Exploitation of Guyana’s Resources Post-Colonial scenarios

Exploitation of Guyana’s Resources
Post-Colonial scenarios
Guyana Journal, October 2007

Many years ago John Wesley said:

"Do all the good you can,
By all the means you can,
In all the ways you can,
In all the places you can,
At all the times you can,
To all the people you can,
As long as ever you can."

These words are so simple, yet very profound, and enduring for all time
and place! The question however is unresolved as regards the idea of
“good”. What is good? Good for whom? Whose good? And so on. Because of
this equivocation many the world over rationalize their action with
justification palatable to their own self interest. Thus the commitment
to the ideology of the “common good” seems rather perfunctory and
fleeting; we are less adherent to honesty and sincerity, and more
susceptible to cover-up as a convenience for expediency and
self-indulgence. The truth (and here again the issue of definition
arises) is now generally accessible but only to those who do not seek
protective sanctuary in denial.

This preamble fits any society in any part of the world.

Guyana is a small country, a society in ferment, eager to move on, but
it is still difficult to figure out to what end and for whose benefit.
And so debates continue in the public forum – the press – some
intelligent, some bitter, but all presumably with lofty intentions.

During the period of the PNC, the government placed many business
entities under state control. And after the passing of Forbes Burnham
massive privatization followed, this being initiated by Desmond Hoyte
having been spurred on by the IMF. (See Odeen Ishmael article). Many of
the privatized deals were plainly bad, i.e., not in the best interest
of the country and/or skewed against Guyanese investors.

In addition, the PNC government entered into contracts with companies
that many believed were detrimental to the nation – Barama and Omai
being the most notable. (Read more)

With respect to Barama, many questions are being asked regularly: Why
and how is it that the company is continually working at a loss? Why is
it that Barama pays approximately $1.2 million to Guyana in taxes, and
approximately $37 million to the Malaysian government? Why is it that
Amerindian employees are paid less than US$3 per day compared to US$40
per day for Malaysian employees? Why are there only foreign office
workers? How is it that Barama can sub-lease forestry land? How is it
that a logging company such as Barama gets sub-surface rights? And why
does Barama log on titled land of indigenous (Akawini) people? A
sweetheart deal – 40-year tax break and very little or no revenue to
the government! – why are local businesses not given a fairer break?
(Fishermen pay more than Barama and account for approximately 3% of the
economy.)

The Minister of Agriculture and the Commissioner of Forestry have
recently acknowledged “breaches”. But forestry has been fraught with
many diverse problems, many corrupt and inimical to the people and
country, and the environment. So far the repartees have been mainly
superficial (or so it seems), and only mild palliative measures have
been adopted to paper over deep cracks that are decades old. Why aren’t
the problems addressed comprehensively and thoroughly? Why would
government act against its own interest!

The PNC government made several bad deals – Demerara Woods Ltd.,
Guyana Timbers Ltd., National Paint Company Ltd., GRMMA complexes,
Guyana Telecommunication Corporation, Rainforest concessions
(Venezuelan Palmaven and South Korean-Malaysian Barama), to name a few,
which the PPP criticized then. What has gone wrong between then and
now? (A few years ago this government was attempting to make its own
big blunder with the Beal deal.)

If these deals were bad under the PNC, surely they (and others) are
bad now! Therefore, the government must act (and the people must know)
responsibly and fairly in major developments. Government alone must
never act on major issues. There must be oversight by the people or
their representatives. This brings to mind the proposed Berbice River
bridge. How many people have been dislocated from their properties, and
have they been compensated? If not, why not? And by how much? Also, in
recent oil explorations and negotiations Exxon appears to have received
a sizeable cut of the pie – a company that is alleged to have very poor
environmental record. In this vein, one may also ask who the investors
are in the proposed refinery to be built on Crab Island?

Currently Guyana reportedly is on the verge of another venture with
Brazilian investors from the State of Roraima where the investors would
be given 50,000 acres of land in the Rupununi and intermediate
savannahs for livestock farming. While investments are always welcome,
the public needs to know the details of the terms. Further, the public
needs to know if this proposal was discussed in any way, place or form
with Guyanese investors.

The current PPP government must not betray the people and the land,
but should stand tall and steadfast to the principle of good
governance. In recent months Janette Bulkan seems to be the lone
frontrunner fighting in the dark to expose and stem the tide of bad
logging practice, and to call for a sustainable and environmentally
friendly approach. Right on, Janette: “As long as ever you can.”
by Gary Girdhari