Thank you for visiting this blog. Register or Login now to contribute.
Business and Economic Commentary by Christopher Ram Part 12
September 29, 2024
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
Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded – Column 138 – September 28, 2024
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!
To be concluded Next Week
Business and Economic Commentary by Christopher Ram Part 11
September 21, 2024
The deadweight of bureaucracy
The bureaucracy in Guyana can at times – and in different places – be stifling, overbearing, frustrating and totally unproductive. No place is spared as I recently learnt in an indirect encounter with the Guyana Police Force, concerning a recommendation to an individual who was applying for a firearm licence. It was with a mixture of amusement and bewilderment that I was requested to produce both a Tax Compliance Certificate and an NIS Compliance. I should have asked whether the latter was for me as an employer or an NIS pensioner, or the relevance of my tax compliance to my recommendation!
This episode reminded me of two Letters to the Editor last year complaining about the processes in both arms of the Deeds and Commercial Registry last year. What appears to be happening is that arbitrary rules are put into use not only with little or no statutory authority or rationale by persons who see systems from only one side of the counter. Most of them have no experience in the private sector and have not had to be on the other side – except trying to open a bank account, which is itself a nightmare.
In the case of the Commercial Registry the issue was about a declaration of the ultimate ownership of companies by individuals controlling 25% or more of the issued shares in a company. What the Registry was requesting was a statement that includes every shareholder, information that is completely useless and which in any case is supplied with the Annual Return which must be made by every company. It took the intervention of the Attorney General to have the requirement set aside.
More recently, a request for a Tax Compliance Certificate for a property owner wishing to sell his property was met with a request for the buyer to produce a Taxpayer Identification Number. Worse, since the buyer was a company, the officer of the GRA insisted that a TIN was required for each of the directors. When I pointed out that directors can change at any time, the overenthusiastic officer said that the GRA would have to be notified on each occasion! Again, and to his credit, the Commissioner General addressed and resolved the issue immediately.
Then there is the case where an application for a Work Permit on behalf of a company was made to the Ministry of Home Affairs for an expatriate. The Ministry’s immediate response was that in order to process the application, they required copies of GRA and NIS compliance certificates for both the employer and the employee. They seem unaware that part of the wider process, the GRA has to be satisfied that the tax laws are complied with. The Ministry it seems is totally unmindful that requesting superfluous, unnecessary add cost, not value.
Then there is the NIS which is expected to deliver from a system which has been historically defective and deficient. The number of new employees has increased significantly but with no corresponding increase in human, physical or technological resources. There is indeed significant bureaucracy which the Government and the Scheme’s Administration seem unwilling to do anything about. Lots of the frustration which the public experience is derived from old, outdated laws, inadequate processes and a Board that seems incapable of appreciating the frustrations of the public.
I am not targeting these entities but only using examples of which I have personal experience. No doubt, others have similar experiences with other agencies, and it would be interesting to learn about these and how the public cope with and overcome them. And it would be unfair to suggest that the staff at these entities are unsympathetic or unhelpful. In fact, while some of them exploit the bureaucracy for less than honourable ends, there are others who are themselves hobbled by the bureaucracy.
As the country continues its unprecedented growth across all sectors, regions, agencies and activities, administrative reform and the elimination of bureaucracy is an absolute necessity. The path forward demands not just technical solutions but a fundamental shift in governmental culture to a results-based solution. I have conveyed my experiences and frustration to persons in authority but have met with another problem – inertia, at the political level. Of course, a process and culture which was birthed under colonialism will not be easy to root out and any solution requires a paradigm shift – an examination of the nature and purpose of systems and controls which are sometimes conflated with bureaucracy.
I have suggested the establishment of a dedicated Task Force under the aegis of the Minister of Business, or the Minister of Public Service, charged with the systematic identification and elimination of processes that serve no purpose beyond their own perpetuation. This Task Force should have terms of reference, timelines and be representative of key stakeholders without being too cumbersome.
The challenge is formidable, requiring a confrontation with inertia and entrenched interests, thus requiring courage and authority. It is hard not to be cynical whether those in authority are willing to break free from the tyranny of bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. Fortunately, responsibility for the public service falls under the President himself. He has at his command the resources including the advisers, ministers, consultants and staff to lift the deadweight of bureaucracy hanging over and impeding an efficient public service.
Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded – Column 137 – September 20, 2024
Reclaiming Guyana’s Oil Wealth: Confronting Political Cowardice and the Surrender of Sovereignty Part 2
Introduction
Last week I called out the political leaders for their cowardice and dishonesty for hiding behind “sanctity of contract”. Someone pointed out that I seem to have spared Shuman’s Liberty and Justice Party and the United Force (if it exists). That was an oversight.
