“I feel compelled to say the environmental impacts have not been properly studied.” This is the conclusion arrived at by one ecologist who presented information before the Joint Consultative Council (JCC) on the controversial Debe to Mon Desir leg of the highway to Point Fortin. He has requested anonymity, as he works for an international company and both he and the company are fearful of political backlash, especially with the general election less than one year away.
The ecologist has scoured through close to 800 pages of Environmental Impact Assessments and supporting documents on the highway, with emphasis on the Debe to Mon Desir leg currently being challenged by the Highway Re-route Movement. He is concerned over how the environment and wildlife will fare in light of insufficient mitigation to the potential hazards defined in various reports connected to the project.
He said,“The question is not whether the highway should be built, the question is when we build such highways and spend so much money, that it is built without creating problems in the future.” But mega engineering projects have been successfully completed in environmentally sensitive areas all over the globe. For instance, Walt Disney World Orlando has been built on swamp land.
Some writers also tell of New Orleans, the sinking city, being more like the world’s most habitable swamp—and subject to years of flood engineering. We challenged the ecologist—What is it with the Debe to Mon Desir leg and does the Highway Re-route Movement (HRM) have a point? He said many of the impacts will be permanent and unavoidable but the residual impacts of the project was deemed to be low.
“I was looking at the mitigations (for impacts ranked as high). For instance, the sensitive and endangered species, when I looked at the mitigations, there were very few… yet the ranking was downgraded to low,” he explained. The Institute of Marine Affairs documented eight such impacts:
1. Loss of habitat
2. Fragmentation of wetland habitat
3. Altered hydrological conditions from inception and diversion of water sources to wetland
4. Loss of permeable surfaces
5. Increased flooding potential
6. Increased pollution from vehicles
7. Increased colonisation of invasive species
8. Increased squatting
There has been discord between the HRM and the National Infrastructural Development Company Ltd (Nidco) on the issue, with the former saying the route passes through wetlands and the latter denying this—contending that the land-form has since changed. “Neither is correct, because the assessments done by the IMA, the Meteorological Society and the EIA point that it is really in the areas which drain into the wetland itself,” the ecologist said.
According to the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) study, he said the highway’s alignment in the contentious segment passes through three major wetland types where the black mangrove (Avicenna germnanis) is the most predominant vegetation—the Oropouche River, Coora River and the marshland at Puzzle Island. The EIA records several rare and endangered animals at risk in these habitat, including Sulphury Fly Catcher (rare), Blue and Yellow Macaw (endangered) and the Scarlet Ibis (vulnerable).
But the ecologist believes not enough protection is being afforded to the country's rich wildlife. “When you look at the endangered animals listed in the EIA, which one has been protected by the EIA? None. In all cases it said they could not be protected and there will be a natural loss based on the project.”
Another organisation to add expertise on the project, he said, was the T&T Meteorological Society, which expressed concern with potential flooding and landslides. It said the removal of vegetation, cutting of slopes, back filling and paving would magnify the drainage problems. “If you are not careful, the work will affect where run off drains… it drains into the Mosquito Creek area, which is a big fisheries bed as well.”
But isn't there an organisation founded in 1995 responsible for protecting the environment? The Armstrong Report catalogued the EMA’s assessment of the EIA, declaring it deficient in the following ways.
1. There was insufficient detail with respect to the socio-cultural environment and more details were needed.
2. There appeared to be a lack of adequate consultation with agricultural land owners.
3. There was no clear provision for the compensation of people who stood to lose property.
4. There was no indication of arrangements for individuals, households, businesses and farmers to be displaced by the right-of-way (ROW), by resettlement or otherwise.
According to the JCC’s findings, the EIA was submitted to the EMA in February 2009 and was rejected. But the CEC was granted one year later, even though the concerns were not addressed, according to the report. It wrote, “The CEC was issued on April 20, 2010, although the administrative records at the EMA provided no additional information to determine the basis of its decision.
“The opinion of the HRC is that the EIA was not acceptable and should have been rejected and returned to the applicant. It seems that the EMA relented without having the applicant provide adequate responses.” The ecologist pointed out that the JCC’s ability to get conclusive evidence may have been stymied because of a lack of proper records on the project.
“There are few things on record… in fact, the JCC could find no record of any submittals after the EMA requested further information, yet the CEC was still approved,” the ecologist said. He said the present predicament is a serious situation and laments that the truth is not being told.
“If you know now in hindsight that some of the impacts, based on future determinations, are bigger than you thought… wouldn't it make sense to take another look rather than make a big mistake for the nation?” Like many others, the expert agrees that the highway is a must, but mitigation ought to be strengthened.
