REJECT THE CEC FOR THE TOCO PORT
Does this EIA adequately address the many ecological, environmental and socio-economic impacts and issues that arise from the construction of the Toco port?
Clearly the answer is no, on all counts.
In the eight features I wrote for the Sunday Express on the Toco port project, I interviewed and sort opinion from those critical of the port and its proponents as well as their EIA consultants ERM. The feedback I have had on the EIA has been entirely negative.
In this submission I explain why the EMA is obligated to refuse a CEC for this project. Please see Toco’s Turning Tide, written last year covering all aspects of this project.
In it you will see that all 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.
The EIA they have produced merely confirms themselves as complicit in the unsustainable destruction of Toco’s present state - peaceful, calm, clean, green, serene, natural. These so-called “sustainability specialists” have produced a document detailing a catalogue of inaccurate, unsustainable, adverse impacts on almost every aspect of life in Toco today – because you cannot disconnect what is planned in the bay from real life in the rest of the village.
In this submission I have drawn on articles written for the Express providing the opinions of those stakeholders who stand to lose everything from this development. These include those from the tourism industry, and from scientists trying to save, preserve and understand the wide-ranging species and subjects of their studies which are now threatened unnecessarily.
SEA TURTLES
The questionable and inaccurate impacts on sea turtles as stated in ERM’s EIA take no account of the wider area surrounding Toco frequented by endangered leatherback turtles. This wider area of study was not in the TOR for the EIA, and this was the first mistake.
Below is an extract from a forthcoming Express article The last best hope quoting Professor Scott Eckert, Director of WIDECAST. It illustrates the inadequacy of ERM’s study:
“Eckert, who is the foremost authority on North West Atlantic (NWA) leatherback turtles, told me: “The precipitous decline of the NWA leatherback is extremely alarming.
“My message is that the entire Northwest Atlantic population of leatherbacks is collapsing.”
He told the Express last year, “I can’t imagine a more foolish project than to put a port with large vessels steaming through a major assembly area for leatherback sea turtles”.
Now he is repeating that message.
“The importance of the Galera Point region (off Toco) to leatherback sea turtles must be taken into account in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). . . the two largest nesting populations for the NWA leatherback are located on either side of the proposed port site.”
But the area of study by NIDCO’s UK-based EIA consultants ERM does not include any of the offshore habitat areas of concern outlined by Eckert.
He told the Express last year that “Galera Point is a mating assembly area for leatherbacks from February to May and is an area where female leatherbacks frequent between nesting events.”
He was adamant that area “immediately offshore of the proposed (port) facility, a leatherback hotspot, must be considered in any EIA”.
But Galera Point is not.
“Given what is happening in other areas where this species nests, Trinidad may be its last best hope, so careful management of this nesting population is particularly important,” Eckert emphasised.
“My biggest concerns are that increased large vessel traffic in the area will force turtles to displace away from this (Toco) area into areas that are less conducive to the needs of the species, and that vessel strikes of turtles will increase.
“I am also concerned that increased traffic and development in the area will cause further degradation of coastal ecosystems, particularly those associated with the maritime forests and leatherback nesting beaches,” he warned.
And then there is concern about the noise emanating from shipping, and 83 decibels of port construction pile driving. The December port “consultation” learned that such noise underwater could be heard as far away as Maracas. (The EIA describes this impact as “minor”)
Eckert said: “From our work on hearing capabilities of leatherbacks we know that leatherbacks will hear the vessels. What we don’t know is if they will try to avoid them.
“If they avoid the area due to increased noise levels they may displace to areas more dangerous or less appropriate. If they don’t avoid the area they will be prone to being struck.”
The question arises, should the EMA grant a CEC based on studies which demonstrably fall short when it comes to impacts on sea turtles? Here is another passage from the same article:
“The EMA, under the terms of its own Environmentally Sensitive Species Rules (ESSs) 2001, is obligated to protect 10 species, including five sea turtle species, of which the leatherback is one.
Leatherbacks being migratory creatures, what we do in Trinidad has a regional and global effect.
The obligation of the EMA to protect the endangered leatherback turtle is indisputable: not only under its own rules under the Environmental Management Act, but under international laws and conventions to which Trinidad and Tobago are signatories.
The first is the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The second is The Cartegena Convention, Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (SPAW Protocol).
The third is the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, The Bonn Convention.
And the fourth is the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere.
It would be contrary to the basis of the EMA’s very existence to approve the construction and operation of a large, “multipurpose” port in the middle of this critical habitat.”
