Greed, Corruption, Narcotics, Torture, Fire, Race … and now “Green”:

Guyana’s potent linkages to Underdevelopment

July 27, 2009; … Updated Feb. 14, 2010

Context: From August 2009 to January 2010, the following is one citizen’s attempt to capture on paper an ongoing national
conversation as it assumes, daily, an even more ominous tone and shape.

Consider again the words of Professor John Davies in 2000 as he recounts the example of tension and
confrontation in Fiji … because these words could easily be yours, or mine, but for an accident of geography and
time:

“… Finally, on a personal note, I recognise only too well the horrendous generalisations I have
made, the sins of stereotyping to which I have been guilty, my seemingly pathological emphasis
on identifying that which is ugly.

I am, however, unapologetic. Political, social, economic and constitutional progress

demands that problems are confronted head on, that real fears, aspirations and
motivations are nakedly portrayed, even if this is at the cost of creating some offence.

That said, it must be pointed out that as well as being the home of some of my most frustrating
encounters, these islands and their peoples have been the source of the most joyous, moving
and enduring of experiences. Though clearly imperfect - like everywhere else - it is nonetheless a
wonderful country. In the often sordid constitutional exercise, no one should lose sight of this…”

(John Davies: May 24, 2000: Professor/Head, Department of Economics, Acadia University, Nova
Scotia, Canada; http://maorinews.com/karere/fiji/davies.htm )

Snapshot Summary:

The compelling linkages between underdevelopment and Greed, Corruption, Narcotics, Torture, Fire, & Racism have never been more
evident than in the current Guyana socio-political context.

Post 1992-Guyana offers some lessons for citizens that hopefully will never have to be endured again. Now, completely bereft of the
political goodwill that followed the 1992-unseating of the PNC’s Desmond Hoyte in national elections, a disillusioned nation turns to
“Green” for comfort, parroting a Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) that, the evidence will show, is both adding to and sitting
atop a triple crisis of leadership, credibility and social pathos.

- The Auditor-General’s Report for 2006 (see its summary in the last two pages of this report) speaks directly to this crisis of
credibility, as unprecedented billions of taxpayers' dollars are pillaged from the national coffers before our eyes year after
year!

The fact that the independence of the Auditor-General’s Office/Department has been questioned because of manifest
conflict-of-interest issues, the fact that the acting Auditor-General is NOT a professionally-trained accountant, in addition
to an alleged new reporting relationship of same “Audit Office” to/under the Office of the President, and the fact that the
facility to receive and disburse LCDS and climate-change-mitigation funds suddenly appears in same Office of the President
rather than, say, in the Bank of Guyana, are continuing causes for concern (this last must be read to be believed).

- Janette Bulkan’s, Sasenarine Singh’s, and Patrick Pereira’s treatments on the LCDS speak to the crisis in leadership.
Altogether, they document an astonishingly inept and self-indulgent grab for US$580 million per year in World Bank carbon
funds, then a calamitous settlement with Norway for the promise of US$50 million/year over 5 years … while the trade-off
seems to be the deliberate destruction of a US$300 million a year local mining industry AND the pitting of Guyana’s
indigenous population against its other citizens in a scenario of ethnic upheaval (it appears that a part of the deal with
Norway demands that some of the richest mining lands be given over to Amerindian populations in addition to existing
reservations, with the inevitable peril of forcing 150,000 small and medium-scale miners of all other races out of business;
further, miners are going to have to give the Guyana Forestry Commission six month’s notice before they can cut down a
single tree in the process of mining … effectively bringing to an end all local small-and-medium-scale mining).

In a seamless moment of national angst, Guyana records its latest encounter with eco-imperialism, the miners’ claims are
dismissed as “regrettable” by the administration, and a vindictive campaign to hound Bulkan (who has been critical of
aspects of forestry and LCDS administration) out her World-Bank appointment begins ( see online letter “If Janette Bulkan’s
Message is Valueless, the Government should say why and not resort to victimization;
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/letters/01/22/if-janette-bulkan%e2%80%99s-message-is-valueless-
the-government-should-say-why-and-not-resort-to-victimization/ ) .

- Kean Gibson’s “Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana”, on the other hand, speaks … in its net outworking in the period
2003 to 2009 … to the disaster in social policy that a commitment to “If you are not Indian, you are nobody” represents for
Guyana and the Caribbean. Her words were prophetic as to the current social pathos.

Trade-unionist Lincoln Lewis equates the convert, overt and casual marginalization of 50% of the population because of
ethnicity as being tantamount to “economic genocide”.
- A New York court accuses drug-kingpin and gun-runner Shaheed Khan of killing more than 200 locals (see “Genocide in
Guyana … The Tip of the Iceberg?”), and neither the local Ethnic Relations Commission nor the Guyana Police Force will
provide for citizens the true count and ethnicity of the genocide. Both bodies “ignore” their statutory mandates and “await”
instructions to “proceed” with investigations.

The Minister of Health is comprehensively implicated with Shaheed Khan by that same court, but this news is followed by
swift legislation that all Ministers of Government are exempt from polygraph testing for any purpose. Opposition parties in
joint session are forced to prepare the “list of dead” for themselves and to document the torture of ethnic minorities by the
local security forces in a Dossier sent to several diplomatic missions.

- In complete contravention of the intent of the Firearms Act, 30,012 gun licences are presumably issued to supporters of
the post-1992 administration between the period 1992-1999, and neither the local Ethnic Relations Commission nor the
Guyana Police Force will provide for citizens the true count and ethnicity of the distribution (which has itself fuelled an
enormous crime spree).

Both bodies ignore their statutory/constitutional mandates and “await instructions or submissions to proceed” with
investigations to ascertain if the distributions were indeed made to ethnic enclaves of the population. As we wait, the
amount of licences/weapons may have doubled by now!

- The “torching” of the Ministry of Health just before a pending and potentially cataclysmic audit by the Auditor-General offers
new clues as to how degenerate the political climate has become. This is latest of many such government buildings in recent
years so “destroyed” with all its paperwork and files. The Minister of Health, one of the last persons to leave the building
that fateful night, is however immune from questioning and polygraph testing by that new rule.

Latest “investigations” by the Guyana Police Force, before the matter disappears quietly into the night, indicates that “the
identity of an overseas connection/mastermind is becoming clearer”. The matter dies right there!

- Is Norway being duped via the LCDS, and are miners in Guyana being duped about the Guyana Forestry Commission?

 “… It is easy to caricature deforestation as capricious Third World governments colluding with corrupt logging
companies,” Jagdeo said in his speech at the launch of the Low Carbon Development Strategy. “And undoubtedly, this is
sometimes the reality,” he added. He could have talked about Guyana, where the reality is that the country’s
forests are being torn apart by Asian loggers. Whilst the Low Carbon Development Strategy promises new
wealth based on non-polluting activities, more than ninety percent of the country’s existing logging
concessions are held by foreign companies under secretive but highly concessionary contracts, and their
operations are spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they systematically degrade the country’s
forests. Jagdeo’s plan is that these loggers will stay; the Low Carbon Development Strategy states that the government
“will not stop existing economic activities or threaten the employment of those already working in the forest”…”

 “… In order to counter the obvious contradictions in this, the government suggests that a “national certification scheme”
will be introduced, with the aim of making all forestry operations Forest Stewardship Council compliant in due course. Local
experts say they’ve heard it all before, and point out that even a previous scheme to verify forest sector
legality was never implemented properly, allowing fraud to continue. Guyana’s first certified logging operation,
Barama, lost its FSC certification in 2007 when it was found to be consistently in breach of the FSC’s standards. It
shows no sign of being reinstated. As one observer has concluded “Guyana will continue on its present
trajectory of secret Foreign Direct Investment contracts with a few foreign loggers.”…”

 “… This presents the Norwegian government with something of a problem. In his speech, Jagdeo said, “I am very
pleased that Norway and Guyana are now working very closely to determine how to generate performance-based
compensation for forest climate services which will support the implementation of our Low Carbon Development Strategy.”
But deforestation in Guyana is currently zero, making further reductions impossible. The one “performance”
that the government could undertake in order to reduce emissions from the forest sector – i.e. to stop or
reduce commercial logging – is precisely what Guyana says it has no intention of doing. So exactly what
“performance” is to be measured is not clear. Perhaps the government intends to stop the traditional rotational swidden
farming practised by the nation’s indigenous Amerindian communities, which takes place on a cyclical basis over a few tens
of thousands of hectares per year…”

 “… Guyana’s early ventures in REDD-type projects have been shrouded in secrecy. The terms of the lease issued by
the President to the London-based Canopy Capital for the ecosystem services of the Iwokrama rainforest project
in south-western Guyana have never been revealed. The government’s new Memorandum of Understanding
with Norway emphasises the need for “transparency”, but have even Norway’s negotiators have been able to
prize the Iwokrama project contract out of the Presidency?...”

A little more detail:

We should reflect on five viewpoints that further place the Auditor General’s report for 2006 in perspective.

First, Kean Gibson in her 2002 iconoclastic review “The Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana” pointed to the strange local
phenomenon of “good thieving” (“good teifin”) and “bad thieving” (“bad teifin”) being used as a racial, even racist, lithmus test to
describe the astonishing rape of national and institutional coffers under the party associated with President Bharat Jagdeo. She also

2
coined the phrase “corruption that is ruinous to the state” in that regard (See “The Marginalization of Persons of African Origin
in Guyana” and “The Case for Scholarship in Kean Gibson’s Book”).

