Govt. must consider how pipeline will cut farmers’ income when valuing lands along route – Patterson

Oct 03, 2022 News

---

Kaieteur News – As farmers complain about being handed an inconsiderate proposal from government to take over a fraction of their land to facilitate a natural gas pipeline that will run from Nouvelle Flanders to Wales on the West Bank of Demerara, Shadow Oil and Gas Minister, David Patterson is arguing that the government’s valuation approach is incorrect as it did not factor in the losses farmers would face from not being able to use their lands.

Patterson in a recent interview with this publication said the PPP had craftily approached the National Assembly to make changes to the legislation which would allow them to take over lands, whether the property owner agreed or not.

He explained, “They passed a law for the gas to shore deal which they preempted that people would be objecting so they passed a law saying that the Minister has the right to give permission for the pipeline- even if you want to sell or not- and that’s why I questioned it in Parliament and during the debates and they said that everybody would be compensated that was the very first thing.”

Now that the changes have been made to the legislation, Patterson pointed out, “the rice farmers will be in a little bit of a bind because they object and when they do, because obviously it will affect their livelihood, the Minister can simply say that the valuation division said your property is valued ‘x’ amount but he will sign a license to give Exxon permission to go through your land whether you agree or not.”

The former Minister of Public Infrastructure went on to explain that the local valuation division is not even equipped to properly perform its functions. According to him, there is a specific technique called ‘Income Approach’ that is used to value agricultural lands. This means that the land value will not only be calculated using the normal parameters but would consider the income being derived from the property of which farmers will be denied.

Patterson said, “I know for sure, they don’t even know to do that. So they are just looking at if a man wants to buy an acre of land I think it is worth this and this but they are supposed to be using the income approach which basically says if a man has an acre of land and he gets 33 sacks of paddy every three years and this is the income, therefore over a period of time when the land is still farmable- say the next 20 or 50 years- this is the income I am depriving him of. So it’s not only the value of the land.”

On the other hand, the former Minister said he also took note of procedural infractions made by the government as reported in the press.  “I am hearing that they conducted the surveys without the presence of some of the farmers, when by law, if you are going to conduct a survey through somebody’s land, you are supposed to give them seven days notice so I find it strange that the farmers are now complaining that the surveys were conducted through their land without them being notified that this is being done,” he noted.

On September 23, last, a government team led by Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Anil Nandlall, S.C met with landowners who will be affected by the pipeline being constructed by ExxonMobil for the Government of Guyana’s ambitious Gas-to-Energy (GTE) project- aimed at slashing electricity costs in half.

About 25 landowners, specifically between Nouvelle Flanders and Canal Number One, were handed a proposal letter from the government for the section of land required for the gas pipeline. Each individual received a different offer, based on the amount of land that will be needed for the pipeline.

This newspaper spoke to a number of persons that will be affected who complained they are not satisfied with the offer made by government for their lands. One farmer for example explained that the offer made did not take into consideration the earnings made from the property that would be affected.

The farmer told Kaieteur News, “I don’t think the valuation considers the earnings that we get from the land by planting rice. They just gave a flat value of that but they don’t consider that every month we earn on this land so they should consider how it would affect us when they take it away from us.”

A landowner in Canal Number One then explained that even though government will only require part of his land, his farming activity will be completely disrupted hence he does not believe he received a fair offer for compensation. The man, who is employed at a government office, asked to remain anonymous. He explained, “I am one of the land owners that will be extremely affected. According to what they are saying, it will be about six acres they need. My concern is, if you taking half of the land, I can’t do anything else on the other half so it’s kind of pointless because they are saying there will be a fence on either side of the pipe and they will have some sort of security or something. So I would have to move off of the land because I can’t farm on it, I can’t live there, I can’t burn anything on the land because of the pipeline. I plant pineapples, tangerines, plantains and other cash crops. I born and grow there and my father got the land from his grandfather and so I am currently 29 years old. It will affect me a lot. I am looking forward to a call from whichever lawyer they say they are gonna propose to us but this offer I can’t work with it.”

Also, the young man said he is fearful that a gas leak may occur and start a chain reaction; hence he may be forced to discontinue his great grandparents’ legacy.

During that meeting, the residents were told by Nandlall that they would be contacted by lawyers from the government to listen to their specific concerns and counter proposal. He also explained that they were free to secure the services of their own lawyers if they so desired.

 

 

 

 

 

---

---