The Government often touts its extensive and expensive infrastructure projects as one of its key achievements. Yet despite billions of dollars being spent each year, the quality of road management remains deplorable and dangerous, contributing significantly to the high level of accidents and deaths on our roads.
Every month, about a thousand new vehicles are added to our roads, a large number of them converging daily on the capital city. This influx, compounded by poorly maintained infrastructure, is causing unbearable traffic jams costing countless man-hours, waste fuel, and further harm the environment. Many of the commercial vehicles, too large for the narrow, deteriorating roads, contribute to the worsening road and traffic situation. The absence of proper planning and management to accommodate this growing traffic volume is glaring.
Just after 6 PM this past Sunday (a non-working, non-school day), I experienced firsthand the unacceptable state of road conditions between Waterloo Street in Georgetown, where I work, and Ogle on the lower East Coast Demerara, where I live. Along Carifesta Avenue, only a couple of streetlights were functioning, leaving much of the road in darkness. On the East Coast Highway, the medians are poorly marked, forcing drivers to navigate treacherous conditions, compounded by oncoming vehicles blinding them with high beams. I even had to turn on my hazard lights due to the poor visibility and dangers on the road!
The situation on the Railway Embankment Road from Turkeyen to Ogle is even worse. Potholes and unevenness are common, large unlit vehicles are parked on both sides, encroaching on the roads, while the traffic lights at the junction of Embankment Road and Ogle Airstrip Road have been non-functional for several days. To make matters worse, the Airstrip Road itself is in a terrible state of disrepair.
Meanwhile, our political leaders, who are quick to celebrate multi-billion-dollar road projects, are chauffeured around, some with sirens, and seem uncaring of the everyday frustrations faced by the average road user. They remain detached from the reality of those who navigate these poorly managed roads daily. Despite all the funds spent, it is clear that the core issues — maintenance, proper planning, and traffic management — are being neglected, by all state agencies involved.
New roads alone, without proper management, will not solve the growing crisis. The Office of the President, where much of the planning resides, along with the Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of Housing, and the police, must bear responsibility for the consequences of their poor planning, coordination, and execution. The State, through its incompetence, failures, and inattention, is directly responsible for the hazards that road users face daily. I urge the relevant authorities to not only focus on building new roads but to ensure the effective management, maintenance, and long-term planning of our existing infrastructure. Immediate action is critical to prevent further loss of life, productivity, and resources. It is time the authorities address these issues so that the citizens of this country no longer have to suffer in silence.
Finally, I take this opportunity to appeal to my fellow citizens, who daily endure similar challenges in other parts of the country, to speak out and let our politicians hear their voices. If we fail to act, we will have no one but ourselves to blame when this crisis turns into a permanent nightmare.
This letter is being sent to the Office of the President, the Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of Housing, and the police to ensure that those in positions of responsibility are directly informed of the concerns raised, and more importantly, will act on them.
The Census is not only a core function of the Statistics Act of Guyana but is the very first function listed under the Act which was passed one year before the progression from a colony to a country. Prior to the Act, responsibility for statistics largely rested with the ministries and departments of government, outside of any central coordination. The Act brought a more centralised structure into being, its timing providing the government with the power to collect, analyse and disseminate information to foster informed planning and decision-making both by the government and the people. Indeed, as the Minister responsible for Finance stated in his 2022 Budget Speech, Census 2022 would “establish baseline data sets that will guide policies at all levels”.
It is very unfortunate however that policies by the current administration are formulated when key political figures visit regions in the country, speak at ceremonial functions, or at press conferences, without any reference to data compiled by the Bureau of Statistics. Because the Bureau has largely operated under the thumb of the Ministry of Finance, it has operated outside of the public purview, a necessary ingredient for enhancement in efficiency and utility. Indeed, the public, unfairly, associates the Bureau entirely with the ten-yearly census which is has never performed with distinction, almost always late. Indeed, increasingly so as the following table shows:
The 1970 census; Report published in 1972.
The 1980 census: Report published in 1982.
The 1991 census: Report published in 1994.
The 2002 census: Report published in 2005.
