EPA will not apologise for building capacity — Guyana is moving forward, not backwards

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes with considerable amusement the latest attempt to manufacture controversy over its investment in training and human resource development, as reported in sections of the media.

See full statement below: 

It is frankly laughable that investing in the very capacity necessary to effectively regulate Guyana’s rapidly expanding economy is now being portrayed as something scandalous

For years, some of these same detractors have repeatedly claimed that the EPA lacks the capacity to regulate the oil and gas sector, often relying on outdated assessments and perceptions dating back to 2018. Now, when the Agency invests in strengthening its technical expertise and human resources, that too becomes a problem.

So, what exactly do these critics want?

An EPA that remains stagnant, under-resourced and dependent on yesterday’s knowledge? An EPA that cannot competently assess complex developments? Or an EPA that simply prevents development because it lacks the expertise to properly regulate it?

One cannot credibly demand stronger regulatory capacity while simultaneously condemning the investments necessary to build it.

And the facts speak for themselves.

In 2025, 144 EPA employees participated in 77 distinct training programmes, representing 418 training participations. These included training in environmental legislation, compliance inspections, environmental risk assessment, oil spill response, emergency planning, incident command, radiological environmental impact assessment and public procurement.

These are not frivolous activities. They are competencies directly relevant to the Agency’s responsibility to assess environmental impacts, manage risks, enforce compliance and respond to environmental emergencies.

The reported expenditure of approximately $13.8 million must therefore be considered in that context. Where is the evidence that this investment was unnecessary or wasteful? Where is the analysis of the competencies developed or the regulatory needs addressed?

An increase in training expenditure is not evidence of waste, and a sensational headline is not a credible assessment of institutional performance.

Perhaps more concerning is that some detractors appear to believe the EPA should be in the business of stopping development altogether. Once again, they are missing the bigger picture and the vision for Guyana’s future.

Guyana needs to develop. Our people deserve economic opportunities, improved infrastructure, better services and a higher standard of living.

The EPA’s mandate is not to indiscriminately prevent development. It is to ensure that development is properly assessed, that significant environmental impacts and risks are identified and appropriately managed, and that projects proceed with the necessary environmental safeguards. Where risks are unacceptable or cannot be adequately managed, the Agency must exercise its regulatory authority accordingly.

Environmental regulation is not about automatically saying yes or no to development. It is about making sound, science-based decisions that protect the environment while enabling responsible development.

And that is precisely what our investment in capacity is helping us to achieve.

The world has moved on. We are living in an era of artificial intelligence, satellite-based environmental monitoring, advanced technologies and increasingly complex industrial development. Environmental regulators must continuously learn, adapt and innovate to remain effective.

How is institutional resilience built? Certainly not by standing still. It is built through continuous learning, investment, innovation and improvement.

Yet some critics seem determined to keep the EPA frozen in 2018, as though Guyana’s economy, technology and regulatory institutions have remained unchanged.

An assessment from eight years ago cannot be treated as a permanent verdict on an institution’s capabilities. Capacity is not static, and neither is development.

There is a lesson here from innovators such as Elon Musk, whose achievements demonstrate the value of challenging conventional thinking, investing in expertise and refusing to remain constrained by yesterday’s limitations.

Unfortunately, some commentators appear more comfortable with the thinking of the last century than the realities of this one. Like dinosaurs, they risk becoming relics of an era the world has already moved beyond.

The EPA has no intention of joining them. We do not claim perfection. We recognise that strengthening regulatory capacity is a continuous process, and we remain committed to investing in our people, technology, scientific expertise and institutional systems.

Criticism is welcome when grounded in facts, evidence and a genuine understanding of environmental governance. But repeatedly questioning the Agency’s capacity while attacking its efforts to strengthen that very capacity is contradictory and intellectually unconvincing.

The EPA is not investing in capacity to prevent Guyana’s development. We are investing to ensure that development is properly assessed, responsibly managed, and subject to effective environmental safeguards.

Those who want to remain trapped in the thinking of 2018 are free to do so. The EPA has no intention of joining them.

Guyana is moving forward, and its environmental regulator must move forward with it. The real scandal would not be an EPA investing in its capacity. It would be an EPA that failed to do so.