The Newsday article of Tobago House of Assembly’s approved ‘payout’ of two million dollars to affected persons - some of whom are fisherfolk, is a step in the right direction. In a previous post we intimated State has responsibility to the citizenry to alleviate their woes, as relates to this circumstance. So good job, Chief Secretary Augustine.
Naturally there will be no more payouts. The THA as a political body would have been pressured to fork over that $2M but the damage inflicted to Augustine’s cause has already occurred. What next? We know central government will continue to chase up the erstwhile owners of the transport vessels - hopefully to litigate against them - then to prove to the IOPC that Trinidad and Tobago does have a case worth compensating.
This ambiguity of being qualified for compensation arises as our ‘affected community’ are by and large, unable to prove ’loss of profit’. (The IOPC traditionally, in line with its stated policy distinguishes loss thus). We also know - again from IOPC’s payment history (and its fine-print) that there will no payment to T&T to cover coastal and/or environmental damage. Meaning; no money for studies to establish damage to our 15 plus kilometers of Tobago terra or, to the affected marine area within our Exclusive Economic Zone.
How so? It would seem that enabling the collection of environmental baseline data is a government’s job, not a fund established to offset oil transport. The question arises. Why isn’t the Institute of Marine Affairs able to deliver baseline environmental data for the area affected by he spill? We’ll hazard a guess: The IMA were not afforded the Means despite being handed the Mandate. In other words, data gathering costs money - beyond the sum allocated for the salaries of the people hired to do same. This however is a governance issue - mentioned here only to illustrate the link between environmental issues, environmental management and government’s role to integrate with things socio-economic. Let’s revisit the assertion made: That the IOPC will not readily, if ever, compensate us for a damaged ecosystem (whether or not proof of environmental damage to it exists). The body of literature available to the Fund’s administrators indicate that oil spills do not permanently harm natural ecologies. See Table beneath for the gist:
| Nature | Period |
|---|---|
| Plankton | Weeks / Months |
| Exposed rocky shores | 1 to 3 years |
| Sheltered rocky shores | 1 to 5 years |
| Sand beaches | 1 to 3 years |
| Saltmarshes | 5 to 20 years |
| Mangroves | 10 to 50 years |
This approach of compensating only actual costs seems to be based on the premise that the biological effects of spills when known, in many circumstances were relatively localised and transient. An were followed by fairly rapid recovery. In fact, post-spill studies strongly indicate that many marine organisms and habitats are resilient to short-term adverse changes.
This is not say that nature will prevail regardless. Change defines environmental function. Allowing that a spill can be likened to a trigger, the range of biological impacts after an oil spill can encompass:
-
physical and chemical alteration of natural habitats, e.g. resulting from oil incorporation into sediment;
-
physical smothering effects on flora and fauna;
-
lethal or sub-lethal^[Contaminants may affect ecosystem functioning by reducing the fitness of organisms. These impacts may cascade through ecosystems, particularly if the sensitive organisms are also habitat‐forming species. Understanding how sub‐lethal effects of toxicants can affect the quality and functions of biogenic habitats is critical if the intention is to establish guidelines for protecting ecosystems.] toxic effects on flora and fauna;
-
changes in biological communities resulting from oil effects on key organisms e.g. increasing scavenger populations, medium term migration of populations with specific needs.
Next?
The House of Assembly payout $2M soon come may be the last the Lambeau community and other persons affected by last years spill may hear as regards compensation. Not that all will be well. The Petit Trou lagoon was already under severe sargassum induced stress before the spill. That influx will not ease, leading to increased mangrove dieback. This is a far more dire threat than the Feb 2024 spill. In that it will cause species reduction, loss migration and what have you. What happens then is what happens every time livelihoods face adversity: People move on. The question is where will Lambeau fisherfolk go?