Category: Public sector

Posted on

Economy firewall malfunctions – part 3

Introduction
This is the third and penultimate instalment of a short series reviewing the mid-year financial and economic report presented last month by the Minister of Finance. This review has benefited and drawn from the half-year report presented to the Minister of Finance by the country’s central bank, the Bank of Guyana. We will also look at two developments this week – the two supplementary papers presented on Thursday to the National Assembly by the Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh seeking another $4,677,208,405, roughly the equivalent of US$25M, some of which has already been spent. The other is the news that the state-owned sugar company is experiencing cash flow difficulties in meeting its payroll obligation, while also being the beneficiary of another $1.4B for its capital expenditure programme. The inability to meet one’s payroll obligation is one of the worst signs of serious financial difficulties a business can encounter, and one wonders how the corporation which is top heavy with accounting expertise did not foresee this and take preventive action.

This request for additional funding of roughly 5% of the 2009 budget is itself troubling since the Minister’s mid-year report had shown key ministries being unable to absorb and spend the money authorised by the National Assembly in the 2009 Budget. Readers will recall from last week that the key sectors identified by the Minister had only been able to spend 34.6% of the 2009 full-year budget allocation, compared with 38% in 2008. By way of an explanation for the capital expenditure in half-year 2009 falling behind schedule, the mid-year report identified “some delays as a result of logistical and other issues.”

A large proportion of the money is for areas controlled by President Jagdeo – the army and the burgeoning Office of the President. The current request brings to more than half a billion dollars the additional sums given to the GDF, an entity that is regularly reported as failing to meet proper standards of accountability. The Office of the President – Presidential Advisory will receive an additional $50M to meet expenditure in relation to the Office of Climate Change and the Low Carbon Development Strategy. It is uncertain whether this money will be reimbursed by our Norwegian benefactors under the Guyana-Norway LCDS MOU which provides for a possible grant to us in 2010 of US$30 billion Guyana dollars.

The Public Works Ministry which is one of the sectors whose expenditure is not on target is yet being given additional sums, while the $400M promised by the President to the rice sector is now part of those supplementary funds. Sugar, rice and electricity, three sectors with an all-pervasive government involvement are proving a heavy burden on the national coffers, raising serious doubts about the capacity of those sectors to deal with their apparent incessant problems, some of which may be weather related.

Let us return to the mid/half-year reports which include the following table of the country’s principal export commodities. While rice export is showing a substantial increase, half-year output in 2009 was 7% lower than in 2008, suggesting a substantially lower level of domestic consumption or lower stock levels at June 2009.

Exports of Major Commodities
2009.12.06_Table1

Source: Bank of Guyana Mid-Year Report

The country’s import of merchandise also declined – by 16.2 per cent or US$104.3 million to US$538.5 million. This is partly attributed to a decline in import prices, mainly of fuel and food. While the decreases in other intermediate goods may not warrant major concern, that cannot be said for capital goods; the import of all categories of machinery declined by 16.1 per cent or US$21 million. What must be of concern, however, is the import of consumption goods which expanded by 7.6 per cent or $11.6 million primarily due to increases in other non-durables and motor car subcategories. We seem to have a mindless non-policy on vehicle imports, a significant proportion of which are for the growing band of contract employees and others in receipt of duty-free concessions, while the statistics highlight the increasingly visible extravagant lifestyles and conspicuous consumption of a fortunate few.

The Bank of Guyana report shows the extent to which Clico – the country’s largest insurance company has impacted on the economy. As a consequence of that failure, the total resources of the domestic insurance companies (life and non-life segments) declined by 34.7 per cent to G$25,640 million. The life component, which amounted to 64 per cent of the industry’s resources, fell by 46.8 per cent to G$16,321 million, whilst the non-life component rose by 8.8 per cent to G$9,319 million. The resources of the insurance companies are available for investment in other sectors of the economy but because of the surplus liquidity in the banking sector the impact has not been as strong on the rest of the economy. In respect of the savings and pensions of thousands of individuals – either held directly with Clico or indirectly through pension schemes – the impact has been dramatic if not visible.

This column has been strongly critical of the poor management and governance of Clico and the equally inadequate regulatory oversight that allowed the company to break all the rules. It also believes that more thought should have been given to saving the salvageable segments of the company. If the die has been cast and extreme unction has been administered, then there are compelling reasons for the payment of a first dividend to those with savings and pensions in Clico. What a good Christmas gift that would be.

