Have a read on nidco's response on the JCC's recommendations, and how it was or wasnt implemented.
http://nidco.co.tt/new/images/NIDCOS_Comments.pdfSome points from the report:
The concerns expressed by NIDCO in the letter to the JCC dated February 21, 2013
included the following:-
1. The Report was a collection of working papers prepared independently by
various consultants with an Executive Summary prepared by the Chairman. This
was procedurally flawed as there was no Report of the Committee. The several
papers prepared should be considered working papers and a single, cohesive
document representing the findings, analyses and recommendations of the
Committee as a whole should have been prepared and signed by all Committee
members before transmitting to NIDCO.
2. No consideration was given to the fact that there was in place a $5.2 Billion
construction contract between NIDCO and the Contractor. It was neither proper
nor reasonable for the consultants to conduct analyses or arrive at
recommendations without giving consideration to the very significant financial
and other consequences of suspending or truncating any portion of the contract.
3. There was no protest or appeal against the grant of the CEC by members of the
HRM. There was also no protest consequent upon the announcement of the
project by the Government in 2010, the turning of the sod in January 2011 or the
well-publicized signing of the contract by NIDCO in July 2011.
4. There was no evidence that NIDCO had proceeded with the project in violation of
any law.
5. NIDCO agreed with the HRC’s view that the entire Highway needed to be
planned as part of a comprehensive land use/transportation planning exercise for
south Trinidad and confirmed that this was indeed done. NIDCO cited the
National Physical Development Plan and South West Regional Plan.
6. NIDCO noted that the HRC had concluded that the EIA was not acceptable
although it acknowledged that it addressed the requirements of the TOR. It was
not acceptable for the HRC to make an accusation that the EMA improperly
“relented” without having given the EMA an opportunity to respond in this
matter.
7. In respect of Human Settlement, outline approval had been granted by the Town
and Country Planning Division for the Petit Morne Site and Cabinet had already
approved the site for the relocation of persons affected by the Highway. The
MOWI was in the process of preparing an application for final planning
permission and NIDCO did not intend to commence relocation until these
approvals were received.
8. The Debe to San Francique Highway Action Committee had identified potential
sites for relocation and selected Petit Morne as the preferred alternative. It was Page 6 of 21
not appropriate for the HRC to select its own site at Golconda having regard to
the view expressed by the aforesaid group.
9. Although the primary purpose of the Highway was to reduce traffic and meet the
transportation needs of the public, this was treated as a minor issue in the report.
10. The comments under Hydrology and Hydraulics were inappropriate in that they
pertained to the Design/Build approach and reflected opinions on procurement
policy rather than Hydrology and Hydraulics.
11. There was no instance of entry onto property without legal authority. Due
process was at all times followed and the constitutional rights of persons are not
being abrogated during the acquisition or other process.
12. The recommendations constitute a list of instructions to cease all work along an
entire section of the roadway, which does not itself constitute a single
community. It pays no regard to the consequences for the existing contract and
the cost to Government and tax payers.
13. There was no identification of the areas of the section where there may have
been no significant environmental or other danger.
14. No account was taken of the balance to be made between the risks associated by
not proceeding, stopping all work or proceeding only in particular areas.
