Samad vs NGC

WHATEVER we may think of conservationist Ishmael Samad’s one-man protests, there can be no denying the courage of his convictions and the love he has for his country and its natural inheritance. In TT’s haste for industrial development, many will regard him impatiently as a nuisance, a gadfly, a lone wolf agitator,  a voice crying in the wilderness about the destructive march of “progress” and its raping of TT’s pristine endowments. History has shown, however, that mavericks like Samad have their usefulness, if only to question the conventional wisdom, to disturb the general complacency, to expose exploitation and to urge a rethinking or an alternative course among the decision-makers.

Last Saturday we published a letter from Samad which described the siting of the Union Industrial Estate in the heart of the Vessigny River Valley in La Brea as “a colossal blunder.” The first activity of this project was the bulldozing of more than 200 hectares of primary and secondary forest, an area twice the size of the Queen’s Park Savannah. According to the Environmental Impact Assesment (EIA) granted by the EMA, these forests represented “a substantial for fauna as evidened by the large number of animal species documented on the site.” The fauna comprised eight species of reptiles, 12 species of mammals and marsupials, 31 species of butterflies and 85 species of birds including the very rare Tiger Heron.

From a conservationist point of view, one may be inclined to question the siting of this industrial estate on such a site. But this is not what we find really disturbing about Samad’s letter; rather it is the charge he makes against the National Gas Company (NGC) for failing dismally to adhere to the unambiguous conditionality laid down by the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) when it issued the Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) to proceed with the project.

According to Samad, the EMA granted the CEC on the explicit condition that a conservation strategy must be devised and implemented in order to protect the mammals, birds and reptiles that thrived in this dense forest habitat. Written into the CEC was the EMA’s insistence that “it shall be incumbent on the NGC to collaborate with the Wildlife Section of the Forestry Division, the Zoo, and relevant environmental NGOs to develop and implement a plan for the recovery of the fauna prior to the commencement of site clearing.”

“One wonders,” Samad says, “if the NGC ever had any intention of shouldering this awesome responsibility. Over the Easter weekend, three contractors quickly bulldozed the forest. The mammals and reptiles stood no chance whatsoever. Monkeys and porcupines fell from the trees only to be slaughtered by the workmen. Yet the NGC has the audacity to talk about ‘corporate responsibility’.” If Samad’s account is true, then the NGC is guilty of an alarming act of double dealing which seems intended simply to secure the necessary certificate of clearance from the EMA. We find this quite shocking since it shows nothing but contempt for the EMA and its mandate, and a low regard for the country’s environment. The company, it seems to us, has a case to answer since it should be concerned about its own credibility and its pious statements about preserving the environment. It must prove Samad wrong, or stand convicted.