Dear Editor,
The image of a section of an approach to the highly touted concrete bridges along the Kurupukari – Lethem corridor being completely washed away was as unsurprising as it was inevitable. Almost everyone who traverses that section of the road on a regular basis – and some even publicly ventilated these concerns – knew that the “engineering” decision to create man made creek channels was a foolhardy one with much implication once the heavy rains started.
Reference is made to a SN article dated May 7th 2023 and titled “Concerns raised about creek diversions for new Kurupukari to Lethem bridges” where the exact scenario of this present wash away of the approach was discussed. It also clearly highlights the “arrogant” attitude which exists when it comes to infrastructural works in hinterland locations.
In this article, a local leader of the North Rupununi ventilated his concern about this design and warned of consequences. However, an unnamed Ministry of Public Works’ officer rebutted with “the flow alterations are not a big issue because most of the creeks are seasonally filled, and the diversions are not significant to impact wildlife or the environment.” Here is a classic example of government employees, probably because of their job designation, undertaking upon themselves to be the ultimate knowledge of what is right and what is wrong for these infrastructure projects. Yet, in the end, the government officer’s decision-making was completely wrong while the obviously more knowledgeable local’s prediction was spot on but completely ignored.
And herein is a major flaw in public infrastructure which, hopefully, the Minister of Public Works is humble enough to acknowledge. Local knowledge and input is not given enough value and importance when undertaking works in hinterland areas. And this ignoring of local knowledge is not only confined to government ministries since it is also experienced at the Regional level as well.
Many times contractors turn up to commence projects in hinterland locations without the local residents even being aware of the scope of the project or the bill of quantities. It is only when the project has commenced that locals start seeing the “flaws” in the project’s concept. While some contractors are amenable to the “advice” given by locals, others simply state that the project document clearly outlines what needs to be done. So, despite warnings from locals, the works are undertaken and within a few months remedial works are needed and the public purse is put under considerable strain.
So what can be done? If the government should ever consult with local communities on how to improve these projects, the overwhelming response would be to have local knowledge involved from the inception. Do not finalize a project until local knowledge has been inputted. Do not make this input an option, but a mandatory requirement for all hinterland projects. Billions of dollars will be saved and much better infrastructural works will be undertaken if this simple addition can be made to public infrastructure policy.
A simple parallel can be made here. In years gone by, titling of Amerindian lands was done solely by input of government agencies and officers. This led to much discontent and controversy since those government officials knew very little about the local names of creeks and certain physical features. Then about ten years ago, with the advent of the new Amerindian Land titling program, it became mandatory for government officials to go into communities and have consultation before any demarcation exercise could be undertaken.
Today, there is very little controversy in these demarcation exercises because of the input of local knowledge into the process. The Ministries of Public Works and Regional Development would be wise to follow such a process for infrastructural works in hinterland locations. It saves a lot of money and gives credibility to government investment in these areas.
Sincerely,
(Name and Address Withheld)
