CHIEF executive officer of National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) Leonard Francis, in maintaining that the entity is serious about stamping out breaches in the natural and built environment, says it will go as far as rewarding tipsters.

Speaking during a press conference held at NEPA’s Caledonia Avenue offices in St Andrew last week, Francis said NEPA was “prepared to do everything”.

That commitment came during the post-mortem of the entity’s handling of investigations into supposed environmental breaches by Wisynco Group Limited in 2023 including a broken pipeline from which effluent was discharged into the Rio Cobre in St Catherine. The matter, which was being heard in the St Catherine Parish Court, collapsed after the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), in taking over the case in 2025, said it could offer no further evidence.

Francis, in making an appeal to citizens to help NEPA by reporting breaches, said: “[At] the end of the day we cannot do it alone, we really need the citizens to help us. We are also planning on widening the environmental warden programme in that we want to train citizens, we want to make them an official part of the enforcement and monitoring and enforcement arm of the agency. The only issue we have been having now, which we are trying to sort out, is that some persons have said that they want financial compensation, so it is something we are trying to work on…

“We want the help of the citizens, you are important stakeholders in helping us to manage the natural and built environment. All you have to do is record what is happening, be prepared to give witness statements, call us; if you want my personal number I don’t have an issue with that,” the NEPA CEO stated.

According to Francis, while some individuals “have said they are willing to do it”, they have requested phone cards and certain kinds of access in exchange for their assistance.

“We are trying to get that sorted out, but no matter what, we are prepared to issue IDs, we are prepared to train, we are prepared to do everything,” he said.

In the meantime, the agency’s head said NEPA has begun a partnership with the policy to train most of its enforcement, monitoring and compliance officers up to the level of district constables.

He said the entity was also again examining the possibilities for the establishment of an environmental court.

“So it is not as if we are not responsive, it is not as if we are not trying, but we understand that we need to do more,” he said adding that NEPA has been in discussions with Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) and the Town and Country Planning Authority to get more funding to carry out these activities.

“The reality is, we want to move ahead and we realise that technology and enlisting the support of all stakeholders in the process is now urgent and paramount given especially the climate change imperative facing us,” Francis told the briefing.

The NEPA CEO, in the meantime, said the agency will be making a raft of other changes to ensure that a similar situation does not arise in the future.

“Going forward, what we have put on the table is, we are proposing for similar facilities that we need to do more hands-on research and more hands-on investigations within the companies themselves. We are saying, probably within a three-month span we need to test from within the facilities themselves — and not only effluent that goes through their sewage treatment plants. We are also proposing that we could have discussions with the stakeholders and the regulators in looking at the possibilities of administrative penalties once there are any substances being put in any river from whatever breakages or pipelines,” Francis said.

“As you all know, the Wild Life Protection Act and the NRCA Act have been amended to actually increase the penalties for any breaches as well, which is very useful. We are also putting on the table that for all investigations, that the ODPP, in addition to being fully immersed with them, every step of the way our team and the ODPP’s team will work together, reviewing the files to ensure that the incidents that have happened will never happen in the future,” he added.

“I must say that we are a learning entity, we apologise for any misconceptions that may have happened out there, but we thought it very important to put the facts on the table,” the NEPA boss stated.

The island’s lead prosecutor Paula Llewellyn, King’s Counsel, in reviewing the case file, which included the notes of evidence from an officer from NEPA who was the sole individual to give evidence in the matter in 2024 before her office took over in 2025, last week said in a statement to the media that, “the evidence given by the said officer in court was quite instructive and critical in our assessment of the material, which shaped our stance in offering no further evidence”.

The ODPP then shared, verbatim, what it said were the relevant aspects of the evidence given by the officer, who holds a degree in marine biology and has also done a course in fresh water biology and pollution biology.

According to Llewellyn, during cross-examination, “the officer gave critical evidence that, when reviewed by the ODPP along with the other material on file, saw us being obliged to offer no further evidence against Wisynco as we would not be able to mount a viable prosecution in the matter”.

Last week NEPA, while stating that it would abide by the decision, doggedly insisted that it “did the right thing in laying the charges” against the company.

In a direct response to the ODPP’s declaration that the evidentiary threshold was not met by the investigations NEPA conducted, Francis stated, “We are confident that given the situation and given international best practices and case law, we did do what was necessary. If you think about it — the case itself and how it evolved — the reality is that we did see a broken pipe. We did see fluid from the pipe going into the river and Section 11 of the Wild Life Protection Act says as long as there is a polluting substance going into the river the charges can be laid.

“…The reality could be that if they were not manufacturing at that time, they could have been washing out the plant and it would have been something else, but that is for a case in court, and it is for further discussions. We were confident, based on what we saw and the other senses, that it was indeed trade effluent,” he said further.

FRANCIS… we want the help of the citizens.

LLEWELLYN… we would not be able to mount a viable prosecution in the matter