In foreign exchange, net current transfers declined by 17.2 per cent to US$120.5 million as a result of lower inflows to the private sector in the form of worker remittances. The main sources of outflow were workers’ remittances and remittances to bank accounts, which amounted to US$54.4 million and US$29.7 million respectively. The issue of outward worker remittances highlighted in the Bank of Guyana report, amounting in the half-year to more than ten billion dollars is a serious development in the economy, but instead of addressing it, the Minister misrepresents the data in his own report.

2009.12.06_Table2

Sources: Mid-Year Report 2009 and Bank of Guyana Half Year report

Once again the country is burdened with additional external and domestic debt. The total external public debt rose by US$27.2 million from December 2008 to US$861.5 million at end-June 2009 but it is the composition of the debt that must cause some concern. Over the past twelve months, the stock of outstanding public and publicly guaranteed debt rose by 11.3% to US$862 million with the IDB and the Venezuelans contributing equally to a $100 million in disbursements in the case of the IDB and trade credit by Venezuela under the Petrocaribe agreement. It must be a matter of speculation whether there is any co-ordination between those who manage our external affairs and those responsible for borrowing and spending.

Domestic debt continues its mountainous climb reaching $84 billion dollars in June 2009, an increase of 15% over the 12-month period and 11% during the first half of 2009. Ten years ago the total public bonded debt was $41.6 billion, meaning that over less than ten years the domestic debt has doubled, a situation that would have been replicated in the country’s external debt had it not been for debt-write off.

The reason for this is that what we cannot do by taxing, we do by borrowing – for anything and everything. To bring the New Building Society under the Financial Institutions Act requires the addition of just five words to the definition of a company subject to the licensing requirement of the FIA and the regulatory supervision of the Bank of Guyana. But in public finance and indeed in public management in Guyana, nothing is straightforward. We must have the obligatory consultant to come and tell us for tens of thousands of United States dollars how to do it. What a waste.

Next week we close this series by pulling the various strands together and looking for any cause for optimism in the economy and its management.

Posted on

Economy firewall malfunctions – part 2

Introduction
During the past week, I received the Bank of Guyana (BOG) Report for the first half of 2009 which the bank is required under the law to submit to the Minister of Finance. As usual the report is comprehensive, contains valuable economic data, is very professionally written and therefore considered generally quite reliable. I will take into account the contents of that report as I continue my review of the 2009 mid-year report of the Minister of Finance, but before doing so, let me draw attention to certain matters touched on last week that are also addressed in the BOG report.

The first and perhaps the most important relates to performance of the economy in the first six months of the year. The Minister of Finance reported in unambiguous terms that the economy declined in 2009 by 1.4%, supporting this in Appendix A1 of his report, sourced to the Bureau of Statistics. The Bank of Guyana on the other hand, reports, both in narrative form and in a graph, a positive growth of an identical percentage and projects that the economy will “continue to grow during the second half of the year.”

There is an obvious conflict between the numbers and it is disappointing that the Minister of Finance did not detect the discrepancy on such a fundamental matter, given that the BOG’s half-year report is submitted to him. This failure suggests either gross carelessness, or, heaven forbid, that the Minister did not read the BOG report, both of which would be sad indeed. The country would no doubt expect a clarification from one or both of the parties responsible for these reports.

Another issue is the different approaches to inflation. While the BOG uses the identical percentage of 1.3% reported by the Minister of Finance, its report describes the inflation number specifically as the Georgetown Urban Consumer Price Index which is obviously different from a national inflation rate. The Minister of Finance on the other hand, was not as specific and importantly, gave only an estimate of inflation, inevitably inviting speculation about the margin of error.

In last week’s column, there was a comment that sugar was becoming the scapegoat for the poor performance of the economy with its field workers being increasingly blamed not only for the industry’s, but also the country’s economic woes. The BOG report offers some perspective. While the number of work stoppages increased by 22.9% to 102 from 83 in the corresponding period last year, the number of man days lost was only 18,785 compared with 33,389 in half-year 2008, a 44% drop in production days lost.

The BOG also informs us that exports to the European Union accounted for 97.5% of Guysuco’s exports, up from 91.7% in 2008. For all the noise that the President made about the EPA and its adverse effects on sugar prices, our dependence on the EU market in 2009 was practically total, despite the corporation’s attempt at market diversification. It would seem unfair to place that at the feet of the field workers.

Expenditure
When the 2009 National Budget was presented earlier this year it was followed by the usual chorus of the biggest budget ever, no consideration given to the absorptive capacity of the economy. Business Page of November 16 last year in commenting on the expenditure side of the 2008 mid-year report, noted that it was “a matter of speculation why only 38% of the full year budget has been expended on what a table in the report described as key sectors.” That column went on to draw attention to the Health, Infrastructure and Agriculture sectors where only 41%, 27% and 33% respectively, had been spent in the first half of the year and asked whether the country was “going to see a mad and irresponsible rush to spend during the second half of the year, simply because the money has been allocated.” That indeed is what appears to have taken place in 2008.

