While a feasibility study was carried out many years ago for a similar project, to which significant concerns were expressed regarding the need and benefits of such a development. No update was carried out as part of the reactivation of this initiative and no real analysis of the socioeconomic benefits, and sustainability of such a project has been presented as part of this EIA. Provide estimates of Port use.
SpeSeas recognizes that negative environmental impacts are to be expected with any development project, and that the benefits and costs must be weighed. However, in our assessment, the development and operation of the proposed project will result in significant negative impacts, including on the local, regional, and global environment, that are not commensurate with the proposed benefits. For example, the destruction of an important and unique reef system, and severe consequences to turtle populations in the Caribbean and Atlantic Ocean. In light of this, in our assessment, the development of the proposed Toco Port is not acceptable and should not move forward.
Fuel spills, degraded water quality, light and noise pollution, waste management, loss of reef habitat, loss of traditional recreational, cultural and religious sites and activities; disruption of Sea Turtle Nesting and Dolphin migration; disruptions in water current patterns leading to unpredictable beach changes and land erosion –consequences clearly beyond the scope of the EIA drafters, not to mention the huge disruption in the social and cultural fabric as can be anticipated in Mr. Hernandez’ summary.
There is a considerable portion of the planned project devoted to fishing; berths or areas for small fishing vessels, and fish processing facilities. There are 92 documented artisanal vessels in the northeastern region of Trinidad, with that number increasing. Yet, it is acknowledged in the report that catch sizes are declining, and have been for some time. So who will benefit from continued engagement in a failing industry? Does the government plan to subsidize local artisanal fishing? Catch sizes are declining because fish abundances are declining, and there is absolutely no way in which the proposed project will halt or reverse that. It will, in fact, worsen the situation. The local fishing industry is obviously important to the local population, but upgrading boating facilities will not help it.
Statements made throughout various parts of the EIA document are generalized, and not supported. Additionally, the disparity between communication between the Minister of Works and Transportation, NIDCO and ERM personnel is misleading and confusing. Since 2019, and the patchy arrival of the Application for Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC5345/2017) together with numerous newspaper articles and video interviews concerning the Toco port development, the coral reefs at Grande L’Anse have been placed on notice. As highlighted by articles in the Express Newspapers by Mark Meredith, together with responses/interviews/blogs in the Guardian and Newsday (Dr. Anjani Ganese) newspapers, the reefs are important, but will be destroyed, yet the Minister of Works and Transportation has said that it will not, and now the EIA states that it will be. So, after reviewing the documentation by the EIA, my decision is based on the destruction of the marine environment that will occur if this project proceeds, therefore I feel that the Toco Port should NOT proceed.
the claims made for the need of a large multi-purpose port in Toco are predicated on assumptions and falsehoods devoid of any economic analysis, data or fact. The EIA fails to address any of these concerns, and in fact in many areas appears to show little understanding of the environment, in the broad sense of the word, in which the foreign-based consultants, ERM, were working. They assume mitigation and management measures will be of a standard they might find in developed, first world countries. The EIA shows no understanding of the harsh realities on the ground: of the inefficiencies and neglect that actually exist in Trinidad. ERM’s suggestion to “Implement a community grievance mechanism” is proof of that. For ERM to live up to their self-proclaimed billing of “the world’s leading sustainability consultancy” one wonders what they are doing involved in such a project in the first place.
Here we are twenty years later and it is again crystal clear, that the required due diligence has not been done. The current developers being mindful of the overwhelming opposition which those in 2000 received, have been marketing this latest incarnation of the port, as one where there would be no need to displace anyone from their homes. That statement alone shows that they have not done their homework because anyone who is familiar with, or who embarks upon an inspection of the area, would recognize that a project of this magnitude requires a substantial acreage of land, on which to store the heavy equipment and the massive volumes of material that would be required. It would therefore necessitate, the acquisition of several properties for this purpose. Even if that were true, the fact that the proposal is to now to construct the project off the coastline, does not make the proposition any more palatable, or any less offensive.