In response, the Guyana government used ethnic and other bias in its tightly controlled Ethnic Relations Commission to
try to have the book “removed from public places”.

Secondly, US. State Department Reports on Guyana for several consecutive years point to “corruption at the highest levels of
government”.

The Bharat Jagdeo-led government in Guyana dismiss these findings as “false”.

Thirdly, the Commonwealth Adviser Sir Michael Davies points to the systematic destruction of Guyana’s parliament as the highest
decision-making forum in Guyana in “Needs Assessment of the Guyana National Assembly 2005”. He reiterates his findings in
the report “Addendum to the Needs assessment of the Guyana National Assembly 2005”. These reports are hastily removed
from their online berths at http://www.parliament.gov.gy/sirdaviesreport.pdf and
http://www.sdnp.org.gy/parliament/sirdavies_addendum.pdf respectively. One hopes they will be returned soon (write to
RogerWilli@Yahoo.com and I’ll show where online copies can be read) .

The Guyana government dismiss Sir Davies’ assertions as “false”.

Fourthly, the UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall points to acts of racism that could just as easily have come
from the story of the deprivation of India’s 300 million Dalits in the report of the UN Human Rights Council: “Report of the
Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall : addendum : mission to Guyana (28 July to 1 August 2008)”(27
February 2009, A/HRC/10/11/Add.2, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49bfa6ec2.html ).

The Bharat-Jagdeo government dismiss these claims as “false”.

Fifthly, as an example of how extreme the degeneracy has become, one can point to two recent developments:

1. The pre-trial analysis of the trial of US Lawyer Robert Simels, adequately summarized in “Lawyer plotted to kill and
bribe witnesses in drug goon's trial – feds”, is initially instructive. As mentioned before, evidence led in the trial
implicates at least one Minister in Bharat Jagdeo’s cabinet with Simels’ client, the Guyanese vigilante/assassin Shaheed
Khan, who has been responsible for the death of over 200 Guyanese.

A post-trial summary of the events to date is found in the Stabroek News article “Shaheed ‘Roger’ Khan: Drugs, Dirty
money and the Death Squad”. The following excerpt from this last summarizes the cynicism with which the local press
now view the political climate:

“… Shaheed ‘Roger’ Khan was one of the most complete criminals in Guyana’s history. He acquired vast
properties, recruited serving police officers, ordered executions, imported and exported cocaine,
laundered millions of dollars, possessed specialised intercept equipment and armed himself with a wide
assortment of handguns and ammunition. All of this was possible only because of his special
relationship with the Guyana Government. He enjoyed immunity from an indulgent
administration and compliant law enforcement agencies. Even now, the administration has
made no attempt to conduct official inquiries nor has the police force attempted to bring Khan
and his well-known accomplices to justice…”

Guyana’s Opposition Coalition should petition for full disclosure on an infamous “letter” written by same Khan to President
Jagdeo on August 25, 2008 … parts of which were strangely excluded by the judge in the Simels trial.

If the above 2009-reality defies belief, then imagine the emotional distress of former Guyana ambassador to China Ronald
Austin as he struggles in 2004 for a sense of professional calm while issuing a haunting appeal to the Diaspora. In his article
“Genocide”, he puts the toll at over 400, while yet others point to “1,107 Guyanese murdered between 2001 and 2007”.

“… I have been musing on these things for a certain time now. I am a troubled soul. I was fortunate that
as a student of history of at least two universities, to be instructed by men who demanded that I look
beyond existing reality. Example, put before me is that of the destruction of the Jews. There is no greater
lesson in modern or post-modern history than this ugly occurrence. Anyone familiar with this passage in
European history would know that the destruction of the Jews was preceded by centuries-long culture of
hatred and sustained campaign of demonization. The end result was Dachau and Auschwitz, among
others. What is most intriguing about this period is that even the great intellectuals and statesmen of the
day refused to believe what was happening to the Jews.

In the now famous words of Hannah Arendt: "Normal men don't know that everything is possible." Even
as great an intellectual as Raymond Aron, when confronted with the atrocities of the Nazis in the early
period of Hitler's reign, could confess in his memoirs that "it seems to me that no one in the immediate
circumstances suspected the radical character of the anti-semitism that was expressed from 1942 on in
the 'final solution.' How can one believe the unbelievable?" …”

2. A local importer, Fidelity Investments, is indicted by the then Auditor-General:

3
 “… It was held by the Auditor General’s team that customs duties totalling $321.5M were allegedly
evaded by Fidelity and that the requisite fines should be paid by it. Further, the probe team maintained
that Fidelity submitted false documents during the investigations, and therefore recommended that the
relevant charges be instituted against the importer for producing false documents to the task force with
the intention of misleading it….” ; (see “Fidelity Farce”; Editorial, May 25th 2009;
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/editorial/05/25/fidelity-farce/ … for a summary of the
issues)

President Jagdeo’s response is to confound the entire legal community, and usurp the function of the court through the
side-stepping of essential procedure, insisting that the government will in fact target 12 Customs Officers who were
originally induced by Fidelity, and not Fidelity itself. He ignores the entreaty of AFC-Leader Raphael Trotman that “… Plea
bargains are subject to the approval of the court and are not deals struck before a guilty plea is accepted …” Fidelity is
allowed plea-bargain outside the court-system, while the accused Customs Officers are indicted within the system.

How significant is this rejection of the courts, of the rule of law? Everyone appears to recognize the fallout … except Mr.
Jagdeo and his administration:

“… Otherwise, this investigation choreographed by President Jagdeo on April 7th last year will implode into
nothingness and add to the image of the country as one lacking in transparency and riddled with
corruption. It must be remembered that it was the team headed by the Auditor General which was
entrusted by President Jagdeo with the task of deciding what had transpired in the polar beer scam and to
present the basis for an ensuing prosecution. Whether or not the Auditor General engaged in overreach by
recommending charges against not only the customs officers but Fidelity is beside the point. What the
Auditor General presented was a credible enough depiction of what transpired to warrant charges against
the main players who were embroiled in a conspiracy to defraud the Treasury….” (see “Fidelity Farce”;
Editorial, May 25th 2009; http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/editorial/05/25/fidelity-farce/ )

This would fuel the most recent comment by the co-President of the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) in the
Stabroek News of August 11, 2009:

“… Mike McCormack said that there appear to be two categories of crime in the country, one
prosecuted in the normal way and a second, which is beyond the scope of law and order
officials. McCormack’s comments were made in the context of the allegations being raised in the US
courts about murders in the country that have gone unsolved.

“There appears to be no interest in how certain people die, or instance of massive fraud or
serious drugs offences. It is almost as if there are two kinds of citizens, those who the law
applies to and those who are above it”, McCormack stated.

Further, he said that it is this glimpse of parallel societies which is the most frightening
revelation of the New York trial involving Khan’s former attorney (Robert) Simels …”

Relative to this last sentence, and the stunning ethnic cum racial dimension that each issue above ultimately resolves itself
into, it should not be lost on readers that it was this selfsame phenomenon that Kean Gibson was perhaps trying to
delineate in “The Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana” and its sequel “Sacred Duty: Hinduism and Violence in
Guyana”.

There, she decried the prevailing culture of “If you are not Indian, you are nobody” and utterly denounced it as a valid
social, or national, policy in multi-ethnic Guyana … albeit in her usual blunt and stunningly direct way.

At another, more academic and abstract level, we had attempted to address these and other developments in “The Case
for Scholarship in Kean Gibson’s Book”. (Guyanese politician) Ravi Dev’s peculiar perspective on Blacks in Guyana being
considered “outcastes” by the Indo-Guyanese “jati” (nation) caught our attention then, but also noticeable from that piece
would be the utter transformation that commentator Frederick Kissoon has since undergone.

It is ironic that some of the flak that he initially levelled at Gibson is now aimed at him!

It remains to be said that Ravi Dev’s destiny, and Kissoon’s latest insertion in the “elected dictatorship” and “ethnic
dilemma” debate can be found in the latter’s Kaieteur News article “A Man and His Dilemmas”.

It is also worth mentioning here that one of the principals at Fidelity Investments, working under the subsidiary name
Guyflag Insurance, was also allegedly involved in a scheme to apparently defraud an insurance company of $400 Million in
2005. Due to maddening administrative delays in the tightly controlled court system, nothing has yet came of that situation
… but that’s irrelevant, isn’t it?

Readers would get an idea of what was in store for that evolving fiasco at “New Objections Result in GuyFlag Trial
Adjournment”, and see the case die a “predictable” death in the online article “GuyFlag Trial Gets Indefinite
Adjournment”.

4
 And if that were not enough for the enduring soap-opera that doing business in Guyana has become, readers are
encouraged to consider that no-one really seems to know what the latest position is on this phoenix.

World-renown Guyanese economist Dr. Clive Thomas had (in 2004) spoken of/to the “criminalization of the state” under the tenure
of a Bharat-Jagdeo-led administration that has literally squandered 17 years of local and international goodwill:

“….... Guyana needs intervention at the macro/national, intermediate/meso and the micro/local levels, Thomas said.
He listed, "the superficiality of national unity, the dynamics of racial arithmetic and insecurity and the unrelenting rise
of both benign and militant extremism." Guyana's predicament, he said, was compounded by the depth, scale,
complexity and sheer persistence of economic misery and the growth of the narco-economy. He added that the
country's entrenched totalitarianism in a multiracial society combined with territorial threats and the
criminalisation of the state all played their part. Thomas asserted that Guyana's political and social crisis could
not be solved without the intervention of the international community in the broader sense of creating the foundation
for some resolution. "Just as our development problems are so acute that we cannot solve them without the support of
the regional and international community, similarly, our political crisis requires this type of intervention." Asked to
expand on the term `structural deadlock' during the debate that followed his remarks, Thomas alluded to the
government's initial objections to the symposium and their attempts to review presenters' papers prior to actual
presentation....”(Source: Dr. Clive Thomas: "International Conference on Governance, Conflict Analysis and
Conflict Resolution," Georgetown, Guyana February 2004)

The Bharat-Jagdeo government had dismissed Thomas’ claims as “false”.

