Recently a Berbician friend in anticipating the opening of the Berbice Bridge within the next few months exuded that for her – she is about 50? – a Bridge has been a dream she entertained since she was a girl. It will be a major accomplishment in infrastructural development in this country and will probably mark the high point of the legacy of President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Compared with other capital projects undertaken in this country since Independence, it does not rank among the most expensive but the Government will rightly see it as one of the most significant capital projects undertaken during the PPP/C’s watch.
The opening of the Bridge will mark the end of a bad dream for Berbicians living in Region 6 especially those whose experiences and tales of being stranded on one side of the Berbice River waiting to cross to the other can easily fill volumes. There have been several criticisms of the Bridge including its financing, location and type. Financing will come from the private sector after some strong persuasion by the Government which itself will make no direct financial input; the location has been criticised on environmental and technical grounds; the nature of the Bridge which like the Demerara Harbour Bridge built by Forbes Burnham in 1978 is a floating bridge.
Welcome Relief
The Bridge will soon be a reality and the Government will deservedly take the credit for the achievement which coming so soon after the Lusignan Massacre will be a welcome relief. Despite the fact that the Bridge is touted as a private-sector project its chief spokesperson and key player has been Mr. Winston Brassington of NICIL, the holding company of Government entities, with the company itself being much less visible. The role of NICIL which should have come to an end after financing had been secured appears to have been extended though at some stage soon the Bridge Company would need to find its voice.
Expect therefore that the Bridge will feature prominently in the 2008 Budget Speech [see follow-up article below] and in public pronouncements. Still it would be un-Guyanese-like not to have critics waiting to see whether their fears will be vindicated while those private sector investors will no doubt be nervously looking to see how the numbers will turn out and whether their investment will produce the returns they expected. For Berbicians more concerned with living their dream, that would be the last thing on their minds.
The Louis Berger Group, the consulting firm out of the USA, contracted to undertake the feasibility study of the Bridge considered the Berbice River a major physical obstacle to communication between New Amsterdam and Georgetown and a key constraint on national economic development. With some of the most productive agricultural lands located in Region 6, the cost of moving goods and produce out of that region has been enormous with constraints and delays in vehicles being able to cross the River.
Optimism
The Study was optimistic about the Bridge’s potential for revitalising the region, making its produce more competitive, providing employment opportunities, attracting investors and just perhaps reversing the brain drain. Perhaps a bit over-optimistically it even contemplates a reduction of fares by the minibus operators since the Bridge will reduce the down time they now spend using the ferry.
Indeed Mr. Brassington has said the tolls for crossing the Bridge will not be higher than ferry fares “on average” and that fares will be paid on one side of the bridge while tolls will only be collected for vehicles and not passengers. Mr. Brassington in March 2006 projected a reduction in the fares in the latter half of the concession period with most of the initial financing being repaid for the project.
Over the decades, the region has witnessed significantly large population decreases but recognising it as its heartland, the PPP has since its return to power in 1992 committed itself to greater attention there whether in education, agriculture or infrastructure with significant investments in the Berbice Campus of the University of Guyana, the massive Skeldon Sugar Modernisation Project and rebuilding of the main roads leading from Mahaica to Rosignol and New Amsterdam to Crabwood Creek.
Sore need
Writing in Business Page of March 12, 2006, this columnist noted that a Bridge was sorely needed while a consultant who advised against investing in the Bridge conceded that as a project it was excellent, much needed and long overdue. The challenge for the company is whether the projections and assumptions underlying the project, particularly in relation to traffic and revenues, do in fact materialise or whether they are simply too optimistic.
For the user, such considerations pale into irrelevance when matched against the usefulness of the Bridge to them.
Budget 2008
At this time of the year, attention usually turns to the National Budget in which the Government signals its intention on policies, revenues and expenditures for the year. Some were even expecting that the 2008 Budget would have been presented this past Friday. But with the Lusignan Massacre still on the minds and lips of everyone and with no success at apprehending any suspects, the Government may have found it difficult to deliver an upbeat account of its stewardship and spending plans in the midst of fear and uncertainty.
The Government has up to March 31 to present the Budget although it would be ideal for the Budget to be presented before the year begins. Instead all we have had from the Minister of Finance is a request last month for the National Assembly to authorise some $9,398,373,968 to cover overspending by the Government which itself followed a similar request in November for $8,679,412,56.
Consultations
Overspending never reflects well on managers since it is evidence of inadequate planning and foresight. We will return to this matter in a subsequent column but for now there should be some concern about the failure of the Minister of Finance once again to consult with stakeholders prior to the Budget. Such consultation was standard fare with past Ministers of Finance who at least gave an audience to labour, consumers, business and even welcomed inputs from professionals.
It is true that the real benefit of those consultations was lost because the exercise was mere photo-opportunism. But the solution lay in enhancing, not dispensing with the process. In other words use the information gathered as far as could be done, explain why others were not feasible and build relationships with the stakeholders. Instead we seem to be throwing away the baby with the bath water.
President Jagdeo, who still exerts an unacceptable level of influence over the Ministry of Finance felt it necessary to appoint two Ministers in that Ministry and it is hard to believe that neither of them can meet with stakeholders who after all pay the taxes that fund the Budget. A Government that takes pride in its democratic credentials does not normally make changes without at a minimum advising the public and offering reasons.
In fact, in his last Budget speech former Finance Minister Saisnarine Kowlessar lauded the views of the private sector bodies, labour unions and ordinary Guyanese, thanking them for their contributions, which we [the Government] value highly. Has that now changed and if so by whom?
Troubling attitude
If the change is due to a new approach by Minister Dr. Ashni Singh this column wishes to place on record its strong displeasure at such high-handed behaviour. I recall publicly commending the appointment of Dr. Singh as ushering in a new, positive era and was actually criticised for going overboard in my praise of the Minister.
There have been concerns recently that the Minister is obsessed with concealing information to which the public have a right, such as data on inflation and VAT collections. I am sure the Minister does not need to be reminded that there is no monopoly on wisdom and the people must never be excluded.