Mid-year expenditure of Key Sectors – G$ million

2009.11.29_Table1

Source: Mid Year Report 2009
Note: H1 refers to the first six months.

As the table above shows, we are faced with a very similar situation in 2009, even as the number of sectors identified as “key” is reduced from nine in 2008 to five in 2009. Those excluded this year are Culture, Office of the President, Public Service Ministry and Social Welfare for which billions were allocated in the 2009 Budget. The Minister’s report did not indicate why he considered that these were no longer “key” and his discussion was therefore more than limited in this regard. In 2008 the expenditure on the Minister’s key sectors in 2008 accounted for 37% of the full-year budget allocation, compared with 34.6% this year. Yet, the Minister did not think it necessary to make any significant adjustment to the full-year projections, in fact marginally increasing the total non-interest budget expenses for the full year. If technical and administrative skills are regarded as critical to delivering on the 2009 Budget programmes, it is difficult to see how those programmes could be achieved given that there is no greater implementation capacity in the second half 2009 than in the first half.

Many of the numbers speak for themselves but with all the contracts being awarded, the almost daily appearances in the press of some of the ministers and the extent to which we have committed the country to borrowings, it is difficult to understand the low spending on these sectors, particularly given that several line items are of a fixed and constant nature. To put the figures in context, it means that Agriculture would have to spend in the current half of 2009 four dollars for every dollar spent in the first half. The same applies to Infrastructure, while for Education and Housing and Water it is a more modest $1.5 for every dollar.

The drug bonanza
Health is interesting. Successive annual reports from the Audit Office remind us that cabinet has hand-picked for unlawful but very lucrative, multi-billion procurement contracts to supply the government with drugs and medical supplies, one of the companies of the Ramroop Group, with which President Jagdeo announced he has a friendly relationship and for which new tax concession laws were passed in 2008. As if the selection by the President’s cabinet were not enough, the government makes up-front payment on those contracts. Perhaps not surprisingly therefore, of the $2.5 billion budgeted for Drugs and Medical Supplies, 66.5 % was spent in the first six months of the year, up from 53% for the corresponding period in 2008.

With this kind of abuse, the government ought not to be surprised that Guyana is ranked at 126 among 180 countries listed in the Transparency International (TI) Report, along with seven other countries that include war-ravaged countries such as Eritrea, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mozambique and Uganda. The government’s protestations about TI’s methodology would have credibility and resonance if the country was convinced that it had any interest in halting the abuses attendant on the procurement of drugs and other products and services and the Lotto funds, pursuing those who contribute to its party while engaging in the worst forms of corruption of revenue officers, keeping its promise on a Freedom of Information Act and observing good governance and the rule of law in all their forms and manifestations.

With corruption and the absence of any culture of accountability and transparency in religion, the trade union movement, civil society, the private and NGO sectors, the political parties, sports, in national and local government – in short in every area of life – many Guyanese find it hard to believe that there are countries more corrupt than Guyana. The fact is, however, that there are and we need to ensure that we do not slip further to the bottom. Like the rotting of the fish, the disintegration from corruption begins at the head.

Bloating the public sector
Another interesting line item is what is referred to in Appendix E4 to the Mid-year Report as Contracted Employees. There too we have spending very much on track as the government selectively employs more and more persons at the public expense. The 2009 Budget allocation for wages and salaries of contracted employees is $3.2 billion which the Minister projects will be exceeded, no doubt because more than 50% has already been spent in the first six months of the year. The Office of the President in particular now has a number of advisers and consultants, some of whose designations and functions are by no means clear, and who seem to be paid either for their past service to the party or to do political work on behalf of the party. The contracted employees do not come cheap. Some of them are paid in real currency, have 24-hour security, chauffeur, administrative support, enjoy valuable tax and duty concessions – all paid for by the poor taxpayers or financed by the donors who seem to be salivating at the prospect of giving to a poor country.

How much of the further $2.2 billion dollars in benefits and allowances goes to the contracted employees is not determinable but what is interesting is that the wages and salaries of the contracted employees exceeds that of the total administrative staff of the central government by more than 15%. And it is because of these contracted employees including permanent secretaries, many politically appointed, that the Public Service Commission is becoming increasingly sidelined and irrelevant. Is it because of the chauffeur-driven and state-provided vehicles that the Public Service Ministry has not seen it fit or necessary to revise the 1995 rates of travel allowances paid to public officers, many of them lower level operatives not important to the new order governing public finances in the country?

