With the publication of Guyana’s first extractive industries transparency report, Minister of Natural Resources Raphael Trotman has said that Guyana looks forward to building on the foundation.
This was revealed by Trotman at a press conference at the Guyana’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GY-EITI) National Secretariat on Main Street, Georgetown, last Thursday.
Trotman noted that the report, which was also made public on the same day, has also been shared with Cabinet and has been posted on the ministry’s website as well.
“I wish to thank the [Multi-Stakeholder Group], the National Secretariat and the Independent Administrator [BDO LLP] for compiling the report,” Trotman noted, while stating that the government’s commitment to openness and transparency is strong and steady.
He explained that the report, which was published in conformity with the global EITI standard, goes beyond the reconciliation of payments and receipts to include contextual information, such as a summary description of the legal framework and fiscal regime, the extractive sector’s contribution to the country, production and export data, state participation in the industry, revenue allocations, sustainability of revenues, licence registers and licence allocations.
“The MSG agreed on the participating sectors and though fisheries and forestry were not mandatory, the MSG in the interest of transparency included these two sectors,” Trotman noted.
He pointed out that the MSG also agreed to include extractive entities that made payments over the materiality threshold of $75 million and the 24 entities were identified from the government sector, and the oil and gas and mining sectors.
For the oil and gas sector, he said a total of nine companies were identified but seven participated. The total revenue amounted to $2,638 million, representing 13% of total revenue within the extractive sector.
Trotman added that reconciliation of revenue for the mining sector amounted to $11,239 million, which represents 54% of total revenue generated from the mining sector.
He also said that in the fiscal year of 2017, total revenue from the extractive sector amounted to $20,800 million, with the Guyana Gold Board (GGB) accounting for 33% of total revenue streams, followed by the Guyana Revenue Authority and the Ministry of Finance, which account for 32% and 18% respectively.
“Very importantly, the report connects dots and points the way forward for better management through greater transparency in the extractive sector and this is the main focus for the government in this process,” Trotman noted.
He added that the report points the way for an improved investment climate; how to assist in strengthening licensing, record keeping and tax collection systems and legal and fiscal frameworks; and how to improve reforms and governance as well as promoting greater economic and political stability.
“For companies, it shows how to mitigate political and reputational risks as well as creating a level playing field in countries of operation and transparency of payments made to investments made to a country,” Trotman said.
He added that for civil society, it allows for more information on what is occurring in the extractive sector so as to be able to hold the government accountable.
The 6,000+ page report has pointed out that there were inconsistencies from government agencies on records on exports when compared to companies’ data.
The report also says that in order to improve transparency, promote investments and to comply with the requirement of the EITI standard, agencies should set up an open GY-EITI database in the government systems by implementing and upgrading a cadastral system with adequate details, such as data about the shareholders and the beneficial owners of the companies.
The report also notes weaknesses with regards to the list of active licences and permits submitted by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission as the Tax Identification Numbers of the extractive entities were not stated and, as a result, it was difficult to identify companies, especially since they did not bear any other identification number. It says that the only means of identifying the licences awarded to the same licence holder was by the entity’s name, which was misspelt from one licence/permit/claim to another.