The response to last week’s column was silence from the political parties, no doubt hoping that this too will pass. I will not let up or let them off the hook. So, what I have done is compiled a Survey Questionnaire which I am sending not only to the political parties but to business organisations, including the PSC, to trade unions and to other CSO’s in the country.
Before going into the Survey, I want to address some of the simple options available to our political leaders in righting some of the wrongs. Here are a few.
Independent Petroleum Commission. The establishment of an Independent Petroleum Commission, free from political interference and empowered to stand up to multinational corporations, is not just desirable – it is absolutely necessary to reassure Guyanese that everything possible is being done, and is seen to be done, in protecting the country’s sovereignty over its natural resources. Such a Commission must be independent of the politicians rather than their conduits, as is the case of so many state entities, commissions and other bodies. A united national front is crucial, but it must be one that places Guyana’s interests first. Such a Commission should include economists, petroleum specialists, legal and financial experts who can match the expertise of the oil companies at the negotiating table.
OECD/G20 Tax Framework. Another important option available to the country is the ability to leverage international agreements, like the OECD/G 20 Framework for a 15% minimum global tax, to our advantage. Guyana is in the unfortunate and undesirable position in which it is among a minority of countries not to have ratified the Framework. This omission can be corrected in the shortest possible time, making the tax regime of the country compatible with international norms. Once done this is done, it would be hard to see Exxon crying foul and a breach of the 2016 Agreement. Instead of hiding behind the shield of “sanctity of contract,” this tool will provide Guyana the opportunity to collect billions in taxes for which it can issue legitimate receipts instead of what now takes place. Equally importantly, it does no harm to the country’s reputation for following international norms.
Ringfencing: This is probably the easiest of all. All the Minister of Petroleum has to do is set a simple condition in a Production Licence that exploration costs in looking for petroleum outside of the Production area are not recoverable expenses against revenue from production. It is the ultimate in dereliction that this condition has NEVER been applied.
The betrayed citizens
It is against this background that citizens must demand that all political parties publicly declare their positions and strategies on the 2016 Agreement and hold them accountable for any stance that compromises our national sovereignty. This should include a commitment to full transparency in all dealings with oil companies, regular public updates on the state of our oil resources and revenues, and a clear plan for how to increase our take and how oil revenue will be used to benefit all Guyanese.
As Guyanese look towards the 2025 elections, they deserve more than empty rhetoric and vague promises, or the repetition of broken promises. They also need leaders who understand that true sanctity lies in protecting the interests of the Guyanese people, not in defending a flawed contract and protecting the oil companies to the detriment of the country. We need comprehensive, expert-backed proposals for renegotiation that reassert our sovereign rights over our resources.
The upcoming elections are probably the last chance for the country to correct the misdeed of the APNU +AFC Coalition and the broken promises of the PPP/C. What is staggering is that the Agreement allows for its modification by mutual consent which both major parties use as a scare-mongering bogeyman, accusing critics of calling for an abrogation of the Agreement. To use Jagdeo’s words, “they have sold us out,” but the only thing is that he has now become part of the “they.” The tools are available, and the opportunities exist to level the playing field with oil companies.
What does not exist is the political will and courage to face up to the evil brought upon the country, led by politicians who cower in the face of this challenge and who willingly cede our sovereignty to foreign interests.
The Survey
Here is a brief overview of the survey questionnaire.
First and foremost, the Questionnaire seeks to understand awareness of Article 31.2 of the Petroleum Agreement, which allows for amendments with the contractor’s consent. The survey highlights several contentious issues within the agreement:
- The meagre 2% royalty rate
- Lack of ring-fencing provisions
- Guyana paying taxes on behalf of oil companies
- Oil companies receiving tax certificates for credits in their home countries for taxes which they have not paid.
- Guyana only being guaranteed 12.5% of gross revenue, in addition to the royalty.
Perhaps most alarming is the 40-year stabilization clause, which prevents new legislation that could affect oil companies’ interests. This clause effectively surrenders Guyana’s sovereignty and ability to adapt its laws to changing circumstances for decades to come.
Another critical issue is the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) and its withdrawal rules. The current arrangement, which allows the government to withdraw US$3,700 million of the first US$4,000 million the country earns per year, raises serious concerns about intergenerational equity and long-term resource management.
It’s worth noting that the petroleum world has numerous examples of countries successfully renegotiating oil contracts when circumstances change or when original terms are found to be against national interests. Our leaders’ failure to even consider this option is a dereliction of their duty to protect Guyana’s interests.