To be continued

Posted on

Economy firewall malfunctions

Today Business Page begins a short series on the Mid-year Report 2009 which the Minister of Finance is required to submit to the National Assembly under the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, 2003.

Introduction
Despite the President’s assurance that he had constructed a “firewall” – a term used to refer to the prevention of unauthorised intrusion into a computerised system – to protect the economy from the recession which had hit the world economic system, the Guyana economy contracted by 1.4% during the first half of 2009 (H/Y). This is according to the mid-year report presented to the National Assembly by Dr Ashni Singh, Minister of Finance on November 12, 2009, more than ten weeks after its legal due date and five days after this column had lamented the financial lawlessness that now characterises the Jagdeo/Singh economic management team. The firewall was only able to promote and permit growth in the half-year in two of the fifteen economic sectors when compared with their performance in the first half of 2008. The sectors which show improvement being forestry which grew in H/Y 2009 by 0.3% compared with a decline of 23% in the corresponding period in 2008, and manufacturing which moved from a decline of 3% in H/Y 2008 to 0% in the same period in 2009. Although the great majority of sectors performed poorly, the Minister of Finance who also controls the Bureau of Statistics which compiles the national statistics constituting his report, reported half-year growth in the non-sugar sector of 1.1% compared with a 4% growth for the same period in 2008. As Bill Clinton would say, It’s sugar, Stupid.

Obviously disregarding current developments in the sector, the report projects sugar to boost overall economic performance in the second half of 2009, reversing its own 20% decline in half-year 2009 to a 10% overall 2009 growth, and thereby spectacularly transforming the economy’s half-year decline of 1.4% to a full year 2.5% growth for the entire year. Once again, the Bureau of Statistics will have its work cut out, but more significantly, despite the government’s two-decade attempt at diversification of the economy, sugar remains the economy’s backbone, lifeblood, and increasingly its scapegoat. The projected growth in sugar and therefore the rest of the economy must be encouraging for the main sugar union GAWU as it enters into government-imposed wages arbitration with the state owned GuySuco.

2009.11.22_Chart1

Source: Minister of Finance Mid-Year Report 2009

And even the improved performance in the two sectors may not bode too well after all. Under the Guyana-Norway LCDS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) addressed in this column last week, the country may not be able to optimally exploit our forested areas that cover 80% of the country. That understanding brings those areas under international supervision bordering on control, in return for a six-year grant from the Norwegians of potentially US $250 million – hardly a good return on what President Jagdeo has described as our greatest asset. Because the report was said to have been written before the signing of the MOU, it does not contain any reference to that agreement, including the immediate potential implications. Hopefully, that is not overlooked as the Guyana-Norway agreement is for specified funds for a limited period.

With respect to manufacturing, let us recall that the explanation given by the Minister last year for the manufacturing sector recording what economists like to refer to as negative growth, was partly the high cost of inputs – fuel and imported raw materials. The question whether the manufacturing sector is a mere price taker would be very interesting indeed for consideration by the Minister of Finance, the leaders of the sector and those who continue to call for any and every tax concession ever conceived. It must also be of some irony and concern that the Vice-Chairman of the Private Sector Commission and a lead private sector person on the Jagdeo-led National Competitiveness Strategy Programme, Mr Ramesh Dookhoo, is the current head of the Guyana Manufacturers Association.

It is surely not too early to ask President Jagdeo and Mr Dookhoo to show how the over five-and-a-half billion dollars borrowed from the IDB are benefiting the country, in the light of the reverse-stop-go performance of the economy. Just to put Norway’s potential contribution into context, the NCS loan is 90% of the first year LCDS payment. I do not know if the lender, the IDB pays any attention to the work done by the National Competitiveness Council but what is on the NCS website is what one would hardly expect from busy politicians and their overpaid consultants and experts.

2009.11.22_Table1

Source: Mid-year Report 2009

As usual the report does not bother to deal with several key issues relevant to the economy and the only mention the Clico fiasco warrants is a boast that “the government’s timely intervention in placing the company under judicial management has helped to contain the impact of the company’s difficulties.” It does not appear to have been recognised or accepted that had the government’s intervention been before and not after the virtual collapse of the company’s Trinidad parent, then the country would not have lost a gross sum of tens of millions of US dollars. The report offers no assurance of when Clico’s depositors and policy-holders will receive the money guaranteed by the ever-promising President. Those include the National Insurance Scheme and thousands of others who did not benefit from the serendipitous payout by Clico just prior to its downfall. Nor does it address the new arrangements for the insurance sector that has now been placed under the Bank of Guyana, the very institution that along with the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance contributed in no small measure to the demise of Clico. It is timely to note as well that the hurriedly drafted amendment is likely to create more juridical problems than the administrative weaknesses it is intended to cure. The entire functions of the Commissioner of Insurance have been transferred to the Bank of Guyana and unless the bank creates a similarly named position it is a fair inference that the position has been abolished.