It should be added that the EMA itself has reported turtle nesting on Mission Beach, that stretch of sand liable to destruction through erosion when the port is built. Even if the beach remains intact, how would turtles make their way through an industrial port with harbour walls, lights and noise to safely lay eggs?
Clearly, the EMA’s obligation is to refuse a CEC, on the turtle issue alone, based on the laws of Trinidad and Tobago and the international conventions the country has signed.
For further reference on Scott Eckert’s findings, and the importance of the Toco area to leatherback turtles please visit my Express article on 19th May 2019, called Every habitat is critical from the series Toco’s Turning Tide, also attached.
CORAL REEFS
The EIA persists in the delusion that the coral reefs in the study area are unimportant, and that after mitigation the impacts are “minor, negligible”, and in one case, hard-bottom benthos, “moderate”.
The opinion of marine scientists I have spoken to, and who have studied the reefs at Grande l’Anse for over 20 years, flies in the face of this EIA whose study period was a comparative matter of months.
To suggest the impacts of vast dredging and reclamation operations, and construction of a multi-purpose port on top of an existing reef system are minor, negligible or moderate questions the entire validity of the EIA.
To quote Dr Stanton Belford from the same Express article mentioned above: “The fact that at the Toco consultation it was mentioned that they may have to build an artificial coral reef suggests that they know that the Grande L’Anse reefs will be 100% destroyed.”
Here is a further excerpt:
“Dr Belford said he has seen artificial reefs in Jordan and he knows how expensive and challenging it is to build and maintain them.
He explained the importance of the reefs in the port area.
“New genetic analysis of species, such as sea urchins and zoanthids (soft corals), are now only enlightening us on the intricate biodiversity of the area; new genetic information for reefs along the northeastern coast of Trinidad that is globally unique.
“We lose this if we build the port.
“I am presenting genetic research from Toco reef organisms later this year at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Bremen, Germany. That’s how important Toco’s reefs are.”
And it’s not just the reefs that will be lost, explained Belford.
“More and more students have become interested in doing research at Toco reefs. We lose student scientific interest in marine biology if the port is built.”
He lamented the haste to build the port when there was so much information about the reef organisms and genetics still to gather.
“I need time. The reefs need time. I see now the rush for time to build the port: time to hastily, untruthfully report on no biodiversity at Grande L’Anse; time to hire a foreign entity to tell us what we have here in T&T.
“Are we so dependent on foreigners to tell us what we have in our own environment?
“Come on, Minister, EMA, NIDCO. We are so much more better than that. Stop feeding the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago lies and deception.”
In my Express article on 19th May 2019, called Every habitat is critical, Dr Belford disputes the assertions made by NIDCO’s consultants that the area is devoid of a critical habitat, saying: “Marine biodiversity at Grande L’Anse, which is the proposed location for this facility, will require destruction of a biodiverse area.”
He told the Sunday Express: “To say the reefs are devoid of critical marine habitats would undermine Dr Tom Goreau’s statement of the habitat being ‘unique’ and it was his statement that initially pushed Dr Dawn AT Phillip, former lecturer at The UWI, and myself to start monitoring these reefs in 2005 to the present.”
He said: “There were 79 species reported, which include environmentally sensitive animals, such as the Atlantic triton, Slate pencil urchin, and a few unknown sea anemone species. There is even a possibility of new species of soft coral located at Grande L’Anse…”
A study by Sky Eco-Development Organisation’s programme director Evana Douglas, part of a team from the University of Trinidad and Tobago, is currently working on determining the extent of the existing coral where the port is proposed to be. Douglas explained that the marginal coral communities fringing Grande L’Anse Bay were special because coral development on mainland Trinidad is rare due to the extreme environmental conditions surrounding the island.
“The proposed port design does not accommodate this habitat at all. As a matter of fact, it will totally destroy it by covering sections of it with backfill and uprooting other areas with dredging works,” Douglas said.
Here is another opinion:
“Dr. Peter Roopnarine, Curator of Geology at the Department of Invertebrate Zoology & Geology at the institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability of the California Academy of Sciences, said that at the recently concluded Ocean Sciences Meeting 2020, “the summary is that the oceans are in very bad shape. Our best estimates now, and I am being more optimistic than many colleagues, is that there might be very little habitable area for corals by 2100.
“Our best hope is to protect as much diversity as possible, to protect as many areas as possible”.”
In his submission to you on this EIA Roopnarine eloquently details all the reasons not to build a port on top of one of Trinidad’s only coral reefs.