Is the lawlessness limited to local activity?

Perhaps the latest instalment in the tragedy outlined above will be another “fire” that will be harder to put out. Following the anti-
Caricom rhetoric that followed the European Partnership Agreement (EPA), and the ruling by the Caribbean court of Justice (CCJ)
against Guyana in the TCL/CET fiasco, we have the astonishing development of the possibility of a refusal by Guyana’s
government (not it’s people, mind you) to reinstate the CET on extra-regional imports. The implications for the rule of law, while not
unexpected in the Guyana case given the evidence of executive lawlessness below, are enormous given the regional implications.
Guyana’s government seems to have forgotten that there may be repercussions for its exports as well if they fly in the face of the
CCJ.

Bottom line: the Government of Guyana broke the law … violated the provisions of Article 82 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas
(RTC) … on behalf of a few of its business friends, and now refuses to obey the legal judgement by the CCJ …for the sake of a few of
its friends. They will doubtless argue with some stubbornness that the US$1 or US$2 difference in price of a sack of cement “justifies
this move” and Guyana’s lobby in COTED for a waiver of the CET … but some commentators have argued with similar diligence that
“…it may only be of … significance that one of the major financial beneficiaries of this waiver would be Guyflag, importer of
Venezuelan cement whose principals include former ministers Bibi Shadick and Sasenarine Kowlessar …”.

The significance of the Guyflag/Fidelity connection has already been made clear above.

Attorney-General Ramson’s argument of a huge “construction boom” in Guyana … outside of the erection of many huge empty
edifices by Guyana’s nouveau-riche … is best answered by Balwant Persaud’s letter “Where is the progress?”

In its unilateral action completely suspending the CET on cement, the government of Guyana displayed a stunning shortage of
memory about its own use of diplomatic and negotiation processes in fulfilling the requirements of the rule of law relative to the RTC.
But then, we should remember, the previous issue had to do with protecting the ethno-centred rice industry in Guyana. Lincoln
Lewis assesses the identical phenomenon for the case of sugar (as against bauxite) on page 4 of this treatment! However
interpreted, this latest arrogance relative to the CCJ-ruling takes the issue to another, more compelling level that could yet have
repercussions for Guyana’s vital exports if retaliatory action is taken.

So how do we therefore live?

Of the hundreds of comment-threads on recent developments in Guyana, there is a growing sense … both among obvious Jagdeo-
supporters and the usually politically reticent … that nothing about the status quo can really be defended any more, and that the
hopes and dreams of a young nation have been sacrificed by the best minds in Bharat Jagdeo’s party on the altar of … common and
loutish thievery, racism and fascism.

UN’s Gay MDougal has summarized that same status quo in the bland syntax of diplomatic communication, and we must now search
our hearts as a nation to determine if she is right or wrong. On page 14 of her report, one finds these brutal sentences:

“… Many consider that economic policies have been formulated to benefit the Indian population at the expense of
Afro-Guyanese jobs and income. Union representatives noted a trend of State support for Indian-dominated
industries such as the sugar industry, while allowing the predominantly Afro-Guyanese bauxite mining industry to
decline and be privatized resulting in the loss of thousands of Afro-Guyanese jobs. One union representative
described a “policy to economically destroy the African people”. Another commentator stated: “Now all the public
entities are being privatized, such as banks. They are going to PPP people and supporters with ‘sweetheart deals’.
Previously they were owned by the people. By and large they don’t employ Afro-Guyanese now.”

5
 37. Afro-Guyanese expressed frustration at being unable to obtain employment in Indian owned or managed firms
due to their African names, their colour, or their addresses in Afro-Guyanese villages. Those with Indian surnames
might be invited for interview but rejected when they are seen to be African or of mixed heritage. Discrimination is
said to be manifested in negative stereotyping of Afro-Guyanese as lazy, dishonest, dirty or criminal. Afro-Guyanese
experience difficulty accessing bank loans and credit, due to perceptions that they do not repay loans. Without
access to credit they are unable to establish small businesses.

38. The scarcity of employment opportunities for women, particularly from Afro-Guyanese and indigenous
communities, is a major concern. Women, both young and older, are being forced by poverty into crime, drug use,
trafficking, and prostitution. Afro-Guyanese women spoke of the failure of many men within their community to fulfil
family responsibilities. High numbers of single mothers subsequently face an extremely heavy burden of care. Child
neglect is a problem within Afro-Guyanese communities.

39. Serious allegations were raised of discrimination and corruption in government procurement of goods, services
and public works contracts. There is a widely held belief that government contracts are systematically awarded to
companies supporting the Government, Indo-Guyanese companies, and those in which government officials have
personal interests.17 In lieu of a functioning and independent public procurement commission, the tender process is
the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. Sources indicated to the independent expert that it lacks adequate
regulation, accountability and transparency, leaving it open to substantial abuse….”

Such claims would, of course, still seem ridiculous were it not backed up by as weighty a personage in the Trade Union Movement as
Lincoln Lewis, who has, it seems, finally decided to put a framework and structure on his concept (articulated since 2004) of
“economic genocide” against an entire segment of the Guyanese population.

In recent times he has attempted this in two segments, each illustrating that a socio-political edifice in Guyana is now being held up
with rotting threads of propaganda tape … both at home and abroad.

At home, Lewis has addressed (in commendably neutral, yet politically explosive) terms the ethnic dimension of an economic crisis
that Gay McDougal may have struggled to place in language we can all understand. Lewis has no such difficulty in the innocently
captioned Kaieteur News article of September 12, 2009: “The Same Principle That is Embraced for Sugar Must Also be
Embraced for Bauxite”.

The letter above is as instructive an indictment of Bharat Jagdeo, and calculatedly racist politics and economics, as one would find
anywhere in the Caribbean and beyond … and yet CARICOM, or its appointed Head-of-State for governance issues, says nothing. The
following excerpt from Lewis’ letter sums it all up in chilling matter-of-factness:

“… A couple of things need to be further said. It was the bauxite workers who fought and received from
the PNC administration tax free pay for work performed on Saturdays and Sundays.

This benefit was given to the sugar workers, in as much as they did not struggle for it. It was a position I
embraced in the spirit of brotherhood, solidarity and improving the working conditions for all workers.

When the PPP came to power this benefit was taken away from the bauxite workers and left only with the
sugar workers. GAWU is aware of this but never once raised its voice in solidarity with the bauxite
workers who protested against the violation.
My contention has always been the treatment of the bauxite industry vis a vis the sugar industry by the
PPP administration.

In the Hoyte Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) provisions were made for the privatization
of both bauxite and sugar. The PPP on coming to office embraced the privatization of bauxite but
refused to put safety net in place to deal with the resulting social and economic consequences,
while at the same time it ignored the recommendation of SAP to deal with sugar.

The government is on record saying that they will not accept the recommendation to close the
Demerara Estates and more so privatizing of GuySuCo. In 1992 the record will show, in the
bauxite industry, Linmine and Bermine produced 483,000 tonnes of bauxite and all was sold.

When the PPP took office bauxite never had a problem with marketing. It was the PPP who colluded
with Minproc to reduce Linmine’s production by half.

The bauxite unions and the Guyana Trades Union Congress advised the government that such an
act would hamper the industry’s reliability with its existing international market since it will be
deemed an unreliable supplier.

With the imposed reduction of production the industry could not supply their exiting markets so

6
 buyers went elsewhere which caused the industry to lose its market shares and performance
declined.

GAWU should go back and check GuySuCo Annual Statement, come clean and say to the society the
year and the amount of extra money GuySuCo injected to save the Sugar Trading Enterprise Pension
Fund.

The extra money given to the pension fund had to be a political decision since GuySuCo is a state-owned
entity. It is important that note be taken of GAWU’s argument that the current sugar modernization is
viable and that allows the government to secure funding, but at the same time argue and that “the socio-
economic reality is that the sugar industry is still the nation’s lifeblood. To cut if off, to engender its failure,
is to endanger the very economy of Guyana at this time.”

The figures will show that in 2008 GuySuCo Annual Report recorded losses of $4.08 billion, the
second highest in the last decade, following on 2003, which recorded a loss of $4.3 billion; and a
projected loss of $9 billion from October 1. I acknowledge GAWU’s argument that closing the
industry will create serious socio-economic consequences but the same argument must be
applied by the government to the bauxite industry and communities.

The modernization of the sugar industry cost millions of US dollars, with Skeldon costing US$110 million.

The largest sum of money that the state bauxite industry has requested for modernization was
less than US$20 million and this government rather than work in collaboration with management
to realise the set objectives, chose to put workers on the breadline, give away Linmine for
US$1.00, which the new owners sold within three years for US $46 million.

These are serious issues and everyone ought to be concerned when a proud people, through no fault of
theirs, have been made political football and reduced to beggars in as much as they have the technical
skills to do better.

