Dear Editor,
An internal communication from Mr. Gervase Warner, President and CEO of the Massy group in Trinidad suggests that the CARICOM Private Sector Organisation (CPSO) will be employed to pursue what the Memo claims are the several violations of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas embedded in the recently passed Local Content Act of Guyana. To make matters worse, Mr. Warner tells his colleagues that he would delegate to a Guyanese, Mr. Suresh Beharry, the task of assisting with the communications strategy and to approach the Government of Guyana.
Whatever the merits of alleged violations, Mr. Warner should at least be less hypocritical to the people and a country that have treated him and his Guyana companies most hospitably, for fifty-two years. Instead, there is a good dose of irony as well.
Mr. Warner cannot be unaware that ever since 1969 Trinidad and Tobago has practiced, unapologetically, one of the most stringent and exclusive local content regimes in the entire Caribbean region, “predicated on maximizing citizens’ ownership, control, and financing of all activities along the energy resources sector.” (World Bank Study, 2008). Mr. Warner of course sees nothing wrong with that. Nor apparently of the following quotes from Trinidad and Tobago Local Content & Local Participation Policy and Framework, issued on October 7, 2004 – incidentally three years after the signing of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas on July 5, 2001.
“It is the intention of the Government and people of Trinidad and Tobago that the country will maximise the level of participation of its national people, enterprises, technology and capital.”
“The Government, as caretaker and manager of these assets, has an obligation to ensure that the exploitation of these resources is conducted in a manner that generates maximum benefit to all the people of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.”
“The issues of local content and participation have recently gained prominence internationally and are a major feature of policy initiatives in both developed and developing countries.”
“Local Content – maximising the level of usage of local goods and services, people, business and financing.”
Now that Guyana has introduced legislation far less stringent than that of his home country, Mr. Warner apparently believes that Guyanese and their Government are not entitled to a right to develop local capacity. Even as I caution against any overreaction to Mr. Warner, we have to resist the open demonstration of such uninformed selfishness. I am hoping that Mr. Warner would offer both a clarification and an apology to all Guyanese for his poor judgement and even poorer choice of words.
And finally, I would like to commend for Mr. Warner’s reading the following extract from the World Bank Study, titled Local Content Policies, dealing with violations:
“Under WTO rules many forms of LC are prohibited – they are perceived as protectionist and trade-distorting measures. Nevertheless, there are multiple examples of violation of WTO rules in the form of WTO members pursuing LC policy. At the same time no country-to-country level case has been pursued under WTO regulations in the O&G sector. There is a clear weakness in the WTO’s dispute-settlement system but, more importantly, interpretations of LC requirements vary making it costly to pursue disputes and damaging for the relations between countries.”
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
