RE-Hanging Pfc Over Fish Meal Plant-Csrm Exposed

All Editors
Media Houses

RE-Hanging Pfc Over Fish Meal Plant-Csrm Exposed ...For Doing The Bidding Of Two Coys
We have taken notice of the above headed article authored by one Rex Danquah with many distortions and misinformation that may have been borne out of ignorance of what the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes stands for.

CSRM raised issues about two companies namely Global Haulage Ltd and Pioneer Food Cannery Ltd (PFC) to the media and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in which we believe that the regulator, the EPA was being complicit in the EIA processes of the two companies hence compromising the human dignity.

It is based on this advocacy that we believe the said Rex Danquah who claims to be the PR Consultant for PFC caused the publication of the above mentioned article in the Enquirer and other electronic media which were full of inaccurate attributions and malice.

Among the host of inaccurate attributions were the suggestions and indications that:
• CSRM was hanging PFC over its fish meal plant not on principle as an environmental advocate organisation but as a mole for other institutions
• The untrue suggestion that CSRM was doing the bidding of two companies namely Ghana Protein and Magydom
• CSRM has been exposed
The CSRM categorically rejects these pronouncements and malicious assertions since it just represent one of Mr. Danquah’s cheap PR work for his pay masters and the said pronouncements above will continue to be an illusion and a figment of his own imagination.

This press release constitutes a rejoinder to set the record straight.

Here are the facts as the CSRM saw them:

1. PFC commenced the construction of a facility for an Offal Recycling Plant or Fish Meal Plant within the company’s premises without first securing the necessary environmental permit from EPA.
2. CSRM enquired about the project and secured a copy of the EIA Technical Document for the project. CSRM reviewed the PFC’s EIA document and submitted the review comments in the form of a letter to EPA and other stakeholders including PFC.
3. Our review comments raised very salient and critical issues which borders on major infractions of the environment, the safety of workers, neighbours, and the security of other property within the catchment area.
4. When EPA’s attention was also drawn to the fact that PFC is busily constructing without permit, but EPA showed that they have been complicit and decided to look elsewhere.
5. However, the concerns raised in our letter made EPA flouted their own process by hurriedly arranging for a so-called stakeholders meeting on the project which CSRM did not attend because officials at EPA wanted to use such a forum to cover up for PFC.
6. CSRM through its Lawyers wrote to EPA to show evidence of the permits to PFC and other companies who we believe were flouting the environmental laws of Ghana.
7. CSRM organised three press conferences to highlight the issue of illegalities being perpetuated by the companies involved (PFC and Global Haulage) but EPA continuously failed to act as required by law.
8. EPA also failed to respond to our letters and CSRM sent the matter to court by suing PFC, EPA, TMA and Global Haulage. The case is still pending at the law courts.

9. In an attempt to influence me, the company Mr. Rex Danquah is representing sent one Nicholas Mensah, who arranged through a good friend of mine to meet with me at a popular Hotel in Tema where he introduced himself as representing the interest of PFC on the issues CSRM has raised. He claimed he was assigned to meet with me after a management meeting to negotiate how to get us (CSRM) to drop the issues and he assured me PFC was willing to do anything we wanted if CSRM will halt the advocacy. I told him politely we were going to get back to them, but never did and never answered any of his calls again.

10. Both Ghana National Fire Service and Factory inspectorate raised concerns about the project

11. On the issues raised in the release from Mr. Rex Danquah, he only tried to simplify the EIA processes to mean just natural environment, but woefully failed to explain that the EIA document had various aspects other than the environment. For his information, the EIA process in Ghana looks at the environmental and socio-economic impacts of any business to be set up in the country and this most often informs the permitting conditions. The only basis from PFCs EIA, which is the only document we reviewed, and the only reason PFC gave for the decision to build the fish offal recycling plant, is that the fish meal market is now stable and profitable and that they are not making enough profit from their fish waste by selling 70% and 30% to Ghana Protein and Magydon respectively as indicated at pages 9 and 25 of the report. In this EIA document, PFC has clearly spelt out in page 54 the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the project. CSRM wishes to refer Mr. Rex Danquah to pages 3 and 28 of a similar EIA submitted by PFC in January 2005 for the same project which was rejected by EPA and read for his information what PFC did state as the environmental and socio-economic impacts or benefits of the project.

In reviewing the PFC`s current EIA document, We at CSRM interrogated the above statement by looking at the socio-economic impact of the project proposed by PFC and its effect on the two companies PFC have mentioned in the document namely Ghana Protein and Magydom who they (PFC) claimed have been buying their waste. This is the least fair comments expected of any reasonable independent minded person, organisation or regulatory institution worth its sort must make about the proposed project by PFC and CSRM`s comment was to emphasise the most important question of what would happen to the employess, investment and infrastructure that has already been developed for these businesses (to process PFC’s fish waste) after PFC had cut them off the supply of the fish waste to feed their (PFC) own plant.

Should this fair review comment on the EIA of PFC make CSRM do the bidding of these two companies? The answer is a big No! No! No!. Interestingly, it has finally emerged that just one of the two companies mentioned in the PFC’s EIA document Ghana Protein has invested more than twice the value of the proposed PFC project and can employ more than six times the number of people the PFC project proposed to employ. This portrays PFC as a bad corporate citizen in the eyes of CSRM and we will continue to drum this to the attention of government and the regulators. However, the malicious attribution by Mr. Rex Danquah to the effect that CSRM and my person had no locus on the matter but just doing the bidding of someone else clearly shows his limited understanding of the EIA process or just doing a propaganda job for his pay master.

Surprisingly, Mr. Rex Danquah failed to tell the whole world that the workers of PFC has complained about the safety of the project and the Ghana National Fire Service has issued adverse finding on the location of the project as per their report with cover letter reference NFS/TR.13VOL.XV/96 dated 26th October 2011 which states in paragraph 3 “Items 11-13 namely space, accessibility and storage area will adversely affect our fire fighting and rescue operations”. No serious country that values the life of its citizenry will go ahead to grant EPA and fire permit to a company that is setting up a facility that will be a death trap to its workers and neighbours emphasis ours.

To conclude, I will quote the US President, Barrack Obama on the Keystone XL project which was to transported tar sands oil an exceptionally dirty kind of oil known as diluted bitumen 1,700 miles from Canada's boreal forest to American refineries in Texas when he shared his concerns about the pipeline with a Nebraska television station a couple of months ago:
"We need to make sure that we have energy security and that we aren't just relying on Middle East sources. But there's a way of doing that and making sure that the health and safety of the American people and folks in Nebraska are protected." Simply put, the Keystone XL project will not protect the folks in Nebraska, the American people, or their environment. As we write this rejoinder, the said Keystone XL project has been refused permit by the American Environmental Protection Agency.
CSRM in conformity to its mission to seek responsible corporate citizenship, which is not limited only to environment but also to worker health and safety, as well as socio-economic responsibility decided to pursue all the issues raised in the EIA including impact on downstream companies, which we found to be Ghana Protein and Magydon.

We are in court with Tema Oil Refinery for spillages into the Chemu Lagoon and we will continue to pursue any entity including but not limited to PFC for deliberately undertaken a cause of action to derail the resuscitation of the Chemu but discharging its untreated waste directly into it.
We at CSRM will continue to pursue the case with PFC in court and we will not be distracted by any of Mr Rex Danquah’s cheap and malicious PR work with the view that justice will be served and all those flouting the country’s environmental laws with impunity and active connivance of Officials of such regulatory institutions will be sanctioned.

Thank you for the space.

Signed:
Richster Nii Amarh Amarfio
(Executive Secretary 0204292163)