The 2012 census: Report published in 2016
The census which should usually coincide with the commencement of each decade was announced in September 2022 – two years after the PPP/C resumed the reins of power and two years and nine months after the preferred international census date. Of course, even this was turned into political theatre with the Bureau announcing that “the first persons to be counted were the households of the President, Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition”, going so far as to naming the offspring of the President and the Prime Minister. It would be great if such obsequiousness and tastelessness were matched with better quality and range of output from the Bureau.
Vague timelines
In March 2023, the Chief Statistician was quoted in the press as stating that preliminary results of the census had revealed significant shifts in the population”, without offering a preliminary report, as would be the norm. Adding another twist to the timeline, the Minister of Finance told the National Assembly in December 2023, that the report was “slated to be made available to the government by the second quarter of 2024” but that the bureau would require a further four to six months from that time for preparation and publication of all reports. This begs the question whether the preliminary report is for the eyes of the Government only and why the public is not permitted access to that report.
The Bureau and the Government must understand that this census is historic and critical since it will be the first after the discovery of oil in Guyana, the most game changing economic event in this country’s history. That planning and major expenditure are taking place in this census vacuum is not only unfortunate but unacceptable. Since that time, the country is witnessing an explosion in largescale and transformative projects, in major roads and other infrastructure, in building a new city from the ground up, in locating about a dozen new hospitals, in more than a single gas-powered plant, and in the construction of schools and court houses etc. It means that Guyana will have expended as much as trillions of dollars without a proper population, household and demographic census, labour availability and unemployment conditions, in place.
Anyone visiting the Bureau’s website will have noted that there is information but more in the form of raw data, very little of it sufficiently organised and mostly with no analysis, as its Act requires. The Bureau needs to organise focus groups to meet with its technical team(s) to consider ways of making the trove of information it collects more relevant and useful.
The PNC-R’s 20-Point Plan for Guyana’s Oil and Gas Sector Part 2And Questions about Sale of Oil
Introduction
Today’s column concludes the review of the PNC-R 20-point plan launched at a press conference hosted by its Leader Aubrey Norton last month. Unfortunately, neither Norton nor any in his circle of leadership has subsequently promoted the plan by interviews, letters or public engagements. True to form, the first critical response came from the Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo who is not without his own problems with the sector. The plan has, however, won the full-throated support of Dr. Vincent Adams, who is a member of the AFC and, more directly, a member of the Committee appointed by the AFC to prepare its own policy paper on the oil sector. Notably, the publication of the AFC’s policy on petroleum is several weeks late, with no explanation offered to the public.
The PNC’s plan has managed to avoid addressing some of the glaring deficiencies and omissions in the content and operationalising of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement, even within a wordy and extensive twenty points. At best, the plan could be considered cautious, conservative and careful, the minor changes here and there doing nothing to assure Guyanese that the PNC-R has the will or the capacity for any meaningful, let alone fundamental change to the 2016 Agreement. The party’s approach may be politically calculated to avoid alienating international oil companies or risking Guyana’s reputation, as does the PPP. Or maybe, like the PPP, it has swallowed the cool aid of “sanctity of contract.” In other words, there is little that separates the PPP/C and the PNC-R on their attitude to the Agreement.
Electoral interest over the national interest
Perhaps the most glaring issue with the PNCR/APNU’s plan is its complete lack of urgency or timelines. The plan is essentially a promissory note contingent on the party winning the next elections in November 2025 – more than a year away. This delay is particularly egregious given that the Norton leadership has several years to observe how the agreement has operated against the national interest.
Instead of urgently addressing the matter and taking a clear position – one way or the other – the PNC-R has chosen a “kick the can down the road” strategy that may have no political benefit other than that it will not have to follow-through, since success in winning the next elections is only a remote possibility. But any responsible, major opposition party is required to be consistently vigilant, representing those who voted or will vote for it. For the majority of Guyanese, this is not an election issue. It is a reality of everyday life, of our patrimony, of our sovereignty, our integrity, the future of our country, and of every Guyanese present and future. Every day that passes under the current agreement represents a missed opportunity to secure better terms for the Guyanese people with the potential of bringing in billions of US dollars.
