AMAILA HAS BEEN AN EDUCATION FOR THE PEOPLE

August 25, 2013, By KNews, Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

APNU is confounding itself in trying to defend why it refused to pass supportive legislation for the Amaila Falls hydro project. APNU is resorting to all manner of excuses as to why it would not at this stage support the project.

Those excuses fall into certain general patterns. Firstly, they claim that the government has not convinced them that the cost of electricity would be lower for consumers; then they contend that they are unsure about the financial architecture. They also have introduced the argument that they would support hydroelectric power as part of an overarching energy policy that considers various alternative sources of energy.

None of these arguments is worthy of a serious response, because it represents an attempt by APNU to justify its failure to support this project and thus achieve the national consensus that the developers demand in order to proceed.

APNU had long admitted to not having the competence to analyze large scale projects and what it is doing is simply piggybacking on some general criticisms that have been made in the hope that this will be seen as the basis for its non-support of the legislative measures which it voted against and which led to the developer pulling out.

APNU had one year to make known its concerns about this project. This was the most transparent and inclusive of any major project ever undertaken in Guyana in that the government released documents to the opposition, held consultations on the issue and even had confidential briefings between the opposition parties and the developers. If there were concerns during this year-long process, APNU had adequate time to raise these and seek answers.

According to the government, none of the concerns that it is now raising were ever brought to its attention and in order to avoid the inevitable fallout, APNU is attempting to piggyback on the criticisms made by local accountants.

These accountants may be highly qualified in their field, but just as how you cannot deem a bookkeeper as an accountant, you should not baptize an accountant as a financial expert. The title of financial expert requires a whole range of different skills, one of which is expertise in investment.

To add insult to injury, APNU is now suggesting that if the local private sector is confident about the project they should invest their monies in it. The fact of the matter is that even after twenty years of economic liberalization, the local private sector remains small and so emaciated from the repressive days of the Burnham regime that it is incapable of raising even half of the amount of money that is required to construct the project.

In the 1990s, the then local telephone was sold for what some considered a pittance. Yet, no local investor could have even afforded that sum, so miniaturized was the local private sector at that time.

The local private sector therefore cannot raise the monies that are needed and this is why foreign direct investment is needed for a project of this nature, unless of course some major economic power such as India or Brazil is sold this project and given the rights to develop it. If they do, you can however be sure that it will not be under a BOOT mechanism. In short, after twenty years, the facility will not be transferred into local ownership.

The blame game as to who is responsible for the demise of what was supposed to be the largest investment in Guyana will continue. APNU will shoulder a great deal of blame, but it was always asking too much to expect this grouping to have approved any major development project in this country.

The PNCR has gained notoriety for jeopardizing the future of Guyana and should never be relied upon to act in the national interest. But the government also squandered a wonderful opportunity to gain consensus when it dismissed a suggestion from the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry for an independent assessment to be undertaken of this project.

A positive review would have enhanced the chances of a national buy- in of the project. Unfortunately, the usual arrogant approach to suggestions made from outside of the government was displayed and in the end APNU did not come on board and the developer walked.

It is not, however, the end of the world. This whole experience has allowed the Guyanese people to witness for themselves different faces of politics. And it has been an education in many ways and one that the people will remember way into the next election.