The many errors in the Norway-Guyana MoU

May 28, 2017 Letters

Dear Editor,
Given that the Norway-Guyana MoU was for 2009-2015, a historical look backwards at a few of the many errors in that MoU and associated Joint Concept note is perhaps less useful and informative for KN readers than an article or several articles on ‘What can we learn from the performance under that MoU for future deals relevant to the Green Economy or Green State of Guyana?’ If dealing with Norway was difficult, dealing with Exxon Mobil is many times worse.
1. Transparency – this kind of bilateral deal is just as much a foreign direct investment (FDI) arrangement as one with Hauwei or Ansa McAL or Barama or Bai Shan Lin. All the FDI documents should be in the public domain, not just some of them.
2. Objectives – the objectives of each partner should be clearly stated, and accompanied by objectively verifiable progress indicators which relate directly and logically to the objectives. Objectives should be based on agreed desired outcomes, not specified as a series of activities.
3 Technical reports to be accompanied by plain-language summaries – it is not helpful if technical reports of hundreds of pages are not accompanied by plain-language summaries so that civil society in Guyana can understand what is and what is not happening and why. The Democratic Centralist control of information belongs in a past era.
4. Performance audits – auditors should have terms of reference which are exactly linked to the stated objectives (not to a sub-set), auditors should have full access to all documents and datasets, all locations and all personnel.
5. Audit reports in the public domain – audits reports should be published without redaction. It is important that criticised agencies have a similar right of public reply.
6. Performance indicators – if either or both partners wishes to change a performance indicator, the reasons should be in full in the public domain.
7. Penalty clauses – the reasons for penalty clauses, the trigger events or facts, the process for penalty levies and the penalties paid should be fully in the public domain.
8. Risk management should be explained to civil society in ‘kitchen terms’, not the complicated language of insurance.
All these 8 points were poorly addressed and managed in the Norway-Guyana MoU and JCNs. Compared with other countries, Guyana is desperately low in capacity to deal with Baramas and Bai Shan Lins, let alone industrial behemoths of the Exxon type, and urgently needs to figure out what it can control itself and where and how it can find impartial advice. Dr. Janette Bulkan requests that you do not use the draft which you attached to your message; it would need considerable revision for publication.
John Palmer
Senior Associate,
Forest Management Trust,
Montana

Latest News

The many errors in the Norway-Guyana MoU

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Team Guyana ready to take on Haiti and Cayman Islands FIBA 3×3...

Timehri Hustlers dispatch Tiger Bay as Gold is...

Windies Masters announce squad for Americas Cup

Stormy Victory, Morning Colors stepping up for...

Region 7 Edition of CNOOC Petroleum Guyana...

Vergenoegen Secondary sweeps Region Three...

Features/Columnists

Raises and Recognition

High-Stakes Bid for OAS Secretary General post

Laws and boards

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

The many errors in the Norway-Guyana MoU

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]