It would have been good too if the Minister had spent some time telling the country about the state of tax reform which has become another annual promise, the progress to stem money-laundering, the state of the National Insurance Scheme given its exposure to Clico, legislation dealing with the New Building Society that according to the President has reached its lending limit, the (President’s) $2 billion promise to the housing sector for the vulnerable groups in our society and his billion dollar mangrove project and Dr Singh’s understanding of the reasons for the sharp decline in the performance of the distribution sector, from 11% in both halves of 2008 to a mere 3% in half-year 2009. Or is it that the Minister considers this and the reported Bureau of Statistics’ “estimate” of inflation in half year 2009 of 1.3% adequately dealt with by his assessment of consumers’ exercise of “caution and prudence”? I have to confess that is a novel if not unique explanation for depressed spending power in the national economy.

To be continued

Posted on

Transparency, accountability underpin Guyana and Norway MOU

Introduction
President Jagdeo was obviously pleased about the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by him and Norway’s Minister of the Environment and International Development Erik Solheim under which Norway agrees to provide defined financing for Guyana’s evolving Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). For the President it is vindication of his huge investment in time and money pursuing LCDS funding, in exchange for a commitment to drastically restrict the exploitation of the country’s forests, described by him as the country’s most valuable resource. The signing comes within three weeks of a United Nations Conference scheduled for Copenhagen, Denmark to consider a replacement for the international treaty on the environment called the Kyoto Protocol. In fact President Jagdeo was so excited at a post-signing press conference that he called the MOU “our Copenhagen.”

Under the MOU, Norway will pay US$30 million (approximately $6.2 billion) next year and potentially up to US$250 million ($51.7 billion) by 2015 for Guyana to preserve its forests. According to the President the figure committed by Norway “is more than the combined loans and grants Guyana receives on an annual basis from the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank and the European Union.” If not inaccurate, that statement is terribly misleading since it compares an annual amount with a five-year sum. We have also had debt write-offs, loans and grants from countries and institutions in some years, in net present terms, in excess of the total amount committed by the Norwegians. Notwithstanding this, the agreement is indeed an achievement and needs no exaggeration or misrepresentation, even if it comes at a huge cost to the country. Some time soon we will need a thorough evaluation by the experts, academics and economists to assess the cost/benefit of the agreement to the country.

McKinsey and the US$580 million
In response to the President’s comparison between Norway and the rest of the donor community – excluding significantly individual countries and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – his critics might add that the agreement comes with more strings than those that have ever been imposed by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank and the European Union, all combined. More significantly, the critics might suggest that a far more meaningful comparison is between what the Norwegians have committed and what McKinsey, the government’s LCDS consulting guru, has told them, quite unrealistically, that our forests are worth to the world.

Essentially the LCDS is arguing that since the world benefits, according to McKinsey, by US$40 billion dollars per year from the conservation of our forests, and since to Guyana the annual worth of the forest in economic terms is US$580 million, then the world must pay us that sum. Accordingly McKinsey, in a document which has not been released despite calls for this to be done, has appears to have convinced the government of the country’s entitlement of annual payments by the international community in the following four phases.

Phase 1 (2009) – No sum indicated but the Draft LCDS refers to interim payments to launch the LCDS and funding for Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV).

Phase 2 (2010 – 2012) – US$60 million to US$350 million annually for capacity building, human capital development and the investment required to build a low carbon economy.

Phase 3 (2013 – 2020) – US$350 million to US$580 million annually for essentially the same purposes in Phase 2 and for payments to avoid deforestation and climate change adaptation.

Phase 4 (2020 [sic] and onwards) – Greater than US$580 million annually, providing incentives at or above the McKinsey’s annual economic valuation of the country’s forests.

Who will join Norway?
Critics should not however jump to the conclusion or their calculator to prove that the amount committed by Norway is negligible and a mere fraction of what McKinsey had led the government to believe it should receive from the world in return for strict limits on forestry exploitation. The total amount committed by the Norwegians through to 2015 is indeed US$100 million less than the amount of the lower range McKinsey told the government it should expect during the seven-year Phase 3. In fairness, however, the LCDS is premised not only on inflows from Norway but from other countries that either historically caused much of the world’s pollution, such as the US, Europe, Japan and Russia or the newer, large-scale polluters such as China and India.

