Return of Toco PortTHERE were many reasons the 2000 Toco Port and Ferry Project hit the rocks. Chief among them were the lack of transparency shown by the developers, the amount of land acquisition that was planned, and the woeful environmental impact assessment (EIA) carried out by the developers themselves.
The 2019 version of the Toco port has not begun in an auspicious manner, either, repeating many of the worst aspects that doomed its predecessor, as MARK MEREDITH writes.
PART 2DESPITE THE GOVERNMENT trumpeting the Toco highway and port as 'Legacy Projects' as far back as 2015, they had not once thought to ask the people who live there what their opinion might be.
Until the highly technical presentation on April 12 this year by the port designer Arun Buch and Associates and the UK-based EIA group Environmental Resources Management (ERM), the people of Toco have had no input into a project that will alter forever the village where they live, with impacts that will reach far beyond its boundaries.
Until that meeting they had no idea what location the port would actually occupy. The Express was told by a Toco resident: 'I can tell you there was no consultation with the community on the highway project and none on the port until this one.'
No one has asked residents if they want a port, far less what type of port they might like. A small ferry terminal with a simple breakwater; a basic, improved fishing port; or a massive multi-purpose port with 340-metre breakwater to keep 'hurricane-generated waves at bay'?
No one has asked them if they object to losing their beach, ocean front and scenic values at Grande L'Anse Bay to a hive of industrial maritime activity, with associated pollution and noise.
No one has been told whether their property will need to be acquired to accommodate the Valencia to Toco highway, and access to the port through the village.
Nor has the Government carried out any type of new feasibility study as to whether the construction of multi-billion-dollar highway and undisclosed cost of a very large multi-purpose port is financially tenable - Nidco has requested confidentiality of the port construction costs and this has been accepted by the EMA.
Neither, and this is pretty basic, has any sort of study been carried out as to whether anybody will want to use a ferry service from remote Toco to Tobago, or vice-versa.
Instead, just as was the case with the 2000 port project, nobody has asked anybody anything.
Some critics are adamant the proposed road should be part of the port CEC application as it is part of the same project, the reason it is being built, to service it.
As we shall see, CEC approval will not be straightforward anyway as the environmental factors that did for this would-be port's predecessor are just as serious and relevant today, and in the case of the leather back turtle, much more critical.
Nidco might argue that all these concerns can be addressed at the EIA stage. Others would counter that before you go through the expense of engaging consultants to design a multi-purpose port, hiring a team of foreign consultants for your EIA, and building a highway to connect your port, that you first establish whether such a venture in such a location is actually feasible, warranted, or even wanted.
It's a process called consultation.
A FLAWED PROCESSThe Express spoke with Evana Douglas, environmental professional and programme director of Sky Eco-Development Organisation and lifelong Toco resident. She believes in finding a balance between environmental conservation and development, and that the location and design of this port fails on these counts.
She is especially critical of the failure of Nidco to garner the expertise and knowledge of local people.
'Stakeholders Against Destruction (SAD) for Toco compiled an Alternative Development Plan. While this focused on the development of the area's tourism and culture, it did include a ferry port. The community recognized the importance of such a facility and proposed a way to get it done sustainably. (SEE BELOW)
'I can say for a fact that the current proposal by Nidco did not take this into consideration. That document was not consulted at all before they made their proposal. Therefore, in my opinion, the community itself and our views were ignored. I would also suggest that that plan is a better reference because the people who prepared it know the area much better.'
Douglas is adamant that before any kind of proposal is made the community must be included for the designing and identifying of the right location, not merely consulted, what she calls 'citizen science'.
She said the science required for determining the feasibility of the project 'already exists in our local fishermen, businessmen and businesswomen. They utilise the area for their livelihoods on a daily basis. However, that science cannot be known unless they are included'.
Douglas pointed to the fact that there are countries in other parts of the world with port infrastructure and a healthy coastal environment 'because they recognise the importance of their coastal environment and included it in their development plan'.
'I can assure you,' she said, 'that there are ways to facilitate coastal development without comprising the marine environment or the Toco culture as we know it. The fact is that the feasibility document Nidco consulted is dated. Research methodologies update yearly, sometimes even more frequently, to facilitate the global drive for sustainable development.
'As a people we do not accept anything that is dated. Clothes, appliances, electronics, cellphones go out of style or are upgraded and replaced by something better. Why must we accept dated and therefore mediocre work for such a massive project which will change the country as we know it?
'This is not good enough and frankly it borders on laziness...If it cannot be done properly (and at present, it is not being approached correctly), then it should not be done at all.'
The Express was told by Douglas that, like the consultative process, the EIA process is flawed also, especially with regard to the time being given to carry it out.
