On February 17 Guyana was suspended from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, usually referred to by its initials of EITI. Its name is unlikely to strike much of a chord with the average Guyanese, and probably did not come to general public notice until this newspaper reported on the suspension, and the President gave a response the following day. For all of that its function is not an unimportant one since the 57 countries which are members have committed to strengthening the transparency and accountability of their extractive industry management. This is achieved through their implementation of a framework called the EITI Standard, while their progress in meeting that standard is assessed through a quality assurance mechanism referred to as Validation.
While EITI promotes the open and accountable management of oil, gas and mineral resources, Guyana has added forestry and fisheries to its own list, a move for which it has been commended. Each of the participating countries is required to publish an annual Report providing information in such areas as contracts, licences and production, in addition to revenue collection and allocation, and how the public has benefited, among other things.
As well as accepting the Standard, participating countries also have to adopt a multi-stakeholder approach to its implementation, that is to say the local groups of EITI have to comprise government, industry and civil society, each segment of which selects its own representatives. The Guyana group is known as GY-EITI.
It was under the APNU+AFC government that Guyana joined EITI in 2017. While that government was in office two Reports were submitted, namely those for 2017 and 2018. All countries including this one were given an extension for the tendering of the 2019 Report owing to the pandemic, and that was eventually submitted under the PPP/C government although it had been prepared under its predecessor.
The Report for 2020 had to meet a deadline of 31st December, 2022, but nothing was submitted. As a consequence Guyana was formally informed on 17th February that it had been suspended from EITI. The government did not make an announcement, it was a report in this newspaper which made the matter public. Following that, President Irfaan Ali responded, not in an official format such as a press release from DPI, but in a video on his Facebook page.
He said that the government stood “resolute and strongly behind every single institution that promotes transparency and accountability,” and that he had made it clear it was unacceptable to have a delay in the submission of the report. He then went on to blame the delay on a section of the multi-stakeholder group which for four months, he alleged, had held up the Terms of Reference for the international administrator who would write the independent report. “This begs the question whether there are persons on that group with ulterior motives… one or two persons cannot drag an entire country and its credibility at stake. No! I have made it clear to this sector that this will not reoccur in the future and persons will be exposed and held accountable”, the President declared.
The Ministry of Natural Resources issued its own statement echoing the President. In addition to other challenges it too cited the default being caused “in the main” by the delay perpetrated by some members of the muti-stakeholder group. The Ministry has indicated, however, that Guyana has been granted an extension to May 31st.
The two members of the group to whom the President and Minister Vickram Bharrat were referring were Ms Vanda Radzik and Mr Mike McCormack of the Civic component. In a letter to the President which was made public they gave a very different account of what had transpired. They described how in August last year the National Coordinator of GY-EITI, Dr Prem Misir had asked the group to retroactively approve the Terms of Reference for the 2020 Report which he himself had produced. This was unanimously refused by the multi-stakeholder group since it was defective and to submit it to the Ministry without their review, input and approval would be a “serious violation of the EITI Standard.”
Following this Dr Misir could no longer be located, they said, and he remained absent from his office for four months without notifying anyone that he would be gone. In his absence two senior civil servants from the Ministry were seconded to work with the group on a revised Terms of Reference. At a statutory meeting in December the Ministry’s PS gave to understand that the Coordinator’s office was vacant, and the two Civic members agreed on a proposal to conduct a performance evaluation of Dr Misir. Before that could happen, however, Dr Misir reappeared at the January meeting, where Minister Bharrat also let it be known that he was negotiating with the EITI Secretariat for an extension of the Report deadline and asked the group for support. They only received a copy of the letter, however, after it had been sent, another contravention of EITI requirements.
It does not appear as if the President was thorough enough doing his homework about why the Report was not submitted in a timely fashion. Failing that, he is going to some lengths to avoid the truth. Whatever else can be said about the Civic members’ account, it must be the case that Dr Misir was absent from meetings for four months, since that would be impossible to lie about, while it will also be on record that before he went he asked the GY-EITI to endorse his own crafting of the Terms of Reference for the Report. In short, responsibility for the delay lies primarily with the National Coordinator, who was appointed by the government, and the President needs to look at the matter again.
The first Coordinator was Dr Rudy Jadoopat, whose contract was not renewed in January 2022, and who was succeeded by Dr Misir. Minister Bharrat said that the EITI head was an executive member of the US chapter of the AFC and had been handpicked for the job in 2017 as a form of repayment, although Dr Jadoopat has denied he was a card-bearer for any political party. In addition he has alleged that he had refused to follow certain instructions from the Minister because they were in violation of the Standard.
As for Dr Misir, the Ministry said that he had a proven track record of excellent performance, as well as a wealth of experience and knowledge and was selected following due process.
His appointment nevertheless was a source of considerable criticism, because whatever the political status of Dr Jadoopat, that of Dr Misir was no secret. He has always been associated with the PPP/C, serving them in various capacities including as their media czar. If accusations are to be made about political appointees, therefore, then he is a far more obvious candidate than the man he replaced.
Considering that the current National Coordinator does not appear to have performed in the post all that creditably even when he was present, clashing with members on various matters, and the Civic portion of the group has maintained his performance has been deficient in other respects too apart from the matter of the Report, it has to be asked whether the government is really all that committed to the EITI Standard. As we have reported on more than one occasion Guyana’s scores in relation to the Standard have been fairly low and the EITI Board has warned that this country could be faced with suspension if it does not show significant progress. Guyana underwent a Validation process, and last year the head of the organisation visited the country in connection with strengthening compliance.
One of the most significant deficiencies mentioned in the Validation Report – among several others – was in the legislative sphere so earnings and other information from the extractive industries could not be examined. Concern too was expressed over “Guyana’s low score on Outcomes and impact … This reflects the ad hoc approach to outreach and dissemination, weaknesses in follow-up on EITI recommendations to deliver reforms and insufficient attention to the annual review of outcomes and impact, with a view to informing the annual EITI work plan.”
While the government has succeeded in securing an extension for the submission of the 2019 Report, it will not be able in the end to blame a failure to meet the Standard on individual members of the multi-stakeholder group; much of what is required, such as legislative changes lies in its own hands. What is at stake for it is whether it can demonstrate it has a commitment to transparency and accountability in the extractive industries sphere. For that it has to forget the politics and read the provisions of the Standard carefully. Implementation is not about doing what is convenient; international requirements do not have that kind of flexibility. Furthermore, the administration has to have an official in place who has understanding, the time needed for the post and a capacity to adhere to the rules.