That is why I think President Jagdeo is wrong to have exulted that the deal with Norway is “our Copenhagen.” Perhaps the President is not optimistic that much will come out of Copenhagen and in any case for the first time he told the nation this week that even if agreement is secured in Denmark, it would take almost four years before funds would flow to countries like Guyana. What that means is that unless there are other ‘bi-laterals’ such as the Guyana-Norway deal, Guyana cannot look forward to similar funding for at least another four years.

Under the Draft LCDS, Guyana had identified more than US$1 billion in “essential capital projects” that can be fully or partially funded through private investment assisted by an in-country infrastructure investment fund built from forest compensation payments. The Norwegians are clearly not interested in any such in-country fund, and if we accept the President’s four year prediction, then there is a huge financing gap to be filled. Now that the Norwegians have put down their marker, the Government of Guyana has a lot of work to revise the LCDS and make it more realistic. Hydro-power which appears as a centre-piece of the LCDS will now have to be financed from other sources, the private sector will have to come up with quite a lot of money and the government too can do its part. The money pledged in the first year equates to less than 6% of the national budget for 2009 and with proper financial management and a commitment to collect the taxes legally due by the army of tax evaders out there, we can easily raise more than what the Norwegians have committed in the first year of their programme.

The options for achieving that are available, but are not new, neither has there been any commitment to a national response to global warming or to responsible financial management. Only this week we saw the Minister of Finance presenting his mid-year report that was due at the end of August but conveniently misdated. We have never been an environmentally conscious people and the economy is based on the most inefficient and unfriendly use of energy whether in vehicle fuel consumption or electricity; we have no policy on recycling and fail to manage our water resources efficiently or exercise proper flood control measures.

The cost
In return for the less than required funding for the LCDS the country is giving up a lot, including control over the money we receive and sovereignty over our forests, contrary to what the government had been assuring Guyanese. The Norwegians have obviously been tougher in their negotiations than many feared they might be, and may have taken on board several of the concerns raised by the groups and individuals from the political parties and civil society whom they canvassed or who canvassed them. While the documents they have signed stay clear of the domestic issues such as the improper and unlawful use of funds, it is quite likely that those issues have informed some of the conditions they have imposed, conditions that show that the Norwegians are not taking any chances with the money they are prepared to give to Guyana.

Financial safeguards
The deal is a carrot and stick arrangement but with more emphasis on stick than carrot. The maximum we can receive under the MOU is fixed but the stick is that the amounts which we will receive are results-based according to how well we measure up to the terms and conditions set out in the document which themselves require considerable resources to ensure compliance. In fact, in the early stages of the implementation of the deal, a disproportionate amount of the funds will be used to set up the administrative and oversight arrangements which could see huge sums going to consultants. The costs to be met in the first two years include those for the establishment of the Project Management Office; the Office of Climate Change (operational costs); the multi-stakeholder consultation process and annual verification by neutral experts that the enabling activities have been completed.

What is particularly noticeable are the financial conditions set out in the Joint Concept Note (JCN), conditions that might otherwise be considered draconian but which many Guyanese bloggers seem to welcome. The JCN covers not only the Norwegian funds but other similar funds as well, raising the possibility that the Norwegian conditions are baseline, to be supplemented by any conditions imposed by other donors. The funds will go into a Guyana REDD-plus Investment Fund (GRIF), managed by a reputable international organisation and responsible for ensuring full oversight of the GRIF’s operations, including fiduciary obligation as trustee, and providing technical support as agreed with Guyana. Significantly the Joint Concept Note specifies that the GRIF must be operational before any contributions can be disbursed from Norway (emphasis mine). Safeguards, including social, economic and environmental safeguards, as well as the fiduciary and operational policies of the organisation selected, will apply, as appropriate, to all activities to be financed by the GRIF.

Technical conditions
The conditions applying to the technical, forest-related issues are no less stringent. Before any money is disbursed Guyana will have to take formal steps to establish independent forest monitoring by a credible, independent entity. Almost immediately the government is required to prepare an outline of Guyana’s REDD-plus governance development and no later than October 2010, a more detailed plan setting out clear requirements and timelines for its implementation. Additionally the country is required to show evidence of entering a formal dialogue with the European Union with the intent of joining its Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) processes towards a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA), with its resonance with the EU EPA which the President had railed about. Government also has to show evidence of its decision to enter a formal dialogue with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) or an alternative mechanism agreed by Guyana and Norway to further the same aim as EITI.

