…agency hamstrung by limited staff, poor wages

By Ariana Gordon

THE Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has, over the last four years of the former administration, been starved of adequate financing to carry out its mandate. That aside, the agency was understaffed, and its workers were underpaid. Thus there are many limitations facing the agency.The Ministry of Finance had tasked former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran to conduct an audit into the affairs of the Environmental Protection Agency. In his report, Goolsarran said that for the years 2012 to 2014, the EPA had received on average only 61 per cent of funds requested from the Government for operating expenses. Fifty-two per cent of the requested amount had been received in 2012; fifty-seven per cent in 2013, and 77 per cent of revenue requested was provided in 2014.

“In a brief to the subject minister dated 8 June 2015, the Agency reported that with only monthly subventions to cover salaries for staff and some essential services, it had to significantly limit its field and operational activities”, Goolsarran reported.

Additionally, the Goolsarran report said the EPA did not have a “dedicated regional presence” where its services are much needed. Arrangements are now in train for the EPA to have a more decentralized operation next year, with a presence recorded in Regions 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

It was also noted that some site visits required for the processing of applications for environmental permits have been delayed because of insufficient funds.

The EPA, needing some 262 officers to fulfill its mandate, has a staff structure of only 97 workers. “The actual staffing of the Environmental Management and Permitting Division (EMPD) and the Environmental Management and Compliance Division (EMCD) (were) 23 and 27 respectively, compared with Management’s assessment of the desired level of staffing of 41 and 90 respectively. These two divisions are the backbone of the Agency; and combined, they were operating with staff strength of approximately 38% of the desired level.

“This, coupled with high staff turnover due to the low levels of salaries offered, would have had an exacerbating effect on the operations of not only these two divisions, but also for the organization as a whole,” the report stated.

The salaries provided to officers of the EPA were described as unattractive, and a reason why it is increasingly difficult to attract qualified persons. The emoluments received by workers of the EPA have been likened to those of the traditional public service workers.

“For example, the position of legal officer attracted a salary of $262,107 per month; and the Finance Officer, a professionally qualified accountant, earned $226,362 per month,” the report added.

The EPA is a semi-autonomous body and is governed by its own legislation and a board, but it was found that there was the “over-involvement in decision-making by the then Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment, as well as the Public Service Ministry, especially in the area of recruitment. In effect, the Agency was treated as a Department of the subject Ministry.”

Given the nature of their jobs, environmental officers who were required to do field work were not the beneficiaries of duty-free concessions to assist them in acquiring their own vehicles. This, coupled with the limited number of vehicles at the EPA that would be used for field trips, made the execution of tasks difficult.
With no pension plan, workers were recruited on a contractual basis at public service salary scales.

EPA workers nevertheless benefited from a six-month gratuity. “However, the latter could hardly be a substitute for a dedicated pension plan, whether contributory or non-contributory. Such a plan is likely to provide for a more settled organization in terms of staff recruitment and retention,” the report stated.

PHYSICAL WORKING CONDITIONS

It was observed that the physical space used for the EPA office was not sufficient, and was “unsuited” for the agency’s operations. The building in Sophia had no laboratory facilities for the testing of samples. It was noted that, in its capital expenditure programme for 2015, the EPA had requested $200M to construct a new ‘green’ building. The amount was not provided, as the Government’s estimates of revenue and expenditure was not presented before the National Assembly as at May 31 that year.

“Management commented that, in the 2016 budget, an amount of $40 million has been allocated to commence construction work on a new building”, the Goolsarran report detailed.

PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING OF THE EPA

US$240,000 had been provided in early 2015 as funding from the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) to facilitate the organisational changes of the EPA. “Under the direction (of) the then Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment, the Agency tendered for ‘Consultancy Services for the Re-orientation of the Environmental Protection Agency’, to address the organizational changes needed to strengthen and improve efficiency.”

The US$240,000 was transferred from GGMC by virtue of a cabinet decision dated September 9, 2014. The money was placed in the Agency’s US account at a commercial bank. However, no bids were received for the project after two attempts.

“The EPA received an additional amount of $600 million from the GGMC, consequent upon Cabinet decision of 15 January 2015. Of this amount, $500 million was to be transferred to the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA) to execute works in Regions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 as part of the “Pick It Up” campaign. However, no transfers were made to the NDIA, as a Memorandum of Understanding for the execution of the works had not been finalised.

As at 31 May, 2015, the balance on this account was $515.718 M.”

The report made it clear that the transfer of funds by GGMC to other government agencies to incur expenditure is outside of its ambit, especially if the expenditure is unrelated to GGMC’s activities.

“This practice not only undermines the role of Parliament in approving public expenditure, as provided for under Article 217 of the Constitution, but also Section 16 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability (FMA) Act 2003. If the GGMC has funds that are surplus to its requirements, it would be entirely appropriate for transfers to be made to the Consolidated Fund, to allow for the Legislature to reallocate funds to other areas of Government operations that are in need of them,” the report added.

Additionally, Goolsarran said the transfers were not part of the national estimates, and as such the expenditure would not be seen in the country’s public accounts, thereby contributing to under-reporting of public expenditure.

Having determined that Cabinet, at the time, acted “improperly in approving these two transfers” and its actions violated both the Constitution and the FMA Act, the EPA Board considered and accepted the recommendation to have the two amounts transferred to the Consolidated Fund.

“At the time of reporting, the agency was awaiting concurrence from the subject minister before proceeding further. In a missive to the minister, the EPA proposed the establishment of a Technical Services Division to rationalise the existing workload of the EMPD and the EMCD, as well as other units dedicated to the implementation of the regulations on air quality, and oil and gas, among others.