The origin of the barge that caused the oil spill off the coast of Tobago might be a mystery and its origin inconsequential. But the damage it has done is real and the costs, economic, environmental and social are yet unknown. What mattered then and now is to deal with the crisis arising from the oil spill in a manner that minimises the damage and allows the country to recover in the quickest possible time.
Addressing the crisis in a forthright manner was the best way to deal with any public relations fallout. To do this would have required some upfront planning and a programmed response.
Instead, the nation was confronted with rhetoric, mixed messages and conflicting signals. TEMA said that the situation was under control when the evidence suggested that the immediate evaluation was deficient and the responses inadequate. From the start, a pathetic divide between Trinidad and Tobago was on display. An immediate response was required in which the national interest was paramount. What happens in Tobago matters to T&T. In a crisis, personal and political interests are subservient to getting the job done. In this context egos are irrelevant. The priority was to stop the leak and if that were not possible to minimise the damage that could follow.
Our experience in oil is over a hundred years long. Oil spills are not new to T&T. The fourth largest oil spill in the world, the Atlantic Empress oil spill in 1979, took place in T&T waters but caused no direct environmental damage.
Thankfully, the oil spill in Tobago has caused no human loss to date. There is a repository of knowledge, a skills base that can be immediately deployed where an oil spill or some disaster of that nature arises. This is contained in the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan with set response levels according to the degree of severity.
The plan devolves responsibility to interested parties and identifies responders. A written plan is good. As disasters are not everyday occurrences, what is even more important are the practice drills to improve response and mobilisation times. The Prime Minister’s statement in Parliament on the oil spill suggests that there were marked deficiencies in the response times as well as inter-agency rivalry. The management mistakes, the lack of a central focus and a timely response are reminiscent of the mistakes identified in the Paria Commission of Inquiry. Rather than working together to solve the issues and to ensure that all the available resources were deployed under one leadership structure, the response was uncoordinated and suffered from a lack of cohesion similar to the response to the crime situation.
The relationship between Trinidad and Tobago has been difficult and fraught with mistrust. How the leaders handle the communication process can have far-reaching consequences. The tug of war between the THA Secretary and the Prime Minister, both Tobagonians, clearly has deeper ramifications than just simply a political one. Responding to a crisis requires clear, open communication and a willingness to work to achieve a successful outcome goal rather than the distraction of a fight to show who is the boss. Carnival is over and the time for the robber talk is past.