In Jamaica’s Rio Cobre oil spill, activists and civil society say unanswered questions remain · Global Voices

This article was first published on Global Voices contributor Emma Lewis’ blog; an edited version appears below with permission.

We are not satisfied: that is the message from a large group of civil society organizations and individuals in an open letter to Jamaica’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) regarding the extraordinary behavior of the National Agency of Environment and Planning (NEPA), the government agency. responsible for ensuring justice in matters of environmental crimes.

NEPA’s announcement in court on November 27, 2024 of the withdrawal of criminal charges against Trade Winds Citrus Limited for a December 2023 oil spill in the Rio Cobre that affected water supplies to neighboring communities, was greeted with surprise and condemnation in many corners of the country. Company. The media began reporting a “secret deal” between NEPA and the company; details of the mediation agreement were not even revealed to the court judge due to a non-disclosure clause.

Subsequently, NEPA Chairman Weldon Madden was asked to resign, while Matthew Samuda, the minister responsible for the environment, issued a statement saying that “the Government of Jamaica is not convinced that the matter was addressed at the board management level with the required security standards. transparency and openness. » Under considerable pressure, details of the mediated settlement agreement were finally published on the NEPA website, where a timeline of events relating to the oil spill can also be viewed.

Jamaica’s rivers – including the Rio Cobre – have often been besieged by industrial pollution. In 2021, the Rio Cobre suffered a spill of caustic effluent from the nearby bauxite factory – and this incident was not the first time. The West Indies Alumina Company (Windalco), which operates the plant, was a repeat infringer that “received multiple notices of violations” and was, at the time, a “defendant in a lawsuit filed by NEPA regarding a discharge in the river in 2019 which resulted in a massive fish kill and several people fell ill. Windalco then attempted to repopulate the river with fish, but the transparency of this process was also called into question.

In this most recent case, a number of issues arise that merit further investigation. NEPA’s comment, relayed by Minister Samuda, that the withdrawal of the case was justified based on the “limited material impact of the incident and the comprehensive clean-up undertaken”, gave some environmentalists pause. Whether the damage caused by the oil spill was significant or not, and regardless of how many fish were killed or not, the problem goes beyond that. Trade Winds Citrus Limited committed an environmental crime, which NEPA was pursuing with the green light from the DPP because the crime is not just a few dead fish; rather, it has an impact on neighboring communities and the ecosystem in general, which many believe is hardly considered.

Will this be NEPA’s modus operandi in the future? And if this is “the status quo,” then what is it? The open letter, signed by 39 groups and individuals, including the Jamaica Environment Trust, Friends of Rio Cobre, Freedom Imaginaries, Jamaicans for Justice, Stand Up For Jamaica, Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal and Jamaica Climate Change Youth Council, outlined these elements and others. concerns to the DPP.

“Under the mandate granted by your office,” he said, “the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), the administrative arm of the National Environment and Planning Agency (NRCA), is responsible for prosecuting environmental crimes. However, NEPA’s decision to pursue mediation in this case raises serious questions about its commitment to environmental justice. We now urgently request a thorough investigation by your office into the actions of NRCA/NEPA. This is essential to restoring public confidence in the enforcement of environmental laws and ensuring that agencies with prosecutorial powers act in the public interest at all times.

Some of the issues identified included the fact that mediation was continued in this case. “(I)intended as a compromise between private parties,” he said, the approach was “not suited to holding environmental offenders to account, particularly where there is a public impact and a important public interest. This undermines deterrence and signals leniency towards environmental crimes. The letter also criticized NEPA’s narrow focus, which “prioritized the destruction of fish while ignoring the broader impacts of the oil spill on the ecology of the river, its users, and surrounding communities.”

Additionally, NEPA dropped the case “based on vague assurances from TWCL, including commitments to best practices and collaboration, which lack clear enforcement mechanisms.” The signatories interpreted this as a demonstration of a “lack of interest in the prosecution of environmental crimes and a lack of intent to hold environmental offenders accountable within the criminal justice system”, especially if the Added to this is the fact that the agreement prevents “legal action by either party”. ” and prohibits NEPA from assisting communities that may want to file suit against TWCL. This clause, it claims, “stifles the rights of communities and the public to seek justice, undermining and betraying public trust in environmental governance and the administration of justice.”

The group’s statement also denounces a lack of transparency or meaningful consultation with affected communities, an exclusion that “deprives stakeholders of their right to participate in the resolution of an issue that has a direct impact on their lives and their environment.” The inclusion of a confidentiality clause in the mediation agreement, intended to protect its terms from public and judicial scrutiny, is unacceptable given the public nature and significant interest generated by this offense.

Despite the controversial legal conclusion, this issue remains unresolved in the eyes of environmentalists and governance advocates: “The public deserves full transparency and public accountability regarding NEPA’s decision-making processes and assurance that environmental laws will be enforced.” openly, vigorously and in compliance with the standards, principles and best practices of environmental law.

“Environmental crimes require robust legal action – not alternative resolutions that fail to deliver justice or protect natural resources. We urge your office to reexamine this matter, investigate NEPA’s actions, and undertake a long-overdue broader review of the effectiveness of NEPA’s prosecutions in order to strengthen environmental governance.