My argument has never been against modernization that will create jobs. It has always been that the
same principle that is embraced for sugar must also be embraced for bauxite.
What we have not seen is the acquisition of funds to modernize a state bauxite industry, dominated by an
African workforce that would have created and maintained jobs for the communities, and moreso protect
a Pension Fund for those workers who have spent their lives in that industry.

Similar discriminatory treatment has been executed on other institutions and communities in the African
economy by this government.

There has been no recognition, respect or concerns for the socio-economic consequences for this section
of society, in as much as there continues to be public outcries and proposals made to the government to
create jobs, engage in retraining and protect pension plan.

This deliberate and continuous policy to destroy the African economy has caused me to say the
government is engaged in economic genocide.

My concerns find support in the UN Convention which defines Genocide as “acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

According to this Convention and given the preponderance of evidence the government would be
guilty of, “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part” …”
This last sentence above has enormous implications for, say, Kean Gibson’s rather prophetic 2003-treatment of the economic impact
of racism whether overtly or covertly applied in Guyana’s peculiar economic circumstances. In “The Case for Scholarship for Kean
Gibson’s Book”, we had sought to identify the main thrust of her contentions as being resident in the phrase:

“… What is needed … is recognition that racism is itself a political system, a particular power structure
of formal and informal rule, socioeconomic privilege, and norms for the differential distribution of
material wealth and opportunities, benefits and burdens, rights and duties…” (Kean Gibson, page 2; “The
Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana”)

7
Addressing the Diaspora, Lewis would point to the by-now-blatant ambivalence that some Caribbean commentators are exhibiting
to the twin evils of racism and corruption in order to protect the status quo. He styles this argument as “An Open Letter to Ricky
Singh”.

“… If anyone thought elections confer a democracy and give a government the liberty to do as it pleases
U.S. Vice President, Joe Biden, reminds us that: “[W]e must also focus on building and encouraging
strong democracies, where basic fairness, social equality, and a deep respect for human rights and the
rule of law are the guiding principles of everything we do. Democracy is about more than elections; it’s
about strong, transparent governance and a thriving civil society. It is also about addressing as effectively
as possible the challenges of poverty, inequality and social exclusion.”

Presently the conditions under which Guyanese live are far worse than what obtained under the PNC. I
can speak of it, because I have lived it and continuously fought against it. Today the Jagdeo
administration practices racial and political discrimination, tramples on human and trade union
rights, is accused of the murder of hundreds of young men, tortured many, associates with drug
lords and phantom squad, and commits crimes against humanity with impunity.

These incidents must have engaged your attention since they are covered in the media and you write for
the state newspapers, the Guyana Chronicle. I am aware the Rickey Singh column – national and
regional - is never used to address the injustices meted out to Guyanese by the Jagdeo regime.

I am similarly aware that my attempt to solicit the involvement of Guyanese-born Sir Shirdath Ramphal to
speak out against rights violations in Guyana has evoked your response and accusation of me being a
political activist. Rickey, this is a devious act, since you are aware that I have never been a political
activist, that I am a trade unionist by vocation, and up until recently you telephoned me in Barbados
seeking my opinion on matters of regional import.

Given this known fact I am forced to conclude the accusation is a deliberate ploy to discredit me
in the hope of diverting attention from the serious offences being committed by the PPP
administration.

As Guyanese we disqualify ourselves from speaking about any issue, in any country in CARICOM, if we
fail to address the transgressions that are committed in our birth-land….”

Exactly how close is Guyana to self-inflicted collapse?

Was the 2006 Auditor-General’s report, by itself, the most damning indictment yet against political machinery that is now moribund
under the weight of zero credibility? In a sense it clearly was not:

“… One of the ironies of the 2006 report is that it is far less comprehensive than the report for 2005.
Not that size alone matters but some valid reasons should have been offered for the downsizing of the
report from 1,822 paragraphs in 2005 to 525 paragraphs in 2006, many of which are devoted to “Prior
year matters that have not been fully resolved.”

The exposure of President Jagdeo’s stunning ineffectiveness at managing the nation’s affairs to the benefit of all its citizens, it would
seem, was not only a product of his alleged and relatively recent association with Shaheed Khan, but our own myopia and laziness in
not heeding the size of this ponzi-scheme given years of accusing Audtor-General reports. One latest such indicator was when the
independence of the Office of the Auditor-General was compromised when it was made into an “Audit Office” in the Office of the
President, and installing as Auditor-General someone who allegedly had no professional accounting qualifications … while the wife of
the Minister of Finance was, allegedly, similarly installed as a ranking or principal Director of Audit in the same office.

It was in the making for a number of years, and one man was screaming his head off warning us … and we would not listen. He
reminds us of the financial perversities involved … again … in January 2010 as an $8 BILLION raid is made on the
Consolidated/Contingency Funds, triggering a parliamentary walkout by the joint opposition:

“… Occasioned by the walkout of the opposition from the National Assembly as it considered
Supplementary Appro-priation (No.3 of 2009) Bill 2010, for $8,245,758,278, some of which had
already been spent (Contingencies) and to be spent (Supplementary Appropriations), I began an
examination of the whole business of the constitution and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003
(FMAA) …

“… The Consolidated Fund and the Contin-gency Fund are dealt with under Articles 216-219 and 220 respectively.
These five articles occur in Title 8 which is intituled simply ‘Finance.’ Together they deal with the establishment,
funding and withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund or other public funds. For reminders, the
Contingency Fund is not a separate fund but only a sub-fund of the Consolidated Fund….”
8
 “… Article 216 provides that “all revenues or other moneys raised or received by Guyana (not being revenues or
other moneys that are payable, by or under an Act of Parliament, into some other fund established for any specific
purpose or that may, by or under such an Act, be retained by the authority that received them for the purpose of
defraying the expenses of that authority) shall be paid into and form one Consolidated Fund.”

This constitutional provision is systematically abused. It is now more than a decade since Auditor
General Anand Goolsarran had cited the failure by the government to pay the government’s share of
24% of the proceeds of Guyana Lotteries to the Consolidated Fund, an assertion that has been
repeated in every single annual report of the Audit Office. The 2007 report simply reminds Guyanese
that no action was taken to pay over the amounts due to the Consolidated Fund but that such proceeds
were paid into a special bank account № 3119 and were used to meet public expenditure without
parliamentary approval.

Watchdogs?

But instead of acting decisively on this matter the Audit Office accepts the inane response from the Ministry of
Finance “that a policy decision is required on this matter, ” suggesting that the government or cabinet has some
discretion on whether or not to comply with the constitution. Unfortunately, it is not only the Audit Office that
bears responsibility for this sad state of affairs but so do the Public Accounts Committee and the National Assembly
which are supposed to be our financial watchdogs.

But so too does civil society, including those religious organisations which have accepted lotto funds
for the construction of religious buildings.

While the lotto funds may be the most obvious and egregious case of violation when it comes to
putting government revenues and receipts into the Consolidated Fund, it is not the only or obvious one.
For example, the government with the cooperation of NICIL and the Privatisation Unit have been
holding and spending public monies without the approval of the parliament and with no public
oversight. That too runs into hundreds (of millions) if not more than a billion dollars.

The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 which gives effect to the provisions of the constitution,
provides that all budget agency receipts shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund. The agencies
include the ministries, commissions, regions, the Guyana Defence Force and the Georgetown Public
Hospital Corporation (GHPC). My understanding is that the money from the lottery company is paid to
the Ministry of Finance making the decision not to place the lotto money into the Consolidated Fund
both unconstitutional and unlawful.

I particularly identify the GHPC because it too is guilty of such a breach which is done with the full
knowledge of both the Ministers of Finance and Health. In an environment in which the rule of law
prevailed, both these Ministers would be guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a
fine of two million dollars and to imprisonment for three years.

But Guyana has no such environment.…”

Varying expenditure

“… Subject to laid down conditions, section 22 gives the minister the power to reallocate authorised spending
among annual appropriations. The main conditions are that these be within the same budget agencies, that no
capital allocation can be used for recurrent expenditure, a ten per cent limit and that no new appropriations can be
created. Such changes are themselves subject to what is called an Appropriation Amendment Bill to be presented
to the National Assembly no later than the end of the eleventh month of the current fiscal year.

Any variation other than the reallocation referred to in section 22 must be authorised by a
Supplementary Appropriation Act prior to the incurring of any expenditure thereunder. As we noted last
week, on the introduction of a Supplementary Appropriation Bill, the minister must present to the National
Assembly the reasons for the proposed variations and provide a supplementary document describing the impact
that the variations, if approved, will have on the financial plan outlined in the annual budget.

Neither the current Minister of Finance nor his predecessor has ever complied with the requirement to
publish such a document. Again, one has to ask where is the National Assembly in all of this and whether the
clerk and/or the speaker, the parliamentary opposition and the Public Accounts Committee ought not to do
something about this persistent abuse. Dr Ashni Singh gives the appearance of not being influenced by any law,
professional or public opinion in terms of how, what and when he does anything. It is one of the failings of these
types of legislation that they provide no automatic sanction for patent and systematic breaches. Nor do they lend
themselves, without the availability of substantial private resources, to being responsive to legal sanctions…”.

