The recent ruling of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court of Appeal reaffirming that Grenada Land Actors (GLA) has the standing and can proceed in their case against developers at Levera, La Sagesse and Mt.Hartman – is an important victory for environmental sustainability and the rule of law in Grenada.
The court order that, along with the developers, the Planning and Development Authority must pay GLA for the cost of the appeal should be a warning to the Planning Authority.
By allowing the above-named developers to operate without adequate Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), Planning has violated the right of people to participate in critical environmental decision-making. Sadly, not an isolated incident, because this is happening at Woodford, right now, where Rayneau is erecting – what appears to be an industrial plant – with no consultation with residents who live in the area.
Late last year, Rayneau cleared land on Woodford Estate, on property belonging to the late Celia Clyne. For people familiar with the Western Main Road, it is exactly on the bridge that separates St. George from St. John and where the sign says you are entering St John and the other that says you are entering St. George.
On that spot, there is a river that empties into a basin at the bridge, which residents in and around the area call The Digue and though now quite diminished in volume – has historical significance. Actually, the very word digue is French for a body of water that is artificially contained – like a dam or dyke – a clear legacy of French colonial occupation and – today – a cultural artefact.
The clearing of the land near The Digue coincided with preparations for the 50th anniversary of Grenada’s Independence, so people in the community mistakenly believed that it was part of the government cleanup for the celebrations.
When excavation began, after the celebrations had ended, residents were singing another song – gleefully thinking that – it was a hotel.
That notion of a hotel in the neighbourhood was soon dispelled. The arrival of the blue shipping containers – with the word Rayneau emblazoned – coincided with one resident reporting that someone who works on The Port, St. George’s told him that he had seen the contents of the container and that it was equipment for setting up a quarry and asphalt mix plant. It was widely known that Rayneau was the company working on the Moliniere road slippage project.
With the fear of another toxic plant in the area, given that we lived within a mile of the poorly managed Perseverance Dump, I asked the Parliamentary Representative for St. John what was happening. I thought if anybody would know, she would. She said that she did not know. I believe her. But when I tried to press her that residents have a right to know what kind of activity was taking place on their doorsteps, her response; “it is private property”. It seems then that in Grenada one can invest in a nuclear plant – once it is on your land!
And, you just might be able to get away with it – with the Planning and Development Authority so lax in their enforcement of environmental regulations aimed at protecting local people.
I called Planning on two occasions to find out what the project was about. The first person who I spoke with, possibly the head of the planning unit, said that she had just returned from vacation and needed to familiarise herself with the situation. Her promise to call after she had looked into the matter, never materialised.
A few months later, when the project had advanced considerably, I called Planning again and spoke to another official. He, too, could not readily tell what was happening but he was able to pull up something on – presumably – some sort of digital map or GPS which gave him a view of the area.
Like his boss, he could not confirm whether it was a quarry or asphalt but remarked that if it were, why wasn’t the plant located further away from people’s homes?
Environmental law in Grenada requires that for quarrying, sanding or any projects generating emissions …… an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) has to be done.
The law goes further to state that residents be not just informed but be given the opportunity to voice concerns and participate in identifying reasonable and practical alternatives. Failure by Rayneau to have this mandatory meeting was a missed opportunity to explore other options. There is already an asphalt plant in place at the Perseverance Dump.
Since residents were led to wild speculations about what was taking shape on their doorsteps, the question is – what proposal did Rayneau present to Planning and why was the project approved without an apparent or complete Environmental Impact Assessment done?
It seems inconceivable that Rayneau is operating without an approved plan and if one was submitted why can’t the Planning and Development Authority reveal to concerned citizens what is morphing before their very faces and openly discuss how it is likely to affect life in this normally quiet community?
As demonstrated, there is legal precedence to protect citizens from environmental harm: Planning and Development Authority should be only too aware. Maybe Rayneau should take notice.
Christelene Henry