The allocation of state-owned land has long been a contentious issue in this country, so it is hardly surprising that differences have emerged now over how former sugar estates are being leased. The issue has been catapulted into the foreground again partly as a consequence of a mistake in the recording of the amount of land allotted to a resident of North Ruimveldt. He was stated to have been given 3,199 acres on the East Bank, when, in fact, the size of the plot was 3,199 square feet.
The contretemps caused by that clerical error occurred in the context of a report that approximately 700 acres of the former Wales sugar estate had been leased to a company named Amazonia Expert Services Limited, which had indicated its intention to go into coconut production. What caused eyebrows to raise was the fact that it was only registered six weeks prior to the announcement of its plan. A principal of the new company is Dr Arlington Chesney, who had formerly been an Executive Director of the Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute. He was quoted as telling the media that the company had been given a lease for 20 years in the first instance, although there was an option for renewal.
It may be that given Dr Chesney’s qualifications and experience in the field of agricultural research, the government had no reservations about awarding him the lease, but the process by which this decision was arrived at is not altogether clear to the public. In addition, of course, the administration’s current caretaker status should obviate it from making any allocations of this magnitude. That aside, for its part, the company has said that the lease was negotiated and finalised between Extra Virgin Coconut Products (EVCP), which was registered on November 12, 2015, and the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited for approximately 680 acres of land at the former Wales sugar estate to establish a coconut production and processing facility.
The question which arises, however, is whether other companies applied for land at Wales, and if they did, what response they received and what process was followed in making the award. On Friday, we reported Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry President Nicholas Boyer as telling the media at a press conference that immediately following the announcement of the lease awarded to Amazonia, he received a call from one of Guyana’s large agro-processors. This businessman had applied to do coconut farming at Wales estate but his application had not been approved. Furthermore, he had received no explanation as to why the land had not been allotted to him.
Mr Boyer went on to say, “Right now, I do not think we have seen any invitation to tender in the newspaper. I do not think we have seen that any land has been allocated, and the structure or methods of submitting proposals to get that land allocation.” The former President of the Chamber and current executive Deodat Indar deplored the inequitable manner in which land was being assigned, saying that it was “going out in large chunks to people who we [have] never seen in Guyana…to people who never pay tax in Guyana. People who just show up, just off the plane and getting massive tracts of land…We have a lot of Guyanese companies who have been here struggling with we in the good times and the bad times and…not getting anything.”
The Chamber President asked the pertinent question as to whether a feasibility study had been undertaken for the future usage of the Wales estate. If it had been done, he continued, had former GuySuCo estate workers or their union representatives been made aware of the opportunities deemed viable? Coconut estates were not labour intensive, so it would be a matter of some interest to see if a study showed this to be the best use of the lands. On the other hand, if there was no study, how could a project move from application to grant of lease in such a short time?
It might be added that finding some route by which the former sugar workers could be apportioned land on the former estate should have been seen as a priority by the government, certainly taking precedence over the proposals of a six-week-old company.
Accusations about unfairness and opaqueness in relation to land distribution are certainly not confined to this government. The last administration also came under heavy criticism for what was deemed the partisan way in which it handled the issue. Among other things, the then opposition complained that the Land Selection Committee comprised supporters of the PPP/C, which made its decisions in accordance with its political leanings, and that there were no discussions about the allocation of land. This became a particular problem after 1997 in Region Four – although not only in Region Four − which the PNCR had won in the election.
After coming to office, President David Granger set up a Land Commission of Inquiry whose objective, in brief, was to make recommendations to resolve issues surrounding Amerindian land titling, the ownership of lands acquired by freed Africans and any matters related to land titling. The terms of reference immediately ignited a storm of criticism, since Indigenous land questions fall under a different legal instrument from those of the rest of the society, namely the 2006 Amerindian Act, and can be adequately dealt with under that Act. In the end, the government retreated on linking Indigenous and African land issues, although that did not prevent the residents of Queenstown, for instance, claiming at the Inquiry that land they owned at Calabash Lake had been incorporated into the titled land of an Indigenous village.
For the rest, the Commission completed its work in April of last year, and handed its report over to the Ministry of the Presidency. Since then, nothing much more has been heard about it, and its full contents have not been made public. No one knows, therefore, what recommendations it made, and whether it advocated a land use policy or review of the current legislation, for example. What can be said is that a project was inaugurated last year to harmonise the forest and land information systems of the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission and the Guyana Forestry Commission with a view to bringing about greater transparency, among other things.
However, that is not enough. Caretaker government issues again aside, it can be noted that what has happened at Wales and certain other estates illustrates the fact that this administration has not moved on from PPP/C days. They may be pursuing the case of Pradoville 2 with considerable energy, but their own land allocation methods are not markedly different from those of their predecessors.
Mr Boyer’s statements in particular in this regard are well founded: “… people want a transparent process in terms of how the lands, state land and former sugar lands are being allocated, and I think some form of reporting to understand how these lands have been leased, who they have been leased to, and what is the value of the lease…whether a monthly payment or annual payment… this is all information that should be on public record,” he said. He added that this kind of transparency was important in order to hold our leaders accountable. Mr Indar contributed the observation that transparency in the process was vital for confidence in government. He is not mistaken on that count either.
Land allocation reform is not a matter which can be addressed before March 2, and if the coalition adheres to the rules, there should be no other significant distributions in the meantime. As things stand, none of the political parties appears to have taken on the issue in any significant way for electoral purposes. However, since it is so critical, it is time that they paid attention to what the Chamber had to say about a land use policy, a clear process and transparency in the allocation of state lands, as well as a public reporting mechanism on the award of such land.