It gets worse! As recently as November 2009, in the commentary “Financial Lawlessness on the Increase”, it was pointed out
that:

“…The Office of the Auditor General

9
 Not only is this office subject to its own act but it is also a constitutional body with serious responsibilities and
functions. One of the first but fundamental points to note about the head of this office is that the
constitution makes no provision for an acting Auditor General and the job description clearly requires a
professionally qualified accountant. In fact the incumbent has no such qualification and it would be a
travesty for him to be appointed substantively to the position. It may be convenient for the government to
have him there, but surely it is dangerous for the taxpayers of the country and severely compromises the quality
of its reports. By retaining him the government is aware that the real authority in the Audit Office is no
less a person than the spouse of the Minister of Finance. It is hard to believe that neither of them nor
anyone in the government, nor in the international donor community that keeps putting money into the Office,
recognises this obvious conflict of interest or simply is not interested even in token accountability….”

With the benefit of 10 years of hindsight, therefore, we should now engage in a few more retrospectives with Christopher Ram,
Chartered Accountant, in the Business Page of the independent Guyanese daily Stabroek News, exactly one year previously at the
time of writing the second update to this script in August 2009:

“…QAII has been more than an embarrassment for this government. It has been a revelation of how government
business is transacted, public assets are sold, tax concessions given away and the public is misled by, to use the
words of Go-Invest “a very small cabal” of political functionaries and professionals who seem willing to compromise
their professionalism to meet the objectives set by politicians. All of the key players involved, the President, the
Minister of Finance, Cabinet, the Privatisation Board, PU/NICIL, Guyana Revenue Authority and G-Invest have been
found terribly wanting …” (“Go-Invest - Investment and Reality” August 17, 2008; Stabroek News)

Then these ominous words one week later in the same forum … about the Auditor-General’s Report for 2006:

“… One of the ironies of the 2006 report is that it is far less comprehensive than the report for 2005.
Not that size alone matters but some valid reasons should have been offered for the downsizing of the
report from 1,822 paragraphs in 2005 to 525 paragraphs in 2006, many of which are devoted to “Prior
year matters that have not been fully resolved.”

The size of the Guyana National Budget has expanded dramatically, state corporations formed under the Public
Corporations Act and the Companies Act have increased the volume and value of transactions they carry out each
year while legislation in 2003 and 2004 introduced new systems of accountability as well as new responsibilities of
the Audit Office as it is now called.

Yet, the 2006 report which does little more than repeat the several failures highlighted in earlier reports has
generated considerably more public discussion and interest, eliciting responses from the Ministers of Health and
Finance, the Head of the Presidential Secretariat and his boss the President himself. In fact the statements from
the latter two were in stark conflict with Dr Luncheon suggesting quite inaccurately that the closure of certain bank
accounts was proving difficult, “fundamentally because of a lack of information and timely reconciliation.”
Perhaps the Minister of Finance who spoke after Dr Luncheon should have advised him that the closure of accounts
has nothing to do with whether or not accounts are reconciled as any person who has held a bank account will
attest! In fact closure actually helps with reconciliations since it brings an end to all business being conducted on
that account.

‘Illiteracy’

But if Dr Luncheon’s statement was uninformed and misleading, it was the President’s contribution that truly
caught the imagination and raised some parallel with his contribution to the debate on tax holidays for QA II.
Attributing some of the findings in the report to factors ranging from financial ‘illiteracy’ to the previous
government for perceived irregularities outlined in the 2006, President Jagdeo described the government’s failure
to deal with Lotto funds in accordance with the constitution as a “technical issue,” and incredibly described the
billions of dollars held in dormant accounts as “not real cash, it is a book entry…”

This is a matter with which the last Auditor General Anand Goolsarran had taken issue for several years and if the
President were right – though he clearly is wrong – then each report for the past several years is deficient since
dormant bank accounts usually represent cash confirmed as being held by a financial institution. What the
President might have said is that there are possible explanations and controls to prevent the fraudulent use of
these accounts, but without the benefit of this information one cannot determine whether the Auditor General was
referring to confirmed bank balances or balances extracted from the accounting records. Past reports have been
highlighting these same issues as far back as the nineties, and the accuracy of similar findings and comments were
never questioned by any of the incumbent Finance Ministers, one of whom was the current President.

Where the President and his Finance Minister do have a point is in relation to outstanding advances drawn from the
contingencies fund. Indeed normally a report would have identified the period for which the advances were
outstanding, whether or not they were all proper charges on the contingencies fund, and would have highlighted
the fact that many of these advances amounting to hundreds of millions of real dollars were made in the last week
of 2006, including separate sums of $300 million each to the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Housing and
Water, on December 29 and 30, respectively.

Why did the Auditor General not tell the nation the amount outstanding on the ten advances made in 2006 to the
Ministry of Culture and Sport totalling $450 million dollars, or why in the space of seven days that ministry had to
be advanced identical sums of $84.375 million? … “

10
Using LCDS and “deforestation” to make a case for … what?

And so we can now better appreciate the circumstances at birth of a Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) that begs the
outside world to pour more funds into Guyana’s gaping wound … or else the pockets of those who are convinced that they are
destined to rule Guyana forever!

Peter R. Ramsaroop, Guyanese politician, in his article “LCDs: Unemployment or ‘Collateral Damage’?” is wont to make some
careful observations:

“… Janette Bulkan in her series of ten columns on “Carbon in the forests of Guyana” in Stabroek News during July-
August estimated that we have a maximum of 11.4 million tonnes of carbon emissions from our forests annually,
based mainly on data from the Guyana Forestry Commission and Tropenbos. The medium-risk price of a CER unit
(one tonne of carbon dioxide) on the European Trading Scheme for carbon is about Euros 8, or US$42 per tonne of
carbon. So if we were to close down absolutely all the logging and mining and agriculture which are
emitting those 11.4 million tonnes, then we could be selling US$479 million worth of forest carbon

Unemployment:

We already have one of the highest unemployment in the region. With the implementation of LCDS, we
would be throwing out of work 27,000 forest workers, log truckers and sawmill operatives, lumber
yard suppliers, furniture manufacturers, belna crafters and builders of wooden houses. We would also
be displacing 30,000 Brazilian miners and 43,000 Guyanese miners. 271 licensed dredges would be
stopped and the 9,000 unlicensed dredges estimated by the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners
Association would no longer be tolerated by the GGMC.

It is curious that in all the sound and fury of the President’s promotion of his Low Carbon Development Scheme
these sorts of calculation are never mentioned. Does President Jagdeo think that making unemployed one
quarter of the entire population of working age is simply “collateral damage”? …”

Ramsaroop’s comments are useful from another standpoint … they offer an estimate of the lower end of the amount of Brazilians in
Guyana. The total figure could be anywhere between 60,000 and 100,000.

Do these people employ Guyanese? Do they vote?

Has the government considered that any charges they have vindictively launched against the mining sector can be traced back to
their “open-arms, no restriction policy” to the 9,000 unregistered, and probably Brazilian, dredges in Guyana’s interior? Why has
censorship of Brazilian mining not accompanied overt attempts to marginalize the local registered, legal component of the sector?

But is this projected infusion of US$479 million or (World Bank) $580 million feasible since, given the abundance of evidence in the
2006 Auditor-General’s Report, one can easily detect a massive accounting frenzy designed to leave the country either bankrupt or
ungovernable by the time there is a change of government!

Which begs the question: Why is the facility to receive carbon funds (Guyana Low Carbon Finance Authority or GLCFA) hid
in the Office of the President and not resident in the Bank of Guyana? And so unavailable for parliamentary oversight?
The President’s single-handed destruction of the Consolidated Fund outlined above … in full view of “independent audit
oversight” of same type mooted for the GLCFA … simply means one thing with Norway/World-Bank funds … more of
the same!

This brings us logically, and finally, to Janette Bulkan and Patrick Pereira. They have both pronounced on the LCDs and Norway-MOU
respectively.

Bulkan (http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/stories/07/27/carbon-in-the-forests-of-guyana/ ) , at the outset, wants

the issue to be one of pragmatism rather than self-serving and opportunistic political posturing, so she is very blunt in July 2009:

“… This series of articles is intended to look at some of the issues surrounding Guyana’s bid for funds from the
World Bank-administered Forest Carbon Partnership Fund (FCPF) and from Norway, and for the President’s Low
Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). While most of the government information is on the government’s LCDS
website – www.lcds.gov.gy – that site is still under development at the time of writing and it is not possible to
read about the feedback from the government’s traditional outreach meetings with some Amerindian communities
in the hinterland…”

“…In this series I want to draw attention to the high level of uncertainty about the data on which the
Government of Guyana is building up high hopes in the population. While the GFC has been cautious in
emphasizing gaps in knowledge and the need for using FCPF funds to fill those gaps, the LCDS jumps into the
more speculative questions about how we should spend unprecedented amounts of external funds for
climate change adaptation. The LCDS glosses over the fact that we have no assurance of such funds
being agreed. So far as I can tell, President Jagdeo’s LCDS is not among those schemes which are under

11
 international discussion in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in advance
of the 15th Conference of Parties which is scheduled to agree on a post-Kyoto protocol on climate change
mitigation and adaptation, at Copenhagen in December 2009;…”

“… I start by quoting a pair of questions raised more than once at the launch of the LCDS in Georgetown on July
08, 2009, using the wording as recorded on the LCDS website –

“What are the possible negative effects of the strategy?

Is US$ 580 million per year accurate and adequate?”

Answer from the government side – “Refer to the annex to the strategy for calculations of the Economic Value to
the Nation. Regarding costs of adaptation measures, refer to pages 28/29 of the strategy.”

So the government chose not to respond to the question about possible negative effects; referred to the
McKinsey consultancy report extracted into Appendix II of the strategy (see
http://www.lcds.gov.gy/images/stories/Documents/LCDS.pdf) ; and referred mainly to the adaptation costs for
continued occupation of the increasingly floodable coastal lowlands. The government did not respond to the
question about accuracy or adequacy….”