Nidco's foreign-based EIA consultants, ERM, who are not familiar with the region, gave a time line of August for the draft EIA and September for the final EIA at the April consultation.
Douglas said this amount of time was insufficient as 'the proposed area is understudied and therefore data deficient, meaning there is very little published scientific literature to give a comprehensive ecological background into what exists in that area.
'As such, any study to determine the feasibility of a port, specifically on the ecological side, would need to be a baseline-that is, a minimum of one year to facilitate the dry and wet seasons-to fully capture all the possible physical conditions that may influence ecological processes.
'We have experienced significant challenges with sea conditions and weather during our own study of the development area, which is why I am concerned about the quality of the data that would be captured during this short timeframe.
'The time given for completing the EIA is not enough to truly capture this information.'
TOCO PORT PROPOSALThe National Infrastructure Development Company Limited (NIDCO) is the state agency charged with delivering Toco Port. The CEC application tells us: Construction Period - Approx. 3.5 years, Operational Period - 100 years. This is what is planned based in the CEC application, the ministry’s brochure, and by NIDCO’s design consultants Arun Buch & Associates.
Facilities
- Inter-Island Fast Ferry Terminal with: 2-story ferry terminal building with galleries, terrace, restaurants etc
- 2-story port admin building
- Car park for 150 vehicles
- Cargo storage shed
- Marine side facility with 600m of berthing in 7m-8m depths of of water to accommodate 5 ships of 100m
- Cargo & oil/gas work boats
- Coast guard facility (632m2) with accommodation, and berthing for 2 vessels (“The Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard has expressed a desire to establish a facility at the proposed facility”).
- Marina: for approx 30 craft; also berthing for “mega yachts”
- Marina 3-story building to include: customs office; admin office; restaurant/bar; members lounge; a hotel of 25 rooms; police post; retail space;
- Fish market: repair/maintenance/fish net repair; dry and refrigerated storage/ice house
- Offices
- Bunkering facilities
- Fish fry creole village
- Finger piers for 40 small boats (10m) and 10 large boats (15m).
- Guest House to accommodate 30 rooms
- New Fisheries Complex at Mission Bay
- Fuel Storage for 750,000 gallons of fuel (diesel and gasoline)
Port & Breakwater Structures
* Total port area: 24.3 acres
Reclaimed land: 98,000 sq metres
* Approximately 518,000 cubic metres of fill will be needed; dredging works 270,000 cu.m
Breakwater: “Significant protection from extreme hurricane generated waves will be provided by a major breakwater structure”; 340m long, built in water depths ranging from 4m-9m, extending approx 3.5m above mean sea level
New drainage channel to be constructed between the port facility and the existing shore line, 10m wide and 350m long. This channel will fringe the entire eastern edge of the proposed facility.
TOCO PORT EIA TIMELINEThis is the timeline according to NIDCO – currently there is a Final Terms of Reference (TOR) being used to guide the draft EIA. The TOR was guided by public comments in the draft version by interested parties and stakeholders – (see Part 1 Toco’s déjà vu)
“Early August 2019: Draft EIA submittal
August 2019: Public Disclosure Meeting
Mid Sept 2019: Final EIA submittal”
SAD'S ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANIn 2000, in response to the threat faced by Toco from an industrial port backed by a private consortium, the community formed an organisation to fight that plan and to come up with an alternative development plan for Toco.
Stakeholders Against Destruction (S.A.D.) for Toco produced their plan in 2001 after the port plan was abandoned due to opposition from the community – that first part of SAD’s job was accomplished.
The second part, SAD’s Alternative Development Plan for Toco, was not successful. This is perhaps the saddest aspect of SAD. Their plan was bursting with good ideas on the sustainable development of Toco and its environs; ideas that could have provided a blueprint for similar development in rural communities throughout Trinidad and Tobago.
These plans are just as relevant today in the face economic decline, the need for diversification, and of communities like Toco who feel left behind. Theirs was a vision based on environmentally sensitive sustainable development shared by all from Matura to Matelot. Toco would be the “clean and green corner of Trinidad. Maybe it could, still.
* Traditional local tourism and recreational activity
* Community Based Ecotourism, including nature tourism and adventure tourism.
Revitalization and modernization of agriculture and agricultural processing, including exploitation of developing niche markets for specialty products, both locally and internationally; organic farming; a farm center
* Revitalization and modernization of the fishing industry.
Consolidation and expansion of Toco as a center of sporting excellence (they now have an Olympic champion); mountain biking, surfing, beach volleyball
* Cultural and social initiatives; creative arts
Source:
https://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/lo ... c2050.html