Surely the EMA is obligated to protect the remaining coral reefs in T&T by refusing a CEC in this case. To grant one for this project would, like the issue of the turtles, render your role as protector of the county’s environment a lie.
TOURISM , FERRY, SURFING, SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
TOURISM & TURTLES
“My guests come to Toco because it is picturesque, calm, serene, and clean. That is the calling card for tourists,” said hotelier Winston Montano of the attraction of this unspoilt region of Trinidad.
In the Sunday Express article Killing the golden goose (attached) I showed the total disconnect between the government’s and NIDCO’s talk of the port enhancing tourism and the reality on the ground – the article also details an alternative, sustainable development plan for Toco. The best beach in Toco, Salibay, has been destroyed by government disinterest and neglect. Why would anyone believe they will treat Grande l’Anse Bay any better, that the local environment will be improved, or that tourists will flock to stay in Toco when the very thing that draws them there, the unspoilt ambience, has been destroyed?
Nevertheless, the government and NIDCO seem to believe that a multi-billion dollar port with an extravagant hotel and marina is what tourists want. But it is not.
Marina industry expert Colin Barcant, who built Crews Inn, told the Express last May that a marina in Toco “was a waste of time” and he “would not build any purpose built facilities in Toco”. Drawings of the hotel show a four-storey structure adjoining a large “Marina Captainarie”.
Winston Montano and I agreed: if you were coming all the way to Trinidad, or even from other parts of Trinidad, why would you choose to stay on the beautiful north coast where your view is of a port filled with vehicular traffic for a ferry, oil servicing, fishing and coastguard vessels, and the smells and sounds of an industrial port?
You wouldn’t.
In an upcoming article for the Express called North Coast Treasure, I interviewed hoteliers along the north east coast near Toco. They are adamant that the port will harm and hinder their business. They all supported small scale tourism drawing on the attraction of the unique natural vibe and eco attractions the area offers. The most important of those attractions are the turtles, and they are directly threatened by the port.
Mt Plaisir Estate in Grande Riviere was the first such eco hotel in the region, opening in1993. It is largely responsible for starting the growth of ecotourism in that village where other small hotels and guest houses have since sprung up.
Mt Plaisir Estate’s location on the beach where leatherback turtles nest outside visitors’ rooms, which must be unique in the world, put turtle tourism on the map. The village receives approximately 20,000 visitors a year.
Piero Guerrini, who founded Mt Plaisir, is horrified by the proposed Toco port.
“Toco, they say, is beyond God’s back; totally unspoilt and beautiful, no crime, really nice people. I was originally thinking of setting up an eco tourism business in Toco before I settled in Grande Riviere,” he told me.
Guerrini says his hotel in Grande Riviere contributes about TT$1 million annually to the economy of the village through wages, the purchase of fish, local vegetables, and tours given to local guides.
“Of course, the other businesses all contribute to the economy of the village, too. But when the turtles are not here it is very, very quiet. Imagine if there were no turtles!”
The threat to the leatherback turtles’ breeding areas off Toco from the port is a peril to all the turtles in this corner of Trinidad and by extension to all the businesses that rely on the turtle tourism economy.
Guerrini has been consistent in his opposition to the port for these very reasons, both now and in 2000 when the UNC’s plan was rejected. He’s only too aware of the dangers it poses to the turtles and wider environment of this unique area of Trinidad, and visitors’ perceptions of a green, clean area.
An aghast Guerrini is adamant: “I am totally against the proposed mammoth eco-monster, disaster port. It will stop Toco being an eco destination.
“If that port goes ahead then I really think that would be the end and I would sell the hotel and go.
“This idea is blindness, total blindness!”
Here are further excerpts from North Coast Treasure:
“His (Guerrini’s) neighbour across the road, Wendy James of Le Grand Almandier hotel, had another complaint – the lack of basic infrastructure.
“We need the road to Grande Riviere fixed. We barely have one. It’s being destroyed by lorries gong to Matelot to fix the erosion there. There has to be a plan to fix the road,” she insisted.
Pushed as to whether she would prefer to see billions spent on the port, or on local infrastructure such as roads, electricity, water, the training of young, local people to get into the tourism and hospitality business; protecting nature and the turtles, making the area an eco attraction, she said:
“Well, if you put it like that, yes, of course.”
She said the turtles were central to her business and needed protection. The numbers of leatherbacks nesting in Grande Riviere had decreased, as had tourism.