Respondents have been given fourteen days in which to respond and the results will be highlighted in future columns. It will be a good measure of who deserve the support of the Guyana electorate in 2025. The results will be published.
Please note that the questionnaire is available on chrisram.net and I invite everyone to participate.
Business and Economic Commentary by Christopher Ram Part 10
September 14, 2024
The Overgenerous Investment Act: 20 Years Later
Recently, in a discussion with some businesspersons, the issue of foreign ownership of land in Guyana came up for discussion. Surprisingly, many felt Guyana needs to consider some form of control over real property. Views will differ, but it’s hard to blame foreigners for taking advantage of the ease with which they can acquire property in Guyana. As Caribbean businesses come and “eat our lunch,” it’s time to reassess our two-decade-old Investment Act.
Historical Context and Regional Comparison
Beginning in the 1990s and through the first decade of this century, Caribbean countries introduced Investment Acts, reflecting a gradual shift towards formalizing foreign investment frameworks. Trinidad and Tobago led in 1990, followed by Barbados in 1992. Belize and St. Lucia introduced theirs in 2000, Jamaica in 2002, and others followed, with Grenada being the most recent in 2014.
Guyana’s Investment Act, passed in 2004, was part of this regional trend but stood out for its particularly generous provisions. The Act formalized practices that had previously been subject to ministerial discretion, marking a significant shift towards transparency and consistency in investment policies.
Key Provisions and Unique Aspects
The Guyana Investment Act pledges that any compulsory acquisition would only occur under specific, non-discriminatory conditions, with due process and prompt, adequate compensation including interest. This stands in stark contrast to the often-challenging process faced by Guyanese whose lands are compulsorily acquired.
Unlike many Caribbean nations with restrictive alien landholding policies, Guyana’s Act grants investors the freedom to lease or purchase land with minimal restrictions. It also provides operational freedoms such as minimal government intervention in management and pricing, and the right to import and export products freely, with some exceptions.
Other key provisions include:
- Right to determine profit distribution
- Employment of skilled foreign personnel when necessary
- Facilitated immigration processes for investors and their families
- Financial flexibility, including opening bank accounts in local and foreign currencies
- Freedom to transfer funds abroad, subject to tax obligations.
As the market for foreign exchange faces challenges, one wonders whether this last item is simply too generous.
Implementation and Economic Impact
Over the past two decades, the impact of this Act has been profound and visible. Our high streets, forests, mines, and commercial and financial sectors are increasingly dominated by non-Guyanese entities. While this has brought in foreign investment, it has also raised concerns about the control of key economic sectors.
The Act’s implementation has faced challenges, particularly in balancing the need for foreign investment with the protection of local interests. The absence of restrictions on activities that arguably should be controlled by Guyanese has led to a situation where foreign businesses can easily operate as registered business names, partnerships, companies, or cooperative societies.
Public Reaction and Debate
When first introduced, the Act was met with mixed reactions. Proponents argued it would boost foreign investment and economic growth, while critics worried about the potential for exploitation of Guyana’s resources. The parliamentary debate highlighted concerns about the timing of the Act, with some arguing it should have been introduced earlier to capitalize on investment opportunities.
The opposition, though absent for the final debate due to other political issues, had initially raised concerns about the broad powers granted to foreign investors and the potential impact on local businesses.
Need for Review and Amendment
After more than twenty years, and particularly in light of Guyana’s recent oil discoveries, the Investment Act cries out for amendments and stronger obligations on foreign investors. Key areas for potential revision include:
- Introducing some restrictions on foreign ownership in strategic sectors
- Strengthening requirements for technology transfer and local content
- Enhancing environmental protection clauses
- Updating dispute resolution mechanisms to reflect current international best practices
- Revising the role and powers of Go-Invest to better serve Guyana’s current economic realities
Conclusion
While the Investment Act of 2004 played a crucial role in formalizing Guyana’s investment framework and attracting foreign capital, it’s clear that the economic landscape has changed dramatically. As we witness the transformation of our economy, particularly with the advent of oil production, it’s imperative that we revisit this legislation.
The challenge now is to strike a balance between maintaining an attractive investment climate and ensuring that Guyana’s resources and opportunities benefit its citizens first and foremost. This requires not just amendments to the Act, but a comprehensive review of our economic policies and a national conversation about the kind of development we want for our country.
The Government, Go-Invest, and private sector bodies need to take this Act and its potential revision seriously. Only through thoughtful, inclusive dialogue and careful policymaking can we ensure that Guyana’s economic growth is both robust and equitable, benefiting all Guyanese for generations to come.