Protect our Mangrove in Trinidad and Tobago

Is there a code of ethics for public servants? If there is, the CEO and senior staff of the National Energy Corporation (NEC) need to be disciplined, by the relevant authority. The NEC desires to build a port at Claxton Bay. This is to chiefly facilitate the Indian steel corporation Essar and Westlake, a US corporation. In order to start building their port they need to convince the Environmental Management Authority that it can mitigate, or compensate for, the enormously negative impacts of the port. What are these potential impacts?

• The destruction of 85 acres of mangrove and the compromise of the entire Claxton Bay Mangrove System.
• The destruction of 625 acres of fishing grounds.
• The destruction of vast expanses of seagrass beds, where all manner of marine life feed, breed and hatch.
• The destruction of the specialized mullet fishery in the area, a fishery unique to Claxton Bay, and consequently the mullet saltfish facility at the Claxton Bay Fishing Depot.
• Significant, major and permanent impacts to the shape of the the West Coast shoreline.
• The permanent destruction of communal resources of food: fish, conch, crabs, shrimp, mook or clams, oysters, mammals in the mangrove, mudflats and seagrass beds.
• The permanent destruction of nesting places for over 65 species of birds, including egrets and the scarlet ibis.
• The destruction, through dredging and sedimentation of marine vegetation in the area.
• The compromise of the livelihood of over 100 fishermen in the area.
• The negative cumulative impacts of pollution caused by Essar (which will emit 900,000 tons of carbon per year, and thousands of tons of steel dust for thirty to fifty years), Westlake, and a planned ammonia and urea company intended for construction on the mangrove.

The National Energy Corporation and its consultants were not able to show that they could mitigate these impacts in the Environmental Impact Assessment that they submitted to the Environment Management Agency (EMA) three months ago.
The EMA blanked them, wrote a deficiency report listing over forty failures, and told them to resubmit; a determination of certification would be made by November 25th 2008.
The National Energy Corporation, and its consultants, who are paid with millions of taxpayer dollars, should be hauled up by the pants not for the above failures, but because of the unethical methods used in compiling their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
1. They held public consultations, not in Claxton Bay, but in California, and fail to formally invite the key stakeholders, the fishermen.
2. They dismiss the loud and unanimous rejection of the port by the consultation participants, and in the EIA shelve this rejection in a supplementary section of their report, diminishing its significance.
3. They pretend that they can mitigate the negative impacts of mangrove and biodiversity loss by devising a farcical plan, which they falsely label “the mangrove No-Net-loss Policy”.
4. They pretend their legal rights to reclaim the 625 acres of fishing grounds, seagrass beds and mangrove are in order, stating “the land and seabed in this study area are under State Ownership, and will be vested in the NEC for the development”. Legally, they ought to have applied for a license for land reclamation from the Commissioner of State lands and get a number of approvals from other state agencies; they misrepresented their legal standing.
5. They undermined the feasibility of an alternative port site, giving only generalities about it. The baseline conditions of this site are less sensitive than the Claxton Bay site; this means that there is less risk to ecological and human receptors at this site.
6. They stated in an EIA Report, which they gave out to participants in the port consultation in January 2008, that the port would cause “permanent and major” impacts on the coastline. In the EIA which they submitted to the EMA weeks later they claimed that they did not know what the impacts on coastal geomorphology would be. A grand falsity!
One coastal and marine ecologist was hired by the EMA to do a technical review of the NEC’s EIA. This ecologist called for the NEC consultants to be “truly independent” and “professional” and to admit that the NEC might not be able to mitigate substantial impacts. She stated that many parts of the EIA were clumsily written, very general, with mixed-up thoughts, confusing and unscientific. Significant impacts were rated as moderate impacts. On the issue of the independence of the NEC hired consultant, this marine ecologist stated: “With respect to obtaining the views of stakeholders the EIA consultant should not be seen to be ‘presenting information together with the developer’ – this brings into the question the ‘independence of the consultant’. This is clearly contentious and in this report (records of stakeholder meetings) it appears that the consultant team is ‘protecting’ the developer and vice versa!”
In summary, millions of taxpayer dollars are being used to fund a system of collusions and fabrications, in order commit acts of atrocity against the lands, peoples and communities of Claxton Bay and Trinidad and Tobago.
Dr.Wayne Kublalsingh
(Used with permission)