This approach is particularly disappointing given the high stakes involved. Guyana’s oil resources represent a once-in-a-generation opportunity for national development. Every barrel of oil extracted under the current terms represents revenue lost to the Guyanese people. The PNC-R’s willingness to allow this situation to continue unchallenged for years to come is a serious abdication of responsibility and a betrayal of the trust placed on it by more than two hundred thousand voters.
The plan’s emphasis on building institutional capacity, reference to local content and environmental considerations is commendable but without a clear commitment to renegotiating the terms of existing agreements, there is little value to this plan. It might have been better if the PNC-R had described the document as a statement of intent or a policy framework paper but as a plan, it is really of little use and value.
Conclusion
Perhaps most critically, the plan’s failure to directly address the 40-year stability clause represents a significant missed opportunity. This clause, which effectively freezes the regulatory environment for four decades, is a major constraint on Guyana’s sovereignty and ability to adapt its policies as circumstances change. By not challenging this clause, the PNCR/APNU may be acquiescing to a long-term limitation on Guyana’s control over its own resources and muzzling its parliament,
The plan’s reluctance to commit to renegotiation and its failure to address the stability clause suggest a preference for the status quo over pursuing transformative change. This is not what Guyana needs and not what the people want. It does nothing to persuade any objective person to lend their support.
Where is this $1,500,250,000 ($1.5 Bn)?
The Government of Guyana is inviting tenders for the sale of its share of profit oil under the 2016 Petroleum Agreement. In his 2024 Budget Speech, the Senior Minister responsible for Finance gave particulars of the lifts received by Guyana under the 2016 Petroleum Agreement in 2023 and earlier this week the Minister of Natural Resources disclosed limited payment terms by the selling agents of the seventeen 17 million barrels of oil making up those lifts.
As the table below shows, the Government has received $1,500 Mn. from its selling agents which under the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) Rules to which Guyana subscribes, requires full disclosure of:
The volume of the production sold.
The revenue received from the sale.
The buyer(s) of the government’s share of production.
Commission earned on Sale of Government oil
Source Budget Speech 2024 and Minister of Natural Resources – Kaieteur News Article
There are several deficiencies. It requires the average reader to make assumptions about the number of lifts sold and to compute the amount of revenue received. There is information on the gross sums received from royalty, but no disaggregation of the royalty received from each of the contractors. Nothing on the identity of the buyers, their country of operations, or the terms of the respective sale.
Regarding the agents, it is highly unusual for agents to pay commission to their principals, but the oil universe is populated by dealers involved in sanction-busting, money laundering, drug trafficking and arms trading, so stranger things do happen.
The table also shows that Guyana sold almost two-thirds of its oil via an agent (BB Energy) who is paying just over one-third the rate of commission payable by the other agent. That defies business logic and certainly needs some investigation. Had all the oil been sold via the agent paying the higher rate (JE Energy), the revenue earned would have US$11.9 million, meaning that we would have earned US$4.5 Mn more than we did, while if the composition of the sale had switched, we would have still earned a more modest but still significant US$2.2 million more. Significantly, the names of the agents suggest that they are unincorporated entities!
But there is an even more immediate, fundamental and direct concern about this revenue, and that is the absence of information on how the money is accounted for. A search of the Natural Resources Fund shows only three sources of income – royalties, the revenue from profit oil and interest earned. Similarly, the Revenue Estimates presented to the National Assembly do not disclose any information on this significant source of revenue.
This non-disclosure is concerning, in violation of the country’s obligation under its EITI membership, the rules of accountability and transparency, and a government’s duty to disclose. This will almost never happen if we had an empowered, independent Petroleum Commission but will almost always happen once we retain the existing inept supervisory arrangement over the oil companies currently in place.
Next week will deal with this month’s scheduled relinquishment.
President Ali’s Address to the UN: Guyana’s Global Vision and Domestic Challenges
Introduction
This Commentary reflects on President Dr. Irfaan Ali’s address to the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) under the theme “Leaving no one behind; acting together for the advancement of peace, sustainable development, and human dignity for present and future generations.” It was one of the better written speeches by the President and both he and his speechwriter deserve credit.