“… So in Guyana we should take extra care to plan carefully and to actually apply our land laws and
regulations and procedures, fully, objectively and equitably. Compared with other rainforest countries, we
have only a small potential for adding “extra tins of sardines” (carbon) to our natural stock, so we need to
assess that stock, the gains and the losses with extra care. That assessment is addressed partially in the
GFC’s proposals to the FCPF, but so far little concern has been given to the uncertainties about the estimates….”

So can we conclude that the imperative to “…assess that stock, the gains and the losses with extra care…” and to “…take extra care
to plan carefully and to actually apply our land laws and regulations and procedures, fully, objectively and equitably…” was abdicated
on the altar of political expediency in favour of an MOU with Norway?

Was the Norway-MOU a considered result of a process of systematic institutional planning, or was this one man’s egotistical plunge
off the Kaieteur Falls into an eco-imperialist hellhole?

That the answer lies somewhere between the two seems without doubt, the challenging factor seeming to be why the government
wants to destroy the historical mining sector (while, say, entering into some as-yet-unmentioned deals with big mining businesses)
and prevent the mining sector from reaching some magical “baseline” of deforestation that will see its meagre rewards for LCDS-
funds dwindle even further.

Now the paradox is that, by any measurable standard, deforestation has been NEGLIGIBLE in Guyana, regardless of what the
President says, and even the Guyana Forestry Commission is now trying to ‘measure it’!

So, at the one end of this scale of gargantuan disregard for the rights, hopes, ambitions and livelihood of 150,000 of its citizens, we
have an astonishing admission by the powers that be (on January 28, 2010) that a “six-month waiting period for small-miners” was
agreed upon WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH ANY MINERS IN THE INDUSTRY), and that the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC)
(the lead agency tasked with lending effect to the marginalization) does not even have any figures to back up its claim of
deforestation, or its manifest use of draconian measures against the local mining community;

“…The proposal for a six-month notification period before mining can commence came out of a meeting of the
Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC), the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), the Guyana Lands and
Survey Commission (GLSC) and the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA), Agriculture Minister Robert Persaud
disclosed yesterday.

Meantime, by October the “real” rate of deforestation in Guyana will be known. GFC Commissioner,
James Singh said that currently they are working with an estimated 0.3% deforestation rate. “We are
doing extensive remote sensing analysis. We are doing extensive biomass monitoring of plots and
we’ve already set up 135 plots where we are doing the quantification of how much carbon is stored in
the trees, their roots, in the soil etc. So come October 2010, we are going to have a pretty good idea of
what is the real rate of deforestation in Guyana and then what will happen is that our financial
incentives would be linked to that”, he said, responding to a question from Carberry.

Earlier, in his presentation, Singh had noted that one of the issues of concern for the GFC was compliance with
sustainable forestry management guidelines which he described as satisfactory but which needed to be improved.
Another area of concern was recovery rates, which he said were generally around 40% and also needed to be
improved upon. The Commissioner had noted too that the GFC needs to undertake capacity building to meet its
expanded role in REDD+ and the LCDS. He stated that there is a need to quantify the impact of mining on
state forests and a team is currently working on this. A need to maintain or even reduce the current
rate of deforestation and reviewing of key documents and possible upgrade are some of the
implications of the LCDS and REDD+, he stated….”

Readers will note three things at this time, because “by October 2010” many mining families may have been driven destitute:

12
1. That international business analysts knowledgeable of the carbon issue seem to disagree with James Singh, since he
deliberately works with the upper end of the projected scale for current deforestation, but seems bent on trying to make a
case for the nullification of the second paragraph below:

“… Guyana has 15 million hectares of rainforest, almost 80% of its territory and a little larger than
England and Wales. But it has an extremely low rate of deforestation compared with most other rainforest
nations. According to UN Food and Agriculture Organisation figures, Guyana's deforestation rate
was negligible between 1990 and 2000 and non-existent between 2000 and 2005. It estimates
the current rate to be 0.1-0.3% a year.

The Norway-Guyana agreement sets a baseline figure for deforestation at 0.45%, meaning
Guyana can increase deforestation sharply from its current rate and still receive payments.

Half the country's carbon dioxide emissions are from forest degradation caused by selective logging and
small-scale gold mining. The agreement does not require them to reduce degradation, only to not increase
it….”

2. That the author of Guyana’s LCDS (McKinsey Consultants) have taken the extreme step in equating deforestation in Brazil
with that of Guyana … A CONSIDERABLE STRETCH:

“… Guyana's draft LCDS claims the country's rainforests are worth dollars 580m a year, based on their
exploitation for maximum value.2 In its report, consultants McKinsey assumed a deforestation rate
of 4.3%, or 630,000ha a year, which is similar to that in the Brazilian states of Para and Mato
Grosso. At this rate, the rainforest would be cleared in 25 years to make space for crops such
as palm oil….”

One might add, of course, that such a rate of deforestation would still be possible with 100,000 undocumented Brazilians,
and 9,000 unregistered dredges (Brazilian?) in the mining sector, which does not seem to worry Mr. Singh et al much!

Which leads us, in this continuous update (Feb 14, 2010), to the following clear statement by the Corporate Secretary of the
Guyana Forestry Commission as far back as July 14th 2009:

“…Reducing deforestation is certainly not the main mechanism through which Guyana intends to peg its
performance based payments. Rather maintaining deforestation will allow for the benefits which Guyana’s
forest currently provide and will continue to provide, to the national and international community…”

3. That, with this degree of uncertainty informing the administration’s analysis, and bearing in mind the January 28 2010
position outlined by Singh above, it is shocking to see how the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Presidential Secretariat
(on January 12, 2010, two weeks previously) unambiguously, hypocritically and callously describes a position (6-months
notice before felling any tree, handover of rich mining lands etc) that was arrived at WITHOUT CONSULTING OR
INVOLVING THE LOCAL MINING COMMUNITY OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
DEFENDING THE RAMPAGING LAWLESSNESS OF 100,000 BRAZILIANS AND THEIR 9,000 DREDGES IN GUYANA:

“… Government has deemed miners’ response to the proposed six-month notice before any
mining can commence as “regrettable” and “counterproductive as it discourages the
development of the necessary new mindset that would bring into existence sustainable mining
activity in Guyana”….”

“… According to the Cabinet Secretary, the sentiment in the administration is that mining is too big to fail
“and the view consequently is that the negative reaction of the sector is counterproductive as it
discourages the development of the necessary new mindset that would bring into existence sustainable
mining activity in Guyana”. Luncheon said that in the negotiations with Norway, Guyana sought to
establish respect for historical levels of activity in exploitation of natural resources, and there
was never, during these discourses and in the commitments, any explicit undertaking to
restrict activities in either the mining sector or forestry “in pursuit of ill-defined goals and
objectives.

“What we sought to introduce was concrete interventions that pointed to sustainable mining activities,
interventions (that) …ante-dated the LCDS, interventions that were generated by concerns about the
impact of mining on the environment” and that is what eventually flowed into the LCDS and became part
of the Norwegian agreement, the Cabinet Secretary said.

Luncheon said that the contribution of Brazilian entrepreneurs in mining cannot be dismissed
lightly. He said government is not unmindful that their arrival might not be controlled, and
their activities not administered to the best of the abilities of the GGMC and in accordance with
the rules and regulations governing immigration, work permits and such issues but the answer
is not to decry the presence and initiate xenophobic reaction to the Brazilians. “We have to
spend much more time and provide much more resources in regulating, in implementing, in
executing those existing arrangements, policies that govern their presence and their
operations,” he said….”

13
What the Head of the Presidential Secretariat seems to be saying is that, while time and space is available for the Brazilians to
pillage and deforest (is this part of the official LCDS-strategy?), a draconian and immediate requirement of 6-months notice is
imperative for registered Guyanese miners (he does not see this as an act to “restrict activities in either the mining sector or
forestry”… even though a similar requirement for those pursuing logging/forest-harvesting is not required.

WHY not???

The answer becomes clearer in the next section following!

Readers could, at February 1, 2010, see and further predict the inevitable consequences as miners react to this duplicity, double-
standards, ambivalence and disregard, in the developing stories:

- “Breaking News: Bartica Plans Shutdown Over Proposed Mining Notice”

(http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/stories/01/28/breaking-news-bartica-plans-shutdown-over-proposed-
mining-notice/ )
- “Bartica Plans Shutdown Over Mining Notice”
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/stories/01/29/bartica-plans-shutdown-over-mining-notice/

- “Gov’t Scrambles to Quell Bartica Protest”

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/stories/01/30/gov%e2%80%99t-scrambles-to-quell-bartica-protest/

- “AFC Calls for Withdrawal of Mining Notice Proposal”

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/stories/02/01/afc-calls-for-withdrawal-of-mining-notice-proposal/

- “Bartica Goes Gold! Thousands Protest Mining Proposals!”

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/stories/02/02/bartica-goes-gold/

The signs are that THIS “national conversation” will get worse … because the “killing” of bauxite is still fresh in the minds of many
Guyanese.

By February 11, 2010, under the threat of full-scale rebellion in the mining communities, the President would retreat and grant small
miners a three-hectare limit on immediate operations while saving face through insisting on a ‘notification period’ for miners. The
GGDMA will doubtless be responding soon after it reads the full list of new proposals by a committee chaired by Minister Robeson
Benn.

Is Norway being duped? Is “mining” being used to cover illegalities by the Guyana Forestry Commission and the GoG?

