Open Letter to the World Bank, the IDB and the CDB

Oct 01, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Dear International Financial Institutions,

Kaieteur News – Your support for Guyana’s development is contingent on greater transparency and inclusion in management of the economy. This much can be gleaned from your country strategies.
Your support also presumes, I believe, that the old ways of doing things are over. But what really has changed in Guyana?
True, we have a new government which replaced one which attempted to install itself illegally through fraud. But what else has changed?
The same old suspects are dominating economic decision-making. There is no space for widespread public consultations on the direction of the economy. There has been a lot of talk about inclusion but the evidence is flimsy.
Controversial projects are being revived. And these decisions are fraught with danger. For example, the decision to pursue the gas-to-shore project is being made without a feasibility study specific to the landing of the pipeline at Wales.
No specific or updated feasibility study has been done yet investors are being invited to submit proposals for the revival of the Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project. This is happening despite the fact that an objective review of this project done by a Norwegian firm had expressed concerns over the hydrological data.
The same old ways of doing things are also being witnessed in relation to other project proposals. The government has announced plans to create three new drainage canals in three regions but is yet to indicate what technical studies were done to justify this proposal. The proposal is all the more suspect when one considers that engineers have long identified the over-topping of main rivers and basins as the main contributor to coastal flooding.
Even if you, the World Bank, the IDB and the CDB, are not involved in any of these controversial projects, the size and scale of these projects will have a great impact on the country’s economy and therefore cannot be ignored by you.
As such, it is in your interest to examine closely the potential impact of these controversial projects on the country’s economic future. Otherwise, you may be pumping resources into an economy which may collapse because of the burdens associated with those controversial projects.
The socio-economic impact of your own projects can be put in jeopardy. If the economy runs into problems as a result of these major projects, it can sink the outcomes which you are seeking from your own projects.
Transparency is far from satisfactory. The IDB in its Country Strategy for Guyana had noted that the quality of public transparency and accountability have not improved much in recent years. So why sink further funds into a country in which there is a greater need for improvement in this area.
Supporting fiscal transparency is not enough. The public is entitled to know the details of the major infrastructural projects which are being undertaken by the government. But this has not been satisfactorily forthcoming and it is necessary that there be public support for these major projects before they are undertaken. Otherwise, the entire economy can be put at risk and your own projects jeopardised. It should be recalled that the developer for the hydroelectric project walked because of concerns over support from the then Opposition.
The CDB’s Country Strategy for Guyana is based on three strategic pillars. One of these pillars is supporting social and economic development. However, the CDB has a distorted notion of what constitutes inclusive economic growth.
Inclusive growth cannot only be about outcomes but must also be about inclusion in processes, including in decision-making processes. If there is insufficient transparency or meaningful consultations on major economic and social decisions, then how can any resulting growth be said to be inclusive?
If projects end up being designed to benefit friends and cronies, how can this be said to be inclusive? If concessions are granted to businesses in order to reduce the cost of living but despite the concessions granted, prices have not declined to their previous levels, then how can such measures be deemed inclusive?
You, the World Bank, the IDB and the CDB, must demand to know the financial models which will be used for the proposed hydroelectric project and the gas-to-shore project. The debacle which surrounded and still surrounds the controversial financial models for the Marriott Hotel and the Berbice River Bridge, must not reoccur.
There should be public disclosure of the details of these projects, including any guaranteed rate of return for investors.
The PPP/C has returned to its old ways. The same old faces, the same manner of developing projects and the same concerns over transparency are once again erupting.
This is not a scenario in which you, IDB, the World Bank and the CDB, should be happy about. It is time you take a stand, if only to protect the projects which they are financing in Guyana. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)