Environmental Leadership and Biodiversity
Ironically, Ali begins his presentation critical of what he referred to as the annual pilgrimage to COP – the annual environment summit hosted by the UN – with a statement which, at the very least, warrants repetition at the next COP. The environment is one area in which Guyana stands out among countries of the world, giving the President the bragging right that Guyana has the second-highest percentage of forest cover globally and one of the lowest deforestation rates, although partly due to our small and concentrated coastal population.
Aiming to assert a leadership role for Guyana, the President announced the launch of a Global Biodiversity Alliance – convening the first summit in 2025 – the objective of which is the creation of a market for biodiversity credits, scaling conservation debt swaps, and promoting nature -positive actions which some might regard as technical jargon. He committed Guyana to doubling its protected areas by December 2025 and achieving the global biodiversity target of 30% by 2030. In a memorable phrase, he told the global audience that Guyana does not lecture but leads by example, boasting unnecessarily “without arrogance.”
Perhaps the President should have used the opportunity to call on the global body to support the right of small, developing countries to utilise their natural resources without being hypocritically lectured by the industrial world, the real and continuing culprit and cause of climate change. It was in such a context that some reference to Guyana’s oil development could have found a place in his speech and pointedly, how the oil industry of the world is loaded against developing countries.
International Relations and Border Dispute
His address dealt with the challenges to peace, human rights and human development across the world, beginning at home and then hemispheric countries Haiti and Cuba. He reminded the UN of Venezuela’s unlawful claim to two-thirds of Guyana, with its potential to stymie economic development in that space, and reaffirmed Guyana’s commitment to a peaceful resolution through the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He might have highlighted too that for a long time, the matter was under the jurisdiction of the UN and although it has moved to another forum, his country was still counting on the UN not to remove it from its radar, even amidst all the challenges the world faces.
On Haiti, Ali emphasised Guyana’s support for the UN Kenya-led force to bring peace to that beleaguered country and for Cuba, he called for the revocation of the US economic embargo against Cuba and its removal from the list of countries which engage in state-sponsored terrorism. With credibility as a Muslim, the President spoke with passion and conviction about the extreme action of the Taliban in silencing Afgan women in public.
Demonstrating Guyana’s engagement with global affairs and its willingness to voice opinions on complex international issues, Ali was unambiguous on several international conflicts, including Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan and the Israel-Palestine situation. An interesting observation is that on most, if not all of these issues, Guyana’s position was not at any significant variance with those of the USA, including on Ukraine which may not have gone down well in Moscow.
Other issues
Given that food production is an area in which Guyana enjoys some credibility, it was no surprise that the President showcased Guyana’s commitment to enhancing food production and that at least 35% of agro-businesses are owned by women and 60% by young people, even if the statistic is incomplete. It does not appear too, that he addressed the more mundane issue of ensuring fair trade in food commodities and affordable food prices across the world, posing a threat to the lives and livelihood of hundreds of millions.
Without offering any specifics or recommendations on how changing the composition of these organisations can better address the needs of small, rapidly developing states, the President called for reforms of international institutions like the UN Security Council, World Bank, and IMF to better represent developing countries.
Another omission was any reference to the challenges faced on the economic, social and political conditions even by a resource rich country like Guyana. This omission is particularly striking given the rapid changes the country is undergoing due to its oil boom.
Conclusion
President Ali’s address could potentially raise Guyana’s profile on the global stage, presenting the country as a responsible actor committed to environmental stewardship and international law. However, the speech misses opportunities to address the complex challenges which small states like Guyana face domestically.
Of course, the President chose how best to utilise the time allotted to him and with all that is taking place across the world, he was obviously constrained. In the circumstances, there must be omissions, while adhering to the theme of the occasion which the President himself repeated. Yet, for the domestic observer, there is another plausible reason: the President has become the country’s chief spokesperson internationally while his Vice President assumes that function domestically.
Next week’s Commentary will address the absence of the long overdue Census
The PNC-R’s 20-Point Plan for Guyana’s Oil and Gas Sector
After years of dithering and delays, the People’s National Congress Reform (PNC-R) recently unveiled a 20-point plan – more a statement of intent – for managing Guyana’s fast-moving oil and gas sector. This plan, coming eight years after the signing of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement by the PNCR-led coalition, and after four years of silence and ambivalence from Aubrey Norton as Leader of the Opposition, represents at best a promise to review rather than act. While the plan outlines a comprehensive set of policies and strategies, it also raises questions about its effectiveness in addressing the fundamental issues which the country faces with respect to the sector.
