Fr Martin Sirju

Thanks especially to Chris Meredith and Prof Julian Kenny the proposed Chatham Industrial Estate cum aluminum smelter has been receiving some coverage in the daily press.

Meredith himself wonders why so few fellow journalists are not as concerned about the smelter as he is since it is an industry that has ramifications for the whole nation in terms of environmental pollution, the price of gas ALCOA – the American aluminum giant – will the paying, the huge consumption of electricity required to run the plant, and the disregard meted out to marginalised populations that comes with a political electorate that continues to vote for maximum leadership over and against a leader that is accountable to the people.

On Wednesday, February 15, I was on Morning Edition (TV6) with Andy Johnson as host. We spoke about the proposed aluminum smelter in Chatham and some of the issues arising from the proposed project.

One issue I mentioned was the disregard given to rural and therefore marginalised populations by successive governments. What the government tried in Cedros they would never have tried in Westmoorings (if they had the space).

They simply expected the Cedros population to be gullible and let others determine what was best for them. What is needed in our politics is conversation and accountability. The way the Prime Minister has proceded with the smelter project is substantially the same as he has dealt with the residents of St Ann's in his stubborn refusal to meet them to discuss his plans for the expansion of the Prime Minster's residence. This lack of conversation is also at the heart of the malaise in which the UNC now finds itself.

My host asked me a very pertinent question that morning. He questioned whether the 150 persons who turned out at the IMA ( Institute of Marine Affairs ) consultation with the Cedros residents – several of them not from Cedros - could really speak for the thousands of people who live in the Cedros peninsula.

I wondered that myself several weeks ago and first thought it was a bad time and a bad day – Friday at 5.00 p.m. I'm sure that reason still holds since transport would be difficult for people who live beyond Chatham in places like Granville and Icacos. The two meetings ended after 9.00 p.m.

There was also not much time to mobilise people and organise transport since the press release of the meeting was rather sudden. But another reason is surely because the people of Cedros think the ALCOA project is a done deal. This is part of the battered psychology of rural populations: they simply accept what is given to them, at whatever time, in whatever proportion – especially water, roads, electricity and health-care.

Can we expect better from them when they see, in the midst of an IMA consultation, tons of brand new construction equipment in Point Fortin poised to begin construction somewhere soon?

One of the arguments for the smelter in Cedros is that in its construction phase it will employ as many as 2000 persons and this will augur well for the area.

This is true; since the demise of the coconut industry and a declining fishing industry, the people of Cedros, especially the young, are hungry for jobs. But construction will last only two years and ALCOA is noticeably silent on how many people the smelter will absorb on a long-term basis and what kind of technical know-how they ought to possess.

Will these people come from Cedros? Are plans being made to ensure that they do? The people of Cedros, like many in rural areas, have grown used to broken promises. We have not profited from Atlantic LNG and Petrotrin apart from employment. These companies have not invested any laudable sum of money in community development. My village of Fullerton does not even have a community centre.

Point Fortin should have a state of the art hospital facility; instead its capacity is sorely inadequate. Numerous workers feel that these companies ought to pay more attention to environmental standards and I personally think they should be mandated to undergo an environmental impact assessment done by some independent, non-governmental body. We cannot leave it up to CEOs to tell us that pollution levels are safe. Clifton Hill beach is ample evidence of that.

One of the shocking facts about an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is that it bears no relation to what is going to be constructed on the area being investigated.

Hence the EIA does not take into consideration aluminum smelting, nor the twelve downstream industries that are going to be constructed on an additional 1100 acres being sought by the NEC (National Energy Corporation).

In fact these downstream industries are so far unnamed. This is obviously a huge environmental time bomb. What is the nature of the wastes and what will they do to the nearby beaches which are sources of leisure and livelihood?

ALCOA has not given a sufficiently adequate answer as to what it will do with its spent pot-linings – the major waste product of aluminum smelting. Despite its noblest protestations, ALCOA has failed to convince us that the by-products of aluminum smelting will not harm us and our environment.

Andy Johnson commented that many people saw the Church as taking a prophetic role in the smelter issue. He asked how I felt about that. The Church is indeed taking a prophetic role in the smelter issue; in fact the other religions have been woefully silent.

The South American liberation theologians reminded the universal Church it must be the “voice of the voiceless”; Paolo Freire also spoke of “conscientisation” – making people conscious of pressing issues.

The Church has been adding its voice to those who have been speaking out for the voiceless, especially Dr Raphael Sebastien, Prof Julian Kenny and Fr Wilfred John, parish priest of Cedros. But the Church is more than its priests.

Perhaps Vatican II's most lasting legacy is its recovery of the biblical definition of the Church – “the people of God”. This means not only should priests be speaking out but Catholic engineers, doctors, natural scientists, economists, agriculturists, ecologists etc. should all be speaking out on this issue thereby broadening the framework of the discussion and pointing to viable solutions. This is not an optional extra but part of their mission.

Finally, I come to a grave ethical concern. The crux of it goes like this: “Development is the way ahead and we cannot stop globalisation. History shows that somebody must pay the price of development and it is invariably the poor and the powerless.

The harsh fact of life is that the smelter must go on and our environmental laws can do little to stop it. Look at the bigger picture; wealth for all must come at the expense of a few. That is life. Accept it!”

But I can't accept it because the Bible says I shouldn't. The crooked lines that form the teachings of the Old Testament put God on the side of the poor and the powerless. Jesus also made a “preferential option for the poor”.

When it comes to development, even if governments do not, the Church must make that option. It is not being anti-development. It is just saying that when it comes to development all must benefit and the rights of the poor must be upheld.

And not only that, but since creation was the first act of salvation, creation, in all its wondrous beauty, including the beauty of the environment must be defended and preserved.