Escalating contamination of water, air and soil, species extinction, habitat degradation, and deteriorating public health remind us that we are losing the sustainability battle.
Fishermen and Friends of the Sea (FFOS) are on the frontline of the sustainability battle, advocating on matters of oil, gas and mineral extraction without conscience, defending voiceless ecosystems, species and communities and most importantly the public’s right to be part of the decision-making process.
Trinidad and Tobago has a multiplicity of laws providing the legal basis for protecting and conserving our natural environment which has led to shared Ministerial responsibility, a lack of co-ordination by various Government entities, usage conflict of protected areas and species and most of all failure to protect rich biodiverse areas.
This has resulted in a failure to uphold the laws of our country while our environment is haphazardly managed.
Species protection
In the recent past, species such as the Leatherback Turtle, Ocelot Tiger Cat, and the Scarlet Ibis have been designated as Environmentally Sensitive Species (ESS), under the ESS Rules, embodied in the Environmental Management Act, 2000. Currently there are calls for the Red Howler Monkey and the White Fronted-Capuchin Monkey to be also declared as an ESS. FFOS applauds the EMA for these designations which give the highest level of legal protection in our country, but we question whether these animals will be protected if their habitats are bulldozed, fragmented and destroyed haphazardly by unregulated built development.
Ecosystem conservation
Mangroves
According to a 2019 United Nations Report titled Environmental Rule of Law- First Global Report, “a dramatic spike in the global adoption of environmental laws has failed to translate into better conservation efforts… due to lack of political will, underfunded agencies, unfair judicial systems and a poor implementation of the law.” Despite the all-embracing global movement for wetland protection with the proliferation of international conventions and local environmental legislation and national policies, wetlands everywhere continue to be destroyed. According to Dr Rahana Juman, the Deputy Director of Research at the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA), “Mangrove coverage declined in Trinidad by 252.4 Ha from 2007 to 2014” which is “attributed to the removal of mangrove to facilitate built development”. Despite the 1998 ‘No Net Loss’ Policy for wetlands (meaning that for every mangrove tree destroyed, a new one must be replanted) which was further mandated in the revised National Environmental Policy (NEP) 2018, our wetlands continue to be destroyed daily by our Government and illegal land developers. Up till now, the ‘No Net Loss’ Policy has never been observed or enforced.
Forest Reserve
In 2018, Minister of Planning and Development, Camille Robinson-Regis, announced an initiative to approve additional areas of forest for protection and sustainable use. However, the Minister fails to realize the contradiction of her own statements with the decisions of fellow cabinet members. Our nation has 35 designated forest/nature reserves, all of which are being destroyed by either the Government of the day, by unsustainable, illegal, unapproved, unauthorized construction or quarry works, and by land-grabbing squatter opportunists under the watchful eye of elected governments.
What is the purpose of designating additional protected areas if the existing ones are being bulldozed and used unsustainably, contrary to their designation?
Most notably, almost a century ago, on 11th January 1934, the Long Stretch Forest Reserve (LSFR) was declared a protected forest reserve under the Forest Ordinance Chapter 141 of 1916. In 1987, the LSFR was awarded further protection as a prohibited area under subsidiary legislation (the Forest Act (1915), Forest (Prohibited Areas) Order). Despite this proclamation and additional legal protection, the Ministry of Works and Transport (MOWT) has this year bulldozed over 50 hectares of the LSFR to construct a four-lane highway along the southern boundary of the legally designated environmentally sensitive area (ESA), the Aripo Savannas, from Cumuto to Sangre Grande.
Public Participation
Public participation is the cornerstone of every democracy. An environmental decision-maker with the task for making decisions affecting the environmental landscape is ultimately responsible for taking into account the views of the public, as they are most affected by the consequences of these environmental decisions. Sustainable planning is regulated through the Environmental Management Act, where major projects are subjected to the environmental safeguards summarized as the ‘long hard look’ embodied in the Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) Rules,2001. Since inception, as environmental watchdogs, FFOS have been heavily involved in reviewing CEC applications including EIAs. For over 20 years, FFOS has always been granted full copies of EIAs to prepare detailed scientific, professionally-guided reviews which were conducted by local and international experts and scientists.
In 2018, the EMA adopted a new approach of denying the public (including FFOS) full copies of an any EIA. Instead, only a maximum of 10% (on the discretion of the librarian) of a single EIA document is provided to an organization. This stone-walling undermines and threatens meaningful public participation in the CEC process which is the only window where the public can make contributions. The public has only one opportunity to comment on the EIA, which is during the 30-day public comment period and now they are being denied the opportunity to comment in an informed, scientifically sound competent manner.
The EMA has stated that these documents are copyrighted and the “owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to allow or prohibit photocopies of his/her work”. Furthermore, the EMA has adopted a discretionary approach to copy short extracts (less than 10%) of an EIA on the condition that “the Librarian must be satisfied that the copy would be used for the purpose of study, scholarship or private research”. This ‘discretionary’ prohibition contradicts the essence of transparency and inclusion that are key to the spirit of the Environmental Management Act which was enacted with the intention that the EMA would work in consultation with stakeholders to conserve the environment.
The EIA examines the environmental and social impact and is a public interest document. If the public is unable to freely consult technical experts on matters which require inter-disciplinary technical expertise, then the public consultation process in made null and void and without substance or meaning.
Public health
Earlier this year scientists from the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT) published a ‘peer-reviewed’ study (that has withstood the highest level scrutiny of the international scientific community) which investigated the association between human cancer risk and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contamination from consuming fish from the Gulf of Paria. This study measured two types of health risks to citizens who consume fish from the Gulf of Paria, which are non-cancerous risks to the pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, and dermatologic systems and cancerous risks (breast, lung, colon and skin cancer).
The study concluded that 14% of our citizens who eat fish from our national food-basket of the Gulf of Paria have an “adverse risk” of acquiring non-cancerous diseases such as the breaking down of red blood cells, cataracts, kidney and liver damage, jaundice, redness and inflammation of the skin.
Furthermore, the study calculated the annual cancer risk as calculated to be 5.89 per 10,000 persons who consume fish from the Gulf of Paria. This value is almost 6 times higher than the international standard for high cancer risk (which is 1 in every 10,000 people). These measured non-cancerous and cancerous risks have been associated with the high levels of PAHs in the Gulf of Paria, where 70% of our seafood originates.
Furthermore, in 2017 Trinidad and Tobago was required to conduct a Mercury Initial Assessment (MIA) in order to assist with the preparations for the ratification and implementation of the MINIMATA Convention. The results of this MIA concluded that of the 17 commercially viable fish species sampled, 5 had Mercury concentrations up to 5 times greater than the World Health Organization consumption guidelines. These are the puppy shark, white mouth croaker (rocando), almaco (cavalii), amberjack (cavalii) and the banded croaker (cro cro). The data highlighted that the mercury concentrations may represent a “risk of exposure through consumption for humans”.
Given that science now confirms FFOS’s warnings, what is our Government’s plan to address the wave of cancer-related illness overcoming our people?
Will the culprits be held accountable for their continuous flouting of the Law by dumping these toxic PAHs and heavy metals in our marine food basket?
Despite the past 44 years of World Environment Day celebrations, degradation on our planet is accelerating at unprecedented levels. Instead of tapping our backs on how much we have accomplished, we need a new approach to safeguard our natural resources otherwise our children’s children will have no future.