What is the significance of the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) being given such broad and sweeping powers to “target” miners
by an indulgent administration, particularly in the light of two statements 8 months apart?

The following reveals just how tightly-controlled information is in Guyana, and the lengths the administration would go to NOT pass
freedom-of-information legislation.
In June 2009, the Corporate Secretary of the Guyana Forestry Commission, Jacy Archibald, made the following remark in a
voluminous and vehement response to comments by REDD-Monitor:

“… Reducing deforestation is certainly not the main mechanism through which Guyana intends to peg its
performance based payments. Rather maintaining deforestation will allow for the benefits which Guyana’s forest
currently provide and will continue to provide, to the national and international community…”

We have to believe that the substance of the reply to REDD-Monitor was vetted by the CEO of the GFC James Singh himself before
being released to REDD-Monitor. Pity our local press didn’t capture the moment.

Patrick Pereira, in the interim, is demanding more answers from the administration and the GFC on February 10, 2010, and is the
immediate target of a squadron of the administration’s letter-writers, despite being the only person so far to offer concrete proposals
on the way forward for all parties.

“…I am of the firm opinion that almost the entire Guyanese public, cannot believe/comprehend the fact
that, our miners are only removing a tiny area of the entire forest, to get this colossal sum of near US
400 /500 Million Dollars, in Gold and Diamonds, yearly.

Sometimes, we feel like inviting, all those who write in the newspapers, accusing our miners of destroying the
forest, and worst yet saying that we are destroying the Environment, and to take them on an Aircraft trip, from
Ogle over the forest, and I am sure many of them would get a heart attack, for when they look down, and see no
open spaces between the trees, for hours of flying, they would wish that they could see an open space just
temporary left by mining, so that their plane could crash land safely, should it have any problems.

I am also appalled when I hear senior members of Government, saying the same thing, that Miners are
destroying the environment and could only guess what is their motive for saying so, when these
intelligent men, some in important decision making positions must know that in any extractive

14
 Industries, there must be some disturbance, while they fully know that over 90% of it in Mining, is
only temporary.

WHAT IS THE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT IN MINING THAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT??

A) Is it the cutting of mainly the non economic Trees—Trees grow back and cover the Canopy.

B) Is it the holes left in the ground— plans are in place to fill most of the holes in Mining — The removal of Bauxite,
the removal of SAND, STONE leave bigger Holes, more like craters. Were bauxite, sand & stone quarries ever
asked and made to fill in their holes?

C)Is it Mercury—-More and more Miners are using Retorts. Hundreds of pounds of Mercury-containing items are
dumped on city waste dumps. We are eating fish caught from just Offshore which contains Mercury and Toxic
Heavy Metals.

The sugar estates spray poisonous Chemicals on cane, which poisons leaches and is consumed by humans and
animals, through the Estate trenches Do we hear any complaints about these dangerous health hazards to the
main section of the population other than from mining.

Please, stop unfairly criticizing Mining. Any Intelligent person would know that you are terribly
misinformed or have an ulterior motive. There are very few other extractive Industries, which produce as
much as US 300-500 Million Dollars in Foreign Currency earnings, within such a small area…”

Is this possible ... that the GFC and the Government of Guyana have an ulterior motive in fabricating a case against mining?

Judge for yourself!

REDD-Monitor responds to Jacy Archibald, the Corporate-Secretary of the Guyana Forestry Commission on July 21st 2010, and
thereafter a deep, dark silence from the Governmwent of Guyana ensues. This issue, more than any other, places Janette Bulkan’s
ouster in perspective! The commentary below speaks for itself (the comments by Archibald that are being responded to are in
italicized bold, and the REDD-Monitor responses in italicized red; all emphasis/highlights are the author’s):

“Readers are given the impression that the forests in Guyana will be disappearing tomorrow”: As REDD-
Monitor has pointed out in a previous post, “Guyana has large areas of forest and low levels of deforestation.” It
was Guyana’s President, Bharrat Jagdeo, who raised the issue of “avoided threatened deforestation” in
the hope of qualifying for REDD.

“The LCDS is a draft document that presents an idea of building livelihoods and fostering development
in Guyana”: The “thorough three month consultation process” that you mention will take place after the launch of
the LCDS, thus stretching the meaning of the word “prior” (as in free, prior and informed consent) to breaking
point. The comments published by at least some Amerindians show that they have not been given
enough information to give informed consent. And some of them have challenged the reports of
meetings issued by the government information service.

The LCDS document was not drafted from the bottom up by “stakeholders”. Instead, it is a version of
the McKinsey consultancy report dated December 2008, which used non-public data to develop a
fantastical scenario: Guyana would clear up to 15.8 million hectares of forest over 25 years, using
destructive logging, plus mining (which also involves deforestation). The forest would be replaced by
commercial agricultural crops. But as there have been almost no attempts to clear and crop the forest land in the
last 400 years, it would be reasonable to suppose that the naturally infertile soils of hinterland Guyana would not
support commercial or continuous sedentary agriculture. This historical lack of cropping is not even
discussed in the McKinsey report, nor in the LCDS. Hence the Economic Value to the Nation, derived
from McKinsey’s estimates mainly of potential crop value, is indeed “fantastical”. It is notable that the
National Agricultural Research Institute has not offered a public comment on the LCDS; and is not a
member of the multistakeholder steering committee.

“The establishment of the REDD Secretariat”: The REDD Secretariat is located inside the Guyana Forestry
Commission (GFC). Yet there is no reference to REDD or to the FCPF R-PLANs on the GFC website. There is no
reference to the REDD Secretariat in the LCDS. Access to the Guyana R-PLAN documents is only via the World
Bank’s FCPF website. Can this really be described as “transparent”? The Technical Advisory Panel of the FCPF made
critical comments in its report of 8 June 2009, noting that “Many sectors of society do not seem to have been
included in the process . . . There is the risk of a distinct lack of ‘ownership’ by a larger segment of Guyana’s
society”.

“A deforestation rate of 4% is assumed in the model”: Page 14 of the December 2008 McKinsey report states
that “In Guyana, we chart an ‘economically rational’ deforestation path that involves reducing forest cover by
approximately 4.3 percent (~630,000 ha) per annum over the course of 25 years, leaving intact as protected areas
the 10 percent of Guyana’s forests with the highest conservation value.” Put another way, if 630,000 hectares are
deforested each year, after 25 years a total of 15.8 million hectares (25 x 630,000) will have been deforested.
Page 26 of the McKinsey report identifies a total of 3 million hectares of available agricultural land (although the
sources for these figures are not in the public domain). On page 29, McKinsey identifies 2.7 million hectares of

15
forested land for mining – which would also involve deforestation. Neither the LCDS, nor the McKinsey report
explain why Guyana would deforest 15.8 million hectares if subsequent agriculture could use only 3 million
hectares.

“Allegations by REDD Monitor that the absence of an independent Board will lead to corruption”: There
is considerable debate in the daily newspapers in Guyana about the continued failure to appoint an independent
procurement board, given the many criticisms of government procurement procedures and practices by the Auditor
General in his annual reports, and the implications of embedded corruption; see Press reports provided
without comment on http://www.guyanagovernance.blogspot.com.

Incidentally, Transparency International rates Guyana as 126th in its 2008 corruption perceptions index. Only
three countries in Latin America are ranked below Guyana (Paraguay, Ecuador and Venezuela).

“Forest management in Guyana”: Archibald gives a description of what is supposed to happen in Guyana’s
forests. He does not challenge the fact that more than ninety per cent of the country’s logging
concessions are held by foreign companies. Or that these are held under secretive, highly
concessionary contracts. The best way to counter this argument would be to release the contracts into the
public domain.

The Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) does not have the strategic allocation plan called for in the National Forest
Policy 1997 and repeated in the National Forest Plan 2001. Concession rights are not publicly auctioned nor
is due diligence carried out as required by law and GFC procedures. The GFC does not follow its own
Code of Conduct for Timber Harvesting, does not allocate annual allowable cuts by species or species
groups and does not check in the field to prevent the consequent systemic over-harvesting of the
commercially preferred timbers. The GFC acknowledges in the R-PLAN that such over-cutting occurs:
“Deforestation is driven by four principal factors, namely: 1) the targeted harvesting of a limited
number of prime commercial species, with little emphasis being placed by the loggers on efficiencies or
harvesting of a broader range of species. . . .” (page 3). The LCDS notes that 60-70 m3/ha can be obtained
by destructive logging of the timbers which occur naturally in clumps; and for which the Code of Practice prescribes
a minimum distance rule (distance between trees to be felled) precisely to prevent such over-cutting. As the Code
is not binding (another government failure), this rule is not enforced by the GFC. An average outturn of
~12 m3/ha over a 100-hectare logging block can clearly allow for extreme over-cutting in some areas (the clumps)
and no logging in other parts of the unsupervised blocks. And this is what happens; confirmed by GFC studies in
1999-2000.

“The LCDS is therefore very compatible with the current forest management”: In the sense that the
LCDS is based on a notion of forest value derived from deforestation, yes, it is unfortunately
compatible with the currently uncontrolled (or at best poorly controlled) logging.

“Guyana is one of few counties that has successfully implemented a national log tracking system . . .
recognized internationally as effective”: This is simply untrue. The log tracking system as devised in 1999
by SGS was not fully implemented, partly because the GFC lacks sufficient capability in information technology and
partly because of the reluctance to operate a transparent and equitable system, fair to all loggers. GFC staff have
traded log tags for private gain, and major loggers have used the tags out-of-coupe because the system is
meaningless to them. For more details on the problems, see “Timber tags: the currency of illegal logging and
forest corruption in Guiana Shield countries“.