Strengths of the Plan
The plan demonstrates a commendable attempt to address a number of aspects of oil and gas sector management with firm statements on:
The proposed establishment of an Advisory Team (AT) of professionals within 90 days of taking office will bring much-needed expertise to the government’s decision-making process. This interdisciplinary approach, including specialists in business, law, economics, and engineering, among others, could lead to more informed and holistic policymaking.
The establishment of an independent Petroleum Commission which strengthens governance, enhance oversight and reduce political interference in the sector’s management.
On environmental protection, including the reinstatement of full liability coverage and prohibition of gas flaring, and concerns about the industry’s environmental impact.
The emphasis on capacity building, skills development, and involvement of the diaspora in the oil and gas sector could potentially boost local content and expertise over time.
The commitment to transparency, including the publication of information protocol, which would restore public trust and enhance accountability in the sector.
The proposal for an independent Inspector General’s (IG) Office with a 24/7 anonymous hotline is a novel idea to address concerns about corruption and improprieties, if properly staffed by honest professionals.
A formal feasibility study to determine the viability of creating a National Oil Company (NOC) and/or a local refinery is not without some merit, but the lessons of Trinidad and Tobago should give us pause.
Limitations and Concerns
Unfortunately, these positive developments are undermined by an equal number and arguably more serious limitations on key issues, such as:
Paying the taxes for the oil companies: It is mindboggling that the PNC-R is not insulted by this effrontery. In this day and age, how can any government pay the taxes of any company at the expense of the country’s public servants and services? What was needed on this issue is immediate advocacy for the Government to sign the OECD/G20 Tax Framework which would bring in immediate and substantial revenues and restore some decency to the arrangement.
Royalties: This is a non-renewable resource and once Exxon and its mates have walked away with the lion’s share of oil revenue, Guyanese will have to live with the consequences, including the environmental implications. All for 2%!
Ringfencing: This is elementary and common in the oil sector, follows the matching concept in accounting, and is permissible under existing legislation. What is there for the PNC-R to review and consider? Does it know that come the end of 2027 the matter will be moot since the Exploration Licence will have expired?
Local Content: Seemingly unaware that local content was part of the mid-eighties legislation, the plan does not establish policies, strategies and targets for increasing resident Guyanese participation in the industry. Its nemesis also boasts of local content legislation but ignores the fact that this only succeeds with robust supervision and weeding out the pervasive “Guyanese for sale” practice used blatantly to circumvent the legislation.
Revenue Management: The plan’s approach to the Natural Resource Fund (point 17) is vague, seemingly not sufficiently informed, merely committing to a review and potential restructuring. Given the critical importance of managing oil revenues for Guyana’s development and intergenerational savings, this point warranted more detailed treatment.
Stability Clause Unaddressed: Equally disappointing is the failure to confront the 40-year stability clause in the current agreement, which not only limits Guyana’s ability to adjust to new and unforeseen developments but more seriously, places a fetter on the powers conferred by the Constitution on the National Assembly to make, amend and repeal laws in the nation’s interest. One has to assume that this is no accidental omission, and it places the PNC-R in the same position as the PPP/C – the dubious embrace of sanctity of contract over permanent sovereignty over natural resources and the primacy of the Constitution.
Renegotiation: Nothing disappoints about this plan like the failure to commit to contract renegotiation as and when circumstances warrant. While point 10 mentions a “top-to-bottom review” of the 2016 Stabroek Block Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), the plan is silent on this singular opportunity afforded under the Agreement to address the disastrously fundamental imbalances in the current agreement.
Vague Language: Many points in the plan use non-committal language such as “review,” “evaluate,” and “study,” without any commitment to action. This ambiguity and timidity, even if accidental, can easily accommodate to inaction or minimal change if the PNCR comes to power.
Timeline and Implementation: While the plan sets a 90-day timeline for establishing the Advisory Team, which is as far as it goes on any timeline or implementation strategies. You can never miss a non-deadline!