“What I see is that the government has no interest in developing tourism”, accused James.
On the road between Sans Souci and Toco is another small hotel, commanding lovely views of the ocean. But if the guests were to look to the east in the future a "multipurpose" port in Toco would be their outlook.
This 10-room property accommodates up to 32 people and was packed out with people escaping Carnival for the peace and quiet of the coast when I spoke with the owner.
The hotelier, who preferred not to be named, agreed with the concerns about the impact the port would have on this rural location.
“People come here to get away from the city, and commercialising the area would set us back to square one. What we have here, the peaceful ambience makes us unique,” said the hotelier.
“The air is clean and different, and the feeling of safety and security, of being able to walk out whenever you choose, would be compromised.
“Turtles are our selling point, as they are for all properties along this coast, even those not on the beaches. It will not be worth compromising that, or to accept pollution, or risking our lack of crime for that.”
Even nearer to the proposed port is the appealing hilltop hideaway of Hosanna Toco set in secluded grounds with panoramic views over the Caribbean Sea – and any future industrial port.
The entire reason for coming to Hosanna Toco – “Come, stay, unwind, relax, rejuvenate and leave the fast pace life behind” – amidst magnificent tropical scenery, would be mightily compromised by the port.
The owner is Michael Theodore, an original committee member of Stakeholders Against Destruction for Toco, SAD, formed after the rejection by the community of the UNC-backed Toco port in 2000.
Now he has another port to deal with. How does he feel about that?
“My concerns are with the lack of local participation and effective consultation in the process, as well as an articulated and integrated development plan linking the road and the port projects to the development of Toco.
“I have been to every consultation and reviewed all the plans submitted and this is the first I have heard of a hotel on the port. Based on its location and size this is an impossibility and if this were so, I would definitely object.”
I also spoke with Stephen Broadbridge, Vice President of The Trinidad and Tobago Incoming Tour Operators Association, about his view of the port:
“It is an absolutely awful project which will destroy the coast, create noise, disturb the turtles, cause pollution. A terrible, terrible idea for the environment.”
TRINIDAD’S TURTLES – A PRICELESS COMMODITY
Turtle tourism is essential to the viability of all the small hotels and guest houses operating in Trinidad’s north east, and to those local communities.
The success of turtle tourism in Trinidad is held up worldwide as a beacon of community-based participation and conservation.
In 2013 the US-based Sea Turtle Conservancy said Trinidad was likely the world’s leading tourist destination for people to see leatherbacks.
Grande Riviere receives an estimated 20,000 visitors a year, drawn solely because of nesting leatherbacks. Locals pay TT$35 and foreigners TT$95.
In 2013 the local Turtle Village Trust (TVT) said that such tourism brought in $8.2 million annually. The influx of visitors, local and foreign, to Trinidad’s north east coast jumped from 6,500 in 2000 to over 60,000 in 2012.
In 2013 TVT director Dr Allan Bachan said turtle tourism had the potential to surpass Carnival as a revenue earner.
Visitor numbers to Matura fluctuate between 12-16,000 every year, of which approximately 90 percent are locals. The cost is to see them nest is TT$20 per local adult, and US$20 per foreign adult.
Children are free, and they come in large numbers, but the value of those visits in educational terms is priceless.
THE FERRY
I asked Stephen Broadbridge about the ferry:
“I’m not going to get up in the dark to drive to Toco to catch a ferry on these dreadful roads. I want to spend as little time as possible on them.
“It’s a crazy idea. My tourists stay in Port of Spain. If they want to go to Tobago they would go by ferry from there or catch a plane from Piarco,” said Broadbridge.”
The idea that people will want to use a ferry to Tobago from Toco, or vice-versa, the central reason for the entire project, has never been proven or the rationale explained. There is simply no evidence to suggest they would.
I asked hotelier Winston Montano of Toco if tourists would come to Toco by ferry from Tobago:
“I don’t think so. Most of our visitors are Trinidadians coming for the peace and quiet, the natural vibe, nature and turtles, to get away from crime, the stress, to able to walk out of their doors without worry.”
I was told by Sean Clarke of The Tobago Hotel & Tourism Association, that the port was “pie in the sky” and that “from a purely economic point of view I cannot see this functioning”.
He said that when Tobagonians use the airbridge after getting to Piarco they are faced with a “further huge taxi fee $200-$250 to Port of Spain”, depending on time of day.
“I fear to think what they will charge from Toco. Without a reliable public transport service from Toco we will be at the mercy of so-called taxis holding travellers to ransom with exorbitant fees.”
