by Shod D S Baptiste, BSc (Hons.) Psychology, MBA (International Business)

Before Woodford became the focus of an industrial development, this was a rural community connected to a wider network of villages and communities, including Brooklyn, Mt Dor, Concord, Cotton Bailey and surrounding areas.

These communities have long depended on agriculture, fishing, freshwater resources and the natural environment for their livelihoods and way of life. Woodford itself has historical, cultural, agricultural and environmental significance, with fertile farmland, fishing activity, freshwater systems and remnants of its plantation history. During Hurricane Ivan, when water sources became contaminated, villagers depended on the streams for fresh water. Today, the area continues to support farmers, fishermen and aquatic life, including snapper and shrimp. If these resources are damaged, people who once had opportunities close to home may be forced to compete elsewhere for their livelihoods. So, as we watch what is happening to Woodford, the question must be asked: what are we sacrificing in the name of development, who truly benefits, and what will be left for the people of Woodford?

This would be funny if it were not so tragic. The Mt D’Or road, along the stretch bordering the Rayneau development where substantial excavation and other works have been taking place, has now broken in three major places. Residents have lost vehicular access to their homes, while farmers are struggling to reach their farms. Now the government’s solution is to reroute the broken section of the public road through the Rayneau industrial site. A public road through an active industrial site?

In March 2017, an explosion at the Rayneau Quarry in Cul-de-Sac, St Lucia, claimed four lives and left more than 20 people injured. Industrial sites carry risks, and routing the general travelling public through an operating industrial site requires those risks to be properly assessed and managed. So these are not abstract concerns. Who has certified that the route is safe for ordinary motorists, pedestrians and residents? What will separate public traffic from heavy industrial vehicles and operations? Who will maintain the road? And if there is another land movement, a collision or an injury, who bears responsibility: Government, the company, or both?

But there is an even more basic question: has the cause of the 3 failures of the existing Mt D’Or road been independently established? The Prime Minister, Dickon Mitchell, should take particular note that the Mt D’Or road, which he says has little to do with Rayneau, actually borders the Rayneau development, and the damage has occurred along the section of road where Rayneau has engaged in substantial excavation and boulder removal. This was raised before a geotechnical investigation was commissioned. So we cannot help but ask: on what technical basis has the government determined that another route through the adjoining development is safe?

There are legal questions too. If the proposed road crosses privately owned land, what arrangement gives the public the right to use it? Is Government acquiring the land, establishing a right of way, leasing it, or has Rayneau simply granted permission? Is this a temporary diversion, or will it become part of the public road network? And what of planning? Grenada’s planning legislation expressly includes the laying out of roads within the commencement of development. What statutory process therefore applies to this new road? Has the Physical Planning and Development Authority considered it? Has an assessment been required or approval given? Or does Government consider the road exempt?

There was haste to bypass the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for this multi-pronged industrial project involving quarrying, asphalt, concrete and a jetty. The Prime Minister said in a post-Cabinet press briefing in January this year that the EIA was taking too long, and that the developer had assured him that the plant was going to be environmentally friendly. Had there not been such haste, perhaps an EIA would have been completed, and perhaps it would have identified whether the project was too close to the public road and whether, given the topography, boulder removal should have been restricted. Now the repair of the road could cost substantially more, while villagers and farmers are left asking whether, in the haste to solve one problem, Government has created problems it does not yet know how to fix.

Farmers have been badly affected. Produce risks rotting in the fields, established markets can be lost, and farmers are having difficulty getting essential inputs to their lands. The rerouting may provide desperately needed access, although for many residents it apparently still will not provide direct vehicular access to their homes. It is alleged that Government has commissioned an engineering firm to investigate the Mt D’Or road failures. If so, the question is whether that assessment covers all three failures and the damage extending onto private property, including one resident’s badly damaged driveway. And if that engineering assessment has not yet been submitted, as it appears, why is the developer already cutting the new road?

The developer recently said on The Bubb Report that sometimes it is necessary to “take the risk and make it happen.” That may be a philosophy for conducting private business, Mr Gagadhar. It cannot be the standard by which Government determines whether a road is safe for the public. Meanwhile, in Woodford, one resident said: “Our road is now on Rayneau property; our homes will follow.” Were it not so harmful, it could be called comedic.

EIAs are required for good reason. Now millions may have to be forked out for damage, while villagers in Woodford are left wondering whether this could only be the beginning.

NOW Grenada is not responsible for the opinions, statements or media content presented by contributors. In case of abuse, click here to report.