Introduction
Last week’s column gave a brief overview of the Third Draft of Government’s Local Content Policy which was released to the bemused public by Dr. Mark Bynoe, Director, Department of Energy, part of the super Ministry of the Presidency. For this rather poor piece of work, Dr. Bynoe paid Dr Michael Warner US$104,500 in what is just another costly demonstration of how inept Bynoe and the Government have been in relation to the petroleum.
Column 79 had written that the Local Content Policy Draft could be described in two words – First Consideration. I take that back. It is one word and that word is junk. Yes, that is what I think of this so-called policy. No wonder and incredibly, not even the author, Dr Warner was prepared to identify himself with the Document. In all my years of work, I have never come across a Report that does not bear the name of the author.
Now, this is supposed to be a Policy Paper of the Government of Guyana to govern, regulate and direct our country for the next forty years or more. Yet, incredibly, nowhere among the stakeholders in public and private sectors identified in the document’s Preamble as informing the formative consultations was the Minister of Natural Resources; the Director of the Department of Energy; the Minister of Social Protection, including the “Minster of Labour”; the Minister of Business or leading Trade Unionists. In fact, as the Consultant on a Policy of such considerable importance, this man should have insisted either meeting Cabinet or receiving a substantial Brief from them. It was no surprise however and rather quite ironic that Warner was not shy in naming ExxonMobil and Ratio as among his formative consultations!
Evidence of Warner’s unfamiliarity with Government’s intention, let alone policy, is evident on page 3 when he describes as subject to confirmation whether the Government is considering codifying the policy through regulation, underpinned by the necessary legal framework. This hodge-podge of a document is so weak, woolly, unclear that it would be impossible to codify in any form.
I have seen some members of the private sector describe this Draft as an improvement on Drafts 1 and 2. They must have been pretty bad indeed. But I do not blame Warner – after all not many people refuse candy from a kid which is what happened here. I blame the Government and the Private sector Organisations for their failure to prepare their own draft and submit it to the Government. But the problem is that many who were expected to take a lead role might have been too busy looking after themselves without sufficient attention to the country’s interest.
It escapes me that they would expect that a Government which has largely been sleepwalking for four years during which almost every sector has seen a decreasing role of and for Guyanese somehow wake up and protect local interest. It really does pain me to witness how village businesses have been destroyed by the influx of Chinese selling low cost, low quality goods.
Maybe with some self-interest, I wonder too about the contribution of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana to the consultations. I have heard of some work done by some non-Guyanese accountants which has raised in my mind serious questions.
It is disgraceful that more than four years after the discovery of oil, we have no local content policy by whatever name. It is now almost too late for a local content policy since those who are already here as a result of our inaction and lack of any policy, cannot be excluded. Clearly, the Granger Administration has not treated the matter either as important or urgent and so there have been three drafts over three years with hardly any forward movement. Worse still, there is no likelihood of any progress in the near future.
Yet, a serious column cannot ignore the issue and having criticised the third draft as junk, it is my duty to offer some constructive suggestions – all pro bono.
How it is approached depends on who takes the initiative – Government, or civil society made up of the principal stakeholders. In either case, the first thing I would recommend is that we return to the drawing board. The existing draft does not even constitute a proper base or structure. In other words, scrap it.
The next question is to determine the objective of a local content policy. We have to see a Local Content Policy as one of the chief means of clawing back the vast benefits which the Granger Administration has given away on a platter. If we take as a given that the ultimate objective of any country is to ensure that its people have the first claim and must be the principal beneficiaries of the country’s resources then the rationale behind such a policy is obvious – the creation of jobs and capacity and skills building of the population and the retention and reinvestment of wealth back into the local economy.
In our case, with so many of our best brains having left our shores, the clawing-back can only be achieved through a sound and well-structured Local Content Policy – one that is reasoned, reasonable and practical, with the concomitant legislation force to ensure compliance.
Next week’s column will identify some of the main ingredients recognised by similarly placed policy-makers mainly from developing countries.
