expeditiously so that there is recourse to this Tribunal by Guyanese citizens as prescribed by law. All citizens of Guyana have the right to participation in decision-making in all sectors of the state according to Article 13 of the Constitution. We stand firmly for compliance, transparency and accountability with the Rule of Law in our country,” the letter stated.
According to Section 51(1) of the EPA Act, “A Tribunal to be known as the Environmental Appeals Tribunal is hereby established for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon it by this Act or by any other written law. 51 (2) The Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and such other members, including a Vicechairman, as may be appointed under section 52. (3) The Tribunal shall be a superior court of record and have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed, and shall have in addition to the jurisdiction and powers conferred on it by this Act all the powers inherent in such a court. (4) The Tribunal shall have the power to enforce its own orders and judgement, and the same power to punish contempt as the High Court of Justice.
“The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals:- (a) from the refusal of the grant of a construction or operation permit under section 21 or a prescribed process licence under section 22; (b) against the conditions attached to any construction or operation permit or prescribed process licence; (c) against the revocation or variation of a construction or operation permit or prescribed process licence; (d) against an enforcement notice or a prohibition notice; (e) against the refusal of an environmental permit under section 13; (f) against the requirement of an environment permit; (g) against the refusal of an environmental authorisation or the cancellation or suspension thereof; (h) in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed by the Minister or arise under this Act or any other written law where jurisdiction in the Tribunal is specifically provided.”
A Registrar of the Tribunal and such other officials, clerks and employees as may be required shall be appointed by the Minister, the Act says.