Clarke said the time to and from Toco by any means of transport must be considered, and that “this is mainly to accommodate one ferry that is not suitable for the purpose anyway”.
He said the ferry terminal in Port of Spain “is unbearable at times and the yard too small for the ferries that we need, and should be moved. But definitely not to Toco”.
Reginald Mac Lean, Owner/Manager of Res-Com Construction Ltd, complained it took him nine-and-a-half hours to attend the December Toco consultation and get back to Port of Spain
Mac Lean, who is scathing of the port project, is quick to dissuade people of the idea the “highway” the government is building from Valencia to Toco is actually a highway. It isn’t, he says.
Instead it is a “widened two-lane, extremely winding roadway. There will be many traffic lights along the way going through the various villages, etc. It's going to be an extra long drive. The elderly are not going to be able to endure that drive”.
The Government’s optimistic ferry forecasts smack of delusion, as zero data has been produced to show people will undertake this marathon journey. ERM even say, “Recent trends show declining ferry passenger and freight volume to Tobago”.
Mac Lean points out that “everything that has to be trucked to Toco to be loaded onto the ferry and then transported to Tobago is going to cost more”.
SURFING
Surfing draws tourists to Toco, and from all over Trinidad to Toco. The port will destroy that amenity. Here’s another excerpt from North Coast Treasure:
“Waves for Hope is a non-profit organisation founded in 2019 by Trinidad surf professional Chris Dennis and his Swiss wife Manuela Giger. They also operate Surf Balandra, offering packages to surfers at home and abroad.
Waves for Hope offers a “surf therapy program to at-risk youths” in the rural communities of Trinidad. Surfing at Toco is one of the major activities they use to foster an interest in a fun activity and keep young people off the streets away from the temptations of a criminal lifestyle.
Toco also happens to be the best place to surf in all Trinidad.
Dennis tells me it’s a “world class wave break, the best in Trinidad, what we in the surf community call a ‘right hand point break’. During the surf season, January to March, there will always be surfers there as long as it’s breaking.
But it won’t be breaking when the port is built.
“That break will be destroyed by the port,” warns Dennis..
“The waves in Grande L’Anse Bay are of a particular quality and are used for training professionals and would-be pros for the national team,” he said. “Both spots (Salybia/Salibay being the other,) are real special places.
“At Surf Balandra, we’ve just had people from Scotland staying for a month surfing the area, enjoying local culture, and we get people from other countries too.
“Grande L’Anse Bay is a natural resource that isn’t valued,” says Dennis, who has been spearfishing as well as surfing for 30 years, explaining, “there isn’t an inch of rock, or, hole or corner of the north coast between Maracas and Toco that I don’t know”.
The port developers say Grande l’Anse Bay has no critical habitat, I tell him.
“What? You’re kidding, aren’t you? That area all the way around the corner to Salybia (Salibay) is lobster territory, where people earn a living.”
Jean Paul Rostant of the Surfing Association of T&T told me that the surfing community of T&T is estimated at well over 2500 persons.
I asked him about the importance of the area the port will occupy.
“The spot in question is affectionately known as ‘Toco Depot. It’s one of the highest quality waves you’ll find in Trinidad.
“The wave is especially good during the winter months of October to April,” he explained.
“Many surf spots tend to explode during this season due to the ocean contours in these areas, namely the reef that is proposed to be destroyed . . . the result is perfectly formed waves.
“Just east of Toco Depot is another spot called the ‘Cutting Board’,” said Rostant. “This name is a result of the sharp, healthy reef that lies in shallow water which has left its mark on many a surfer throughout generations.
“These spots are visited by many Trinidadian surfers who are unable to leave Trinidad to visit Tobago.”
Rostant, who attended the December consultation, said “any benefits derived from this port in its current design are outweighed by the negative impacts, and the Government should pause and reconsider its plan in its entirety”.
PORT LOCATION, MARINA & ENERGY HUB
In Toco’s Turning Tide I went into detail on these, and in each case the claims made by NIDCO were shown to be false.
LOCATION
NIDCO claim that Toco is the “optimal location” for a port on the north east. This is incorrect historically, as Toco “was regarded as the “worst option” with regard to cost, space, reclamation, and anchorage suitability. Hardly “optimal”.
I sought opinion from Marina Industry expert Colin Barcant, who built and designed Crews Inn. His major concern was that several key issues had been ignored, and that the criteria for which site made most sense had not been applied. These included marine operational cost, the capital cost of extending the road network, the development cost of the site itself, maritime location (safe harbour entrance), environmental impact on the landward side, and capacity for expansion.
