The impact of trust and failed communication

It seems that at every turn something more is being uncovered about the Amaila Falls hydroelectric project. We now hear that it would have cost considerably more than the US$858 million because of a variety of additional costs.
From the inception we knew that the road would have cost more than US$15.4 million and the government had to know this. No one factors into the cost of a project the exact figures. There is always room for over-runs and the Amaila Falls project would have taken the various inflationary trends into consideration.
When the government planned the project it should have had all the figures at hand. For example, when it tenders for a road programme it has a certain sum in mind, having prepared all the specifications. It examines every aspect of the project so it knows how much it has to spend. This seemed not to be the case with the Amaila Falls hydroelectric project.
For one, when the project was first announced the price was under US$600 million. The planners would have taken the various costs into consideration. When they planned the Berbice River Bridge that is what they did. Every project was constructed within a given price range that was stated before the actual construction. The Amaila Falls hydro project appeared to be the difference.
It was strange that when it was planned the government did not take all the stakeholders into consideration. When Forbes Burnham wanted to nationalize the bauxite industry he talked with the then opposition leader Dr Cheddi Jagan.  It was the same when he planned to construct the hydroelectric facility at Kumerau. Even the cost of the project was made public before the road construction began.
It could be that when the project was planned, the government with its parliamentary majority knew that it had the ability to ramrod anything through the house and get the projects to completion. There was therefore no need for dialogue and discussion. As it turned out, this proved to be the demise of the major projects in Guyana; the government no longer controlled the national assembly and therefore did not have total control over the public treasury.
The result is that the government continues to talk about confidential aspects of the programme. What could be confidential about a programme that involves public spending? This is tantamount to taking people’s money and spending it in a secretive manner —without the knowledge of the people.In civil life this is called theft or misappropriation.
To hear the people behind the Amaila Falls project still talking about confidentiality suggests something ulterior.  People would wonder about what it is that should be confidential, given that the loan arrangements have been finalized, the contractors named and the project schedule underlined. One would understand if there are many plans out there and there is to be competition for some of the tenders.
Given the various sub-plots, the project was doomed to failure for the lack of communication.  In the last days, the government spoke about the reduction in electricity charges to the consumer. But enterprising people found that in Uganda, the cost of electricity to the consumer actually went up following the construction of the hydroelectric facility.
It would be nice to sit with someone and trace the development of the Amaila Falls project. The answer for granting the impossible road contract to a person who never even constructed a footbridge would be instructional.
It would also be instructional to understand why after finalizing all the construction costs the actual project cost would keep rising.
Many people are angry. Imagine that the Inter-American Development Bank, one of the funding agencies, was actually conducting a feasibility study right up to the time when actual construction should have started? It is still to continue this study, but the government says that the Amaila Falls project is dead, so there is no need for a further study.
And while that may be the case, the government is still pointing fingers, this time accusing the main opposition party for  the halt in the feasibility study by the IDB.
Suffice it to say that the nation wanted hydroelectricity, but it wanted a review of the high cost.