Dear Environmental Management Authority (EMA):
We must require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for pending and future applications for seismic surveys.We are not clear on the difference between the seismic bombings at Matura in 2010 to which the EMA referred, where the "science was clear." Seismic bombings are not limited to impacting marine mammals and turtles. There are direct impacts on commercial fisheries and associated social impacts on fishers and this has been verified by countless independent studies.
The research required in an EIA would address these. It would reveal any deficiencies in IMA and Fisheries data and at least provide a starting point and precedence for future Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) applications for seismic surveys. This would help isolate and quantify the impacts of the surveys from all the other activities that are compromising our marine resources.
EIAs would also be essential for quantifying compensation. We need to start somewhere. We are sure any reasonable person would embrace this point.We sympathise with the EMA in having to deal with a lack of proper policies.The only way, however, to protect the integrity of the EMA is to enforce the Environmental Act which is clear on the CEC process and the invaluable tool that the EIA provides. This is the law for determining the impacts of Designated Activities, especially when a deficit in baseline data exists.
An accreditation and licencing system for individual professionals submitting EIAs to ensure quality is a good idea. However, how do you get around the fact that the applicant engages and directly pays the consultant?
Could consultant's fees be paid directly by the EMA for an accredited consultant? We have seen many EIAs over the years where it is clear that the EIA is padded with reams of near-useless information to give the impression that real analyses are being conducted, when in fact the objective is simply to have the proposed activity approved without an EIA. We are sure you are aware of this loophole, but this time it appears to be glaring.
Conditions of approved CECs are rarely followed up by the EMA. A case in point was the approval of the CEC to create the Union Industrial Estate for Alutrint. A simple requirement of the CEC was to have sediment traps capture suspended solids in the run-off. This was not done. The result was the loss of life in Vessigny River and spoiling of Vessigny Beach and the accelerated siltation of the Gulf. This was obvious to the whole community as the beach is very popular.
It is this type failure to follow up on simple compliance that has the national community thinking that the EMA is really a rubber stamp for any kind of development, irrespective of social and environmental consequences. It is shocking to think that out of 1990 approved CECs, only 13 per cent were actually being monitored. The EMA's lack of good management implementation is endangering the public good and the environment.
Gary Aboud
Secretary, Fishermen and
Friends of the Sea