Dear Editor,
There has been a great deal of controversy arising from a disclosure that the government and ANSA Mc Al have signed an agreement for an Ethanol Plant or study. The company has gone to the trouble of sending a team to Guyana to refute allegations that it has done so.
The current debate over an agreement between the Government of Guyana and international partners seems in danger of confusing the issue, especially as regards the rights of the public, the obligations of the state to the public and the obligations and rights of the commercial sector. The following observations may be helpful.
First, the complaints surrounding this project are complaints about secrecy and the failure of the Government of Guyana to notify its public about the deal between ANSA McAl and the Government of Guyana. ANSA Mc Al has been very generous to have held a Press Conference on the 29th February on the matter in Guyana. The public criticisms, however, are justified and still remain. It is the Government’s obligation to have provided that information to the citizens of this country.
ANSA McAl’s protest that there has been no attempt on their part to hide the fact that it has an “understanding” with the Government of Guyana has not helped matters, especially when they admitted that the then impending elections meant that there were priorities other than providing information to the public, an unfortunate observation. Group Business Development Executive Arthur Sabga III confirmed this view in a Demerara Waves interview published on the February 29th, 2012, in these words, “you did go through an election and as such… public relations reason was not a priority seeing that the government was going into an election at the time”.
It should be acknowledged that a Government has a right to engage any legitimate entity in discussion about investment. What is at issue here is that the first inkling that the Guyanese public had of this engagement was from a Trinidad source and not the Government, incidentally the Government of Guyana. This is a repeat of the Marriott Hotel and China railway cases, one in Grenada and the other in Jamaica. It seems that the preference of the Government of Guyana is for these disclosures to be made abroad. More disturbing is the fact that the discussions seem to have been undertaken after the date of the 2011 General Elections was announced. Why then? If an international company undertakes discussions at such a sensitive time and especially with a Government embroiled in controversy over corruption, sweetheart deals, overpriced contracts and the like, as has been the case with the Government of Guyana, the private company is inviting trouble.
They can make no claims to innocence and legitimate businesses cannot expect that the succeeding Government/s will automatically honour such agreements. On that front, the company has no right to protection. This is internationally accepted practice. Close to election time Governments have been known to sometimes engage in questionable arrangements in an effort to improve their electoral prospects. In extreme cases they have been known to conclude deals on terms that would not otherwise be acceptable. I am not in a position to say whether any of this applies in this case.
Secondly, as far as the ethanol project is concerned, it is for ANSA McAl, a private company, to determine whether the project is economically and financially feasible.
The Government and public on the other hand, would need to be assured about its environmental and social impact. The public has no automatic right to the financial feasibility study but there may be wider economic implications as regards better uses of national resources. Of course, if the company were proposing to undertake the investment without Government financial concessions or inputs there would be no need for the Government to discuss the project’s feasibility at all. Once McAl approached the Government for fiscal and related concessions or state lands the public has a right to have their representatives assess the full feasibility with a view to seeing whether the fiscal concessions are appropriate, fair and acceptable and whether they are intended for an economically viable project. The point is that while the private company has a right to keep data to itself it cannot ask for taxpayers’ money on the one hand and then argue on the other, that the study on which the claim is based must remain the company’s private property.
It appears that the study in question has not yet been completed. Whether, the Government is expected to help fund the study is not known. In the event that this is envisaged there should be public disclosure because tax revenues are involved. The questions of secrecy and appropriate disclosure need to be understood against this background of the use of state resources whether or not cash is involved.
ANSA Mc Al has had a long and profitable association with Guyana and we welcome their continued presence.
Yours faithfully,
Carl B. Greenidge