Barcant even supplied the Express a basic matrix (see attachment) looking at the choices of Toco, Balandra, and Saline Bay/Salybia Island. Toco came last in all categories except the distance from Tobago, which he said represented marginal savings compared to all the other “3rd choices” Toco fell under.
MARINA
I asked Barcant about the plausibility of building a marina for yachts at Toco, as critics are dubious as to whether the wild north east coast could be termed safe for pleasure craft, far less a suitable haven for multi-million dollar “mega yachts”.
He told me: “Mega yachts have become a catch phase. It’s a waste of time in this location. I’m involved with a mega yacht project now in the northern Caribbean; so I know. I would not build any purpose-built facilities (at Toco).
“On the other hand it could constitute a small craft harbour; good for commercial fishing boats which is what they can consider. Such facilities could accommodate a small level of transport for passing yacht traffic.”
ENERGY HUB, A DANGEROUS MIX
Prime Minister Rowley has talked up Toco as an energy hub, and the port design accommodates oil industry servicing vessels. I contacted a senior executive in the energy industry to find out if their industry would support using Toco as a “jumping off point” to existing oil fields – especially given the industry already had such a port servicing the east coast at Galeota. And would they be happy to share their space with ferries, fishing vessels, a marina, mega yachts and the coastguard?
The energy industry disagrees with Rowley and NIDCO on every aspect.
My source told me:
“I would confirm that the offshore oil and gas industry prefer to have single use service ports. Getting things to and from rigs/platforms is a critical function and delays of even a few hours can have big cost implications. An oil or gas company is not going to want to run the risk of a spare part sitting port side waiting to be loaded on a vessel, while a cruise ship loads up passengers,” he said.
“The other crucial issue is what happens ‘land-side’ – companies won’t want to have to truck stuff up from San Fernando or Central, where most of the warehousing space and/or machine shops are located, to Toco.”
I have been told the design of the port is inherently dangerous. Using a multipurpose port with so many different projects operating cheek by jowl in a relatively small area – marina, mega yachts, fish processing, trawlers, oil servicing, cars, passenger ferries – was also criticised as “being hazardous” in 2000 by energy industry sources who insisted that oilfield servicing must operate independently from anything else.
Into this “hazardous” mix of projects in 2019 will sit tanks holding fuel. We are told that 750,000 gallons of diesel and gasoline “will be used to facilitate refuelling of fishing vessels, pleasure crafts, as well as the larger inter-island passenger and cargo vessels . . . other vessels will also be able to refuel at the facility if necessary”.
In 2000 a senior insurance underwriter expressed his grave concerns to me about the number of insurances required for such a mix of operations – none of which, incidentally, are mentioned in the 2000 or 2019 plans.
The cost of these insurances can be prohibitive based on the location of the port and the residential and environmental concerns in the vicinity. Also, the cost and size of the liability required is dependent upon the following: whether it is a commercial or industrial port; the type of activities, vessels and craft handled; the experience of the personnel involved; and, pertinent in Toco’s case, the location and exposure—are climate, sea conditions and wind a factor?
Needless to say, none of these factors are included in the EIA.
CONCLUSION
The proponents of this project claim “The socio-economic benefits of a fast ferry port are varied and significant . . . this project will aid Government towards diversification . . . the marina and hotel facilities will encourage development of the tourism sector in north east Trinidad.”
As I have shown, none of this is true. There is no cost benefit analysis on any aspect to justify any of these delusional claims. The idea that the evisceration of a seaside village’s lovely coastline, with threats to leatherback turtles, the region’s drawcard, is going to entice tourists to Toco is a fantasy.
NIDCO and ERM’s EIA can dress up the ruination of Toco’s natural environment and the obliteration of its beaches, corals, special ambience and way of life any way they like, but a monkey in silk is a monkey no less. And this is one seriously ugly ape.
The most important resource for any resident of Toco is its coastline. It’s what defines the village of Toco. That will be lost. The worst part of the Toco port project, which this EIA fails to address on every count, is simple – loss: the loss of beaches which local people and tourists have enjoyed for generations; loss of Trinidad’s best surf; loss of scenic values, loss of simple recreational pleasures; loss of coral reefs; loss of sea products; loss of the leatherback and other turtles; loss of tourism; loss of livelihoods; loss of peace, and loss of a unique natural ambience.
Loss for very many, profit for a very few.