Recently, the role of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came in for scrutiny because of a cease order that was placed on DIDCO’s US$16.6M poultry farm. In a country where environmental protection has become synonymous with forests, it is important to understand how broad the EPA’s mandate is. It ranges from protection of the forests to ensuring that garbage is properly disposed of; from preventing industrial runoff polluting groundwater supplies to ensuring that sewage is properly treated; from preventing noise pollution to assuring `green’ mining.
A crucial part of its work is making certain that any new development activity that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment is preceded by an impact assessment which would identify the likely repercussions and pave the way for mitigatory measures once approval is given.
DIDCO’s four-pronged project encompasses a feed mill, chicken farm, hatchery and processing plant. The feed mill was constructed without an environmental permit and the EPA’s explanation for this was that work on it had gone some way so it was treated as an existing entity and the permit waived.
Then the company embarked on the construction of a poultry farm. The EPA says the latter construction was initiated without an environmental permit and a cease order was issued in August 2001. The company ignored this and continued work on the farm. The EPA’s Environmental Management Director, David Singh told Stabroek News in a recent interview that if an environmental permit was issued in the absence of the standards for the operations that the EPA had sought from DIDCO, then the agency would be failing in its duty. He further asserted that the continuing operations at the farm had undermined the authority of the EPA.
Mr Singh is perfectly in order. It is unacceptable for any company no matter how large or promising its investment is, to ignore a cease order. It makes no sense for this piece of legislation to be enacted by the government if it is not enforced and moreso if the very government stands by and allows it to be flouted.
DIDCO has made a series of allegations against the EPA, accusing it of frustrating its investment and charging that an EPA official was harassing it.
Whatever its concerns, DIDCO’s proper recourse is not to ignore the cease order but to challenge it within the EPA all the while complying with what the law requires. The EPA Act provides for an Environmental Appeals Tribunal where refusals of the various permits granted by the regulatory body can be challenged by companies like DIDCO. Is this body functioning?
Given the severe challenges being posed to law and order the government can hardly stand by and countenance the flouting of a cease order applied by its environmental regulatory body. The principle of environmental protection cannot be adulterated simply because investments are hard to come by and DIDCO is making a big one.
If DIDCO and other companies caught in a similar bind can show that the EPA’s requirements are onerous and overly bureaucratic, then a case can be made for changing some of these to ensure smoother operations without compromising the environment. As of now, the requirements in the EPA act are straightforward and are vital to ensuring that commercial operations do not damage the environment.
A large chicken farm such as the size contemplated by DIDCO raises serious questions about the disposal of large volumes of chicken droppings, innards, feathers etc. How to treat processing water, air pollution and dust are other issues.
The standoff between the EPA and DIDCO is an important test of the government’s own commitment to the environmental laws that it passed while also trying to balance the needs of investors. Investment is very welcome but it must not assume pre-eminence over the environmental laws of the country. It is hoped that an amicable agreement can be reached between the two sides.