Conclusion
Transparency and accountability underpin the entire arrangement and the JCN requires that information regarding the initiative be publicly available. As if to show its immediate commitment to these concepts, the government has posted both the MOU and the JCN on the Guyana LCDS website.

One of the questions that none of our journalists appears to have raised with the President is whether he consulted with anyone – including his Cabinet, the Leader of the Opposition and the LCDS Steering Committee – before agreeing to the terms set by the Norwegians. That of course is not the President’s style and he might have considered that given how much he had invested in the LCDS, he needed something – anything – to show for his efforts. He has expressed confidence that Guyana will be able to meet its obligations both under the technical as well as the financial provisions of the deal. Recent experiences with the UK on security sector reform and the EU on funding to agriculture suggest that more than words will be necessary.

Posted on

Financial lawlessness on the increase

The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, 2003 (FMAA), along with the Integrity Commission Act and the Audit Act, are often advertised by the government as proof of its commitment to transparency and accountability. This trilogy of legislation is underpinned and intended to give effect to a constitutional provision for the proper accounting of public moneys. To prevent any doubt about what public moneys means the FMAA defines it as “all moneys belonging to the State received or collected by officials in their official capacity including tax and non-tax revenue collections authorised by law and… grants to the Government…”. That clearly includes money from Lotto and privatisation and any funds received from the Norwegians and other sources towards the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS).

Not only that. The various acts referred to above are all part of the commitment of the Government of Guyana to the international donor community – the IMF, the World Bank, the IDB, the EU, Canada, the US and others – for good governance including transparency in accounting, in exchange for financial support. The Minister of Finance is the member of the Cabinet designated by law for ensuring that the constitutional and statutory requirements are complied with and is empowered by the act to take punitive action against those who breach its provisions. Having played a major role in the passage of the accountability legislation, the donors are assumed to be familiar with the main provisions of the legislation and must therefore be aware of the major infractions of the legislation by the very Minister bound to ensure compliance.

Spend, baby spend
The national budget continues to grow at a considerable rate helped by VAT producing immoral windfalls to the government. With a penchant for huge numbers and throwing money after problems, for President Jagdeo the policy has been ‘spend, baby spend.’ Like the World Cup money and the flood funds, accountability and audit will come later, if at all. No one would have identified Dr Ashni Singh, Minister of Finance with the ‘spend, baby spend’ attitude, or given his background as a professionally qualified accountant and former Deputy Auditor General, have expected that he would treat accountability and the audit of the books of the state with such disdain. It is neither excusable nor understandable.

Yet Dr Ashni Singh has breached several of the statutory duties and professional obligations imposed on him in defiance of public opinion and the rule of law, and confident of no warning letter from the President, his political boss. Dr Singh’s apparent contempt for good governance and accountability makes many hesitate to support the LCDS which places the centre of the LCDS in the Office of the President, the very office that now unconstitutionally (mis)appropriates the Lotto Funds, using it for all sorts of improper purposes at the fancy of the President.

Lotto
Article 217 of the Constitution of Guyana – the country’s supreme law – requires that “all revenues or other moneys raised or received by Guyana (not being revenues or other moneys that are payable, by or under an Act of Parliament, into some other fund established for any specific purpose or that may, by or under such an Act, be retained by the authority that received them for the purpose of defraying the expenses of that authority) shall be paid into and form one Consolidated Fund.” I do not believe that the term “for any specific purpose” can be interpreted so widely as to allow an Act of Parliament to defeat the main constitutional objective to ensure that moneys coming in to the state go only into the Consolidated Fund and any spending done out of that Fund is on the basis of appropriations by the National Assembly.

In defiance of the constitution the 24% of gross takings collected by the government from the Guyana Lottery Company are made available to the President who seems to exercise total control of how it is spent with only any unspent balance being put into the Consolidated Fund. I have heard this practice defended under the second parenthetical exception to Article 217 and that the money should go to the Government Lotteries Control Committee under the Government Lotteries Act Cap. 80:07. That argument in my view falls at the first hurdle since that act deals only with lotteries “organised and conducted by the Government Lotteries Control Committee.” The Lotto Funds as they are infamously referred to, represent the government’s share of the gross takings from a private lottery run under a contract between the Canadian operator and the government. It is a tax/levy and should rightly go straight into the Consolidated Fund. The President’s misuse of these funds is a clear breach of the constitution which he has taken an oath to uphold, while the failure by the Minister of Finance to bring these moneys into the Consolidated Fund constitutes a dereliction of his duty and obligation and contrary to section 48 of the FMAA which makes it unlawful for any minister or official to misuse, misapply, or improperly dispose of public moneys.

