The EMA is a waste of money

The reality however is far different, and nobody should be deceived into believing that the EMA will provide any practical protection of Trinidad and Tobago’s natural beauty. The really large projects that have significant effects on the rural and natural environment are usually State-sponsored projects. There are of course some large-scale private housing and tourist developments that affect large areas, but these typically will become known after some high-level contacts with members of the ruling party at the time, and may be considered government projects for all practical purposes. Then there are endless smaller private projects that progressively convert more and more agricultural lands to holiday and other buildings, and gradually seal off ever more traditional access points to the sea, some with, some without "approval," but managing to endure nevertheless.

When the EMA decides that a particular project requires a Certificate of Environ-mental Clearance (CEC) a process begins that, particularly in the case of State-sponsored projects, tie up many man hours and consume funds in an exercise in futility. The CEC requirement is stated (theoretically) when the project has some form of "Outline Planning Approval," or the government has decided to ignore this step and proceed anyway. The government decision and/or "outline approval" if issued, appears to completely ignore any zoning defined in the National Physical Development Plan, which has long become out of date after being ignored by successive governments. From this it can be seen that the problem is largely one of planning, with the CEC process tacked on for window-dressing.

The steps toward the CEC do not seriously address whether or not the project should proceed, but concentrate nominally on whether the construction or operating phases will release pollutants or other horrors, and the main result is the creation of EMA jobs and revenue for environmental consultants who pile up documents on baseline surveys of flora and fauna and environmental conditions which in many cases are to be simply bulldozed away in the project design.

A few concessions to save a tree here and there, or maybe a patch of wetland, an unenforceable promise to plant mangrove elsewhere, or maybe divert a drain or install an oil catch, may result, but after all is said and done the bulldozers arrive and the environment is destroyed.

The example of ALCOA’s planned smelter at Chatham illustrates how these steps can be achieved with no effect whatever on the planned project. Firstly the government pulled out from its announced participation in the smelter itself leaving the environmentalists to believe that they should meet with ALCOA on their concerns. However the smelter is to be built in an industrial estate constructed by State-owned NEC, who has kept us very much in the dark about the size and area involved, (which seems to be growing weekly).

Reg Potter

Glencoe