The PDA, The IEE & the Measure of True Development
By Christelene Henry
The cover page for the Initial Environmental Statement’ prepared by Rayneau Construction & Industrial equipment Ltd.
The document cover above bears the title ‘Initial Environmental Statement’ while its filename goes by “Initial Environmental Evaluation” (IEE). An IEE, by definition, is a lighter, faster version of a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - a screening tool reserved for projects with limited or predictable environmental effects. Whether IES or IEE, for the Planning and Development Authority (PDA) to treat this as an EIA - as it has indicated - would not only distort its intent but reveal that the Authority has not read the report, which all but screams: if you must proceed, do so with caution. The Rayneau project at Woodford, in St John is not a low-impact, routine development awaiting a simple tick of approval. What JECO Caribbean documents is a sprawling, high-intensity industrial complex - an interlocked system of quarry, asphalt and concrete batching plants, jetty - and believe it or not – hotel and restaurant. This is no wish list. There has been massive clearing of land, cutting of roads, and altering of drainage patterns which now put us at risk – all without approval. In short, the document that PDA seems prepared to treat as an EIA reads more like an evidence log of harm already done.
20 acres cleared; habitat loss and other damage.
According to the report, twenty plus acres were cleared without master plan or oversight, causing serious, preventable damage. The issues, which must now be addressed after the fact, include:
Habitat Destruction: Crucial habitats for wildlife and birds were impacted, including the adjacent sanctuary of the endangered Grenada Dove.
Unauthorized Road Construction: Roads were cut without approved plans for moving earth or storing materials.
Environmental Hazards: In extreme weather, loose soil can runoff into the western main road leading to traffic hazards or make its way to the Douce River and become a threat to marine life.
Loose soil runoff can be of particular harm to the rare Pterocarpus. This tree is only found in the Beausejour and Perseverance estuaries (outside of Woodford), growing alongside a mix of red, black, and white mangrove trees.
To combat the situation, the consultant calls for protection of the Pterocarpus forest (already decimated by the developer’s tractors) buffer zones along the river to prevent erosion and road redesign to prevent stormwater from running directly into the western main road, river, and sea (sec. 5.1).
Human and Environmental Risks
Beyond habitat loss and unstable soil, the consultant identified several human and environmental risks. These include (1) air pollution from cement and asphalt operations (2) noise and vibration from quarry blasting (3) and potential structural damage to houses on the mountain ridge. The proposed jetty is also a point of concern in terms of buildable shorefront. It is indeed small and the consultant cautions against competition for seashore’ use noting that locals, fisherfolk and yachters who come for safe deep-water anchorage - all use the bay. It is worth mentioning that 16 persons, connected to two seine fishing operations, use this location as their home-port. The report goes even further, linking projected industrial emissions to the Perseverance landfill, warning of cumulative exposure to smoke, odours, and particulates. The consultant writes: “Removal of the mountain ridge through quarrying will alter the microclimate and ecology of the valley, causing mixing with air in the Perseverance area and exposing it to upper-level air currents.” (sec. 3.1).
Relocation Recommendation
Perhaps the most telling - and politically inconvenient - finding is the consultant’s call for relocation. She advises that “consideration be given to moving the plants away from the periphery of residential areas,” citing proximity to homes and the cumulative hazards of noise, dust, and vibration. When a consultant hired by the developer itself recommends relocation, that is not a green light - it is a stop sign. However, it should be pointed out that the consultant is recommending re locating the project across the Douce River - roughly 500 feet from the current location. The new location - marginally further away from “residential areas” is closer to the “Perseverance dump” and it should be noted that the consultant is still insisting that the “Perseverance dump and quarry operations will exert negative influence on the area”. Since we cannot eat our cake and have it, it is hard to see how JECO can have it both ways. Being 500 feet from its current location - makes this industrial complex - no less hazardous. At this point, we get the impression that the relocation recommendation is purely procedural and lacks practical merit. Here, the true weight of the evidence lies in the damaged landscape, the clear risk from unstable slopes, and the unacceptable burden placed on a community faced with an unapproved industrial hazard.
The PDA’s Problem
The question then is what is there for PDA to approve? The document lists missing baselines, incomplete designs, and physical damage. Approving on that basis would not only bless illegality; it would turn enforcement into endorsement. Even the consultant herself does not call this report an EIA. The cover labels it an “Initial Environmental Statement”; inside, “initial environmental evaluation” appears only once, and the acronym “IEE” never appears at all. Nowhere does she frame it as a statutory EIA. Instead, she lists what still must happen: community consultation under Section 12, geological and marine studies, long-term air and noise monitoring, and proper engineering designs for the jetty. By her own framing, this is an interim screening of a moving target - not a lawful substitute for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The next question is not what the consultant said, but how the PDA has chosen to read her – or not read at all - because this document is not asking for approval.
By the same token, a note to JECO
If this site has already revealed its fragility, then why insist on forcing it into an industrial mold? JECO, the evidence you have assembled could serve a higher purpose: to help this valley heal. The same twenty acres stripped by machines could be restored as living habitat - a sanctuary for the species that once thrived here - more than that a safe learning space for children to play and study - among the riparian forest and the nesting turtles and snapper and schools of jacks and the old sugar mill and the Digue…science and history will come alive. Around the world, development is being redefined. The United Nations now measures progress not only by GDP but by wellbeing, environmental integrity, and community health - the foundations of its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Grenada’s own National Sustainable Development Plan 2020–2035 calls for a balance between economic activity, environmental protection, and quality of life. A restored Woodford would fit that vision: a place that measures success not in concrete poured, but in peace, safety, and renewal - where the land itself becomes part of the national wellbeing account.
Together, we can make Woodford into a national park.