The mid-year report
The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 imposes on the Minister a mandatory duty to present to the National Assembly, no later than August 30 of the half year, a report on the year-to-date execution of the annual budget and the prospects for the remainder of the year. This column has been at pains to point out that not only is the Minister in breach of this statutory duty with regard to timing, but even when he belatedly submits the report, it is frequently misdated to minimise the delay and omits key information prescribed by the act. The act requires the report to include “an update on the current macroeconomic and fiscal situation, a revised economic outlook for the remainder of the fiscal year, and a statement of the projected impact that these trends are likely to have on the annual budget for the current fiscal year.”

This is a practical proposition and the report should comment on emerging issues such as the alleged $300 million fraud at the GRA, the President’s $2 billion housing fund for the vulnerable, the gains from the LCDS and any unbudgeted expenditure incurred in the first half of the year. This kind of information is not only for the business community and the citizenry but also the kind of information any Finance Minister as the country’s Chief Finance Officer needs for his short-term planning.

Unintended consequences
The delay by the Minister causes the Bank of Guyana (BoG) to delay the publication of its own half-year report until the Minister releases his. I understand the BoG’s report has been ready for some time and while the Bank is an independent statutory body, it comes within the ministerial control of the Finance Minister, a choice between losing its reputation for independence and offending the Minister.

A similar situation exists with the Bureau of Statistics. This entity has received several millions of dollars to enhance its professional competence and secure its independence. I think it was in 1991 that an act was passed to make the bureau a body corporate, independent and effective. The minister responsible for the act is the Minister of Finance who in the absence of a chairman appointed by him is automatically the chairman. There is nothing to indicate that a board was ever appointed and by default the bureau remains as a unit of the Ministry of Finance, mistakenly described on its website as a “Government of Guyana Agency.” It should not therefore come as a surprise that the bureau is far from effective in how it carries out its mandate, selectively choosing if and when to publish important statistical information, a decision apparently not unrelated to the wishes of the Minister.

Perhaps more out of frustration than from a practical consideration a source close to the Bank of Guyana has suggested that these two bodies should report direct to the National Assembly. This may very well be a suggestion that the Speaker of the National Assembly or the Public Accounts Committee may wish to take up, even if in the first instance it is done privately. What is clear is that the failure of these bodies to discharge their statutory duties does little to contradict those who argue that what Guyana has is paper accountability only.

The Office of the Auditor General
Not only is this office subject to its own act but it is also a constitutional body with serious responsibilities and functions. One of the first but fundamental points to note about the head of this office is that the constitution makes no provision for an acting Auditor General and the job description clearly requires a professionally qualified accountant. In fact the incumbent has no such qualification and it would be a travesty for him to be appointed substantively to the position. It may be convenient for the government to have him there, but surely it is dangerous for the taxpayers of the country and severely compromises the quality of its reports. By retaining him the government is aware that the real authority in the Audit Office is no less a person than the spouse of the Minister of Finance. It is hard to believe that neither of them nor anyone in the government, nor in the international donor community that keeps putting money into the Office, recognises this obvious conflict of interest or simply is not interested even in token accountability.

Even with that major weakness the Audit Office is operating at half its required manpower and this helps to explain why it keeps falling back and down on many of its public commitments. Like the Minister of Finance’s mid-year report, the Audit Office’s report on the Government accounts for 2008 is also late. By law this must be submitted to the National Assembly within nine months of the end of the accounting year. We are now in the eleventh month without any word about when this report will be available.

One of the mandates of the Office is to conduct Value-For-Money (VFM) audits and it must now be coming on to a year or more since the Office has been due to issue its report on a VFM audit conducted on the financially miniscule Palms.

Even with expensive Canadian assistance the Office has been unable to deliver. VFM audits are of less value where the expenditure is unavoidable, as it is with the Palms, the main expenditure on which comprises staffing (it is understaffed) and meals (which are as low-cost as one can get). VFMs are useful in the case of discretionary expenditure such as Cabinet Outreach and the choice of newspapers for government advertisements. With weak and compromised leadership, the Office is clearly not in a position to deliver on its mandate.

Conclusion
Transparency and accountability are not esoteric or theoretical concepts but are practical, part of the democratic landscape and help to ensure that money is properly accounted for and sensibly spent. Our national budget exceeds $100 billion and if we take the most conservative estimate of 10% as lost through poor financial management, the country loses $10 billion per year. Think what that can do to reduce taxation or enhance social spending. The Minister of Finance has a wonderful opportunity to redeem his reputation.