The GFC is using external funds to improve the system, but the reluctance to be transparent means that the
proposed system will not match the expectations of a legality verification systems in the voluntary partnerships
under the European Union’s FLEGT Action Plan. The GFC intention can be compared with the more acceptable
timber tracking system now being installed in Liberia in West Africa (although there seem to be serious problems
in the bid evaluation process for logging concessions in Liberia).

“Numerous international assessments that have been done on Sustainable Forest Management”:
“Numerous” appears to be something of an exaggeration. SGS Qualifor suspended the FSC certificate for Barama
in January 2007. SmartWood has not returned to Barama after a scoping visit in March 2008. Iwokrama is the only
current holder in Guyana of a FSC forest management certificate. No other international certification scheme
has certificated operations in Guyana. The ITTO global desk-based survey of forest management in
2005 noted the discrepancy between theory and practice in Guyana.

“REDD Monitor seems preoccupied on FDI contracts and is challenged to show the proof”: It would
perhaps be more accurate to state that the Government of Guyana seems preoccupied with FDI contracts, given
the predominance of FDI contracts in the logging sector in the country. The problem is not that FDI is
necessarily a bad idea, but that the Government of Guyana has failed to negotiate and re-negotiate
such arrangements for the maximum net social benefit.

Perhaps the most egregious example is that of Barama. The FDI arrangement for the Malaysian logger
Barama was written by Malaysians, not by the Government of Guyana. The tax concessions have been
repeatedly abused, in that capital investment has been low and slow, in spite of Ministerial
remonstrances since 2006; replacement of foreign staff by Guyanese has not happened, indeed the
opposite has occurred, with office staff being Malaysian rather than local; duty-free fuel has been used
outside Barama’s own concession, in illegally rented concessions and in Amerindian lands under illegal

16
 contracts. Barama’s production of utility grade plywood in 2008 was 21,000 m3 in 2008, less than 1/5
of the mill capacity, yet Barama continues to draw maximum tax concessions. And its accounting
practices have been sharply criticised. All those points are in the public domain.

Further information about logging companies in Guyana is available here.

For the record, nowhere does REDD-Monitor state that “foreign investments need to be alienated and efforts need
to be put in place to rip livelihoods from poor communities,” as Archibald suggests.

“REDD and REDD plus”: Archibald writes that “Reducing deforestation is certainly not the main mechanism
through which Guyana intends to peg its performance based payments. Rather maintaining deforestation will allow
for the benefits which Guyana’s forest currently provide and will continue to provide, to the national and
international community.” So that’s clear then. The government of Guyana has no intention of reducing
deforestation. I’m glad we’ve clarified that.

“The LCDS is a national strategy”: Agreed. However, Archibald declines to respond to the question REDD-
Monitor raised. Guyana already has a REDD-type project: the Iwokrama rainforest project. Have the
terms of the lease issued by President Jagdeo to Canopy Capital been revealed?

“Guyana recommends that you seek clarification on issues before publishing articles”: Archibald does not
make clear from whom REDD-Monitor should seek such clarification. When the government itself cannot
respond accurately on its own REDD proposals, to whom should REDD-Monitor appeal for clarification?

Eco-imperialism and the Amerindian titling issue:

Apart from the six-month waiting period we referred to in the Snapshot Summary, and above, the next scariest part of the Norway-
MOU is the imperative that Bharat Jagdeo’s government hand over rich gold-bearing lands to Amerindian “communities” … on
demand … and the issue is being studiously ignored by everyone.

It should NOT be, because it has the potential to pit our indigenous citizens against the rest of the population in a new sequence of
divide and rule, marginalization … and inevitable confrontation.

We should let Pereira’s words speak for themselves:

“… There was collusion between the World Bank people and the Norway people as you may recall that just before
the Norway MOU, the World Bank People visited our Interior with a direct mission, and spoke directly to the
Amerindian People, which could be interpreted as a domestic interference and an insult to our Sovereignty. The
taking away of these Rich Gold bearing lands from the control of Miners will force the Miners to work poor mineral
areas which will eventually send them bankrupt.

Imagine Norway has no shame being a party to the financial and social destruction of thousands of
Guyanese Miners and other people living in the interior by demanding that President Jagdeo give to the
Amerindians, hundreds of thousands more acres of lands, which obviously includes Rich Mining Lands.
Could we be told how many hundreds of thousands of Amerindians live in these 92+ communities,
totalling over 5.5 million Acres of lands, with 11 more areas to add, if they could get away with taking
from our Miners, thousands more acres of the rich mineral areas, most of which they are not qualified
to legally occupy in these Eleven additional areas applied for…

This situation, if it was not very serious, disgraceful and a giant scam, would be laughable, to see how a small total
population of Amerindians is getting to occupy, such large acreages, while in many areas, only having a few
Amerindians, “Stopping”, passing through not living or having permanent residence in those areas, but purposely
sent there to target and take in, the Richest Mineral lands, with many of them already Licensed to Miners.. It must
be remembered that any Guyanese, including any Amerindian Person has the right to locate Claims, Prospecting or
Mining Permits, Prospecting or Mining Licences, in any of the Mining areas in Guyana, and he or she does not have
to rely on living in an Amerindian Community area, before they could mine for Gold or Diamonds.

Very many of these areas which the Amerindians have applied for, as Communities and some that they
already have, do not qualify them to have as a Community, because one of the conditions is, that they
have to have a minimum of 150 Amerindian persons living in each area applied for, and those persons
must be living there for a period of no less than 25 years. If they were no conditions to justify a
Community, Amerindians could take the whole forest as communities…”.

The implications for the marginalization … or further marginalization … of a significant section of the (rest of the) Guyanese
population in the logging and mining sectors are enormous, and joins others already fermenting in a steaming cauldron of
oppression!

In as clever … or as diabolical … a feat of social engineering as has ever been accomplished, it should not escape anyone that four
Afro-Guyanese are being used as point men to orchestrate many current efforts at marginalization:

17
 Minister Robeson Benn (apparently tasked with producing the ‘six-month’ requirement report for miners at the
end of January 2010 after “consultations”, but who, predictably, will not touch the issue of the handover of prime
mining lands to the Amerindian population);

Prime Minister Samuel Hinds (apparently tasked with attempting to explain away the vast discrepancy in
allocation of funds to the sugar/bauxite sectors); His first and last effort was considered by many as evasive
though voluminous, and was rejected by Lewis soon thereafter in the strongly-worded article “Every Single
Proposal Made to the Government to Protect Bauxite Workers’ Income and the right to Work was
Rejected” ( http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/10/21/every-single-proposal-made-to-the-
gov%e2%80%99t-to-protect-bauxite-workers-income-and-the-right-to-work-was-rejected/ ) Lewis
points out that Mr. Hinds himself was complicit in this process in the very first month of the PPP’s assumption to
office, and identifies two witnesses to this effect.

Head of the Presidential Secretariat Roger Luncheon (apparently tasked with getting the public message out
… impressing upon the gold/diamond and bauxite miners how ‘regrettable’ and ‘obnoxious’ their reactions are … to
being regulated out of business and being racially victimized); and …

Police Commissioner Henry Green ( apparently tasked with the unenviable job of declaring in a few months
time that ‘no credible evidence’ has been found regarding Shaheed Khan’s operations and colleagues in Guyana,
and that over 200 dead was just a figment of our considerable imaginations). What he must surely recognise by
this time is that even Guyanese would not fall for a next instalment of “persons being arrested, then ‘escaping’
from heavily-fortified Police Stations before their day in court, only to be ‘confronted and killed’ by Police ranks
later”

Now Odinga Lumumba, an Afro-Guyanese, is the “Presidential Advisor on Empowerment”, and the latest example of the political
intrigue and wholesale usurpation of the letter and spirit of constitutional safeguards that seems necessary for such “empowerment”
would seem to reside in Mr. Jagdeo’s involvement in another mining “deal” with Lumumba that came to light in January 2010, the
latest instalment appearing below:

“… With each passing week, the Jagdeo administration continues to lower the bar as it relates to ethics in
government business and standards in public life.

Nowhere was this starker than the case of the mining deal which Presidential Advisor on Empowerment, Mr Odinga
Lumumba managed to strike …”

“… Second, and perhaps most importantly, President Jagdeo has no locus standi in this matter. Approvals of mining
permits should be completely within the purview of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) as per the
mining and GGMC acts.

That Messrs Lumumba and Walrond felt it necessary to appeal directly to the President indicates that they may
have experienced difficulty in securing approval from the GGMC via the established procedures. This is all the more
reason why President Jagdeo should not have intervened at all.

If indeed, the GGMC was balking at making the decision, President Jagdeo by virtue of his intervention has
subverted the authority of the GGMC. He has also paved the way for others to try their hand at approaching him.
This undermining of the authority of statutory bodies has been a recurring feature of the last decade of PPP/Civic
governance and has entrenched the lack of respect for order in doing things and, indeed, respect for law and
order. President Jagdeo must explain whence he derived authority to approve a mining permit for his presidential
advisor and ultimately this deal must be cancelled and reverted to the GGMC.

Third, as a Member of Parliament for the ruling benches, the Integrity Commission Act and the standards it
espouses should exclude Mr Lumumba from benefiting from a mining deal which was concluded on the basis of a
petition to the President whose actions are not subject to legal or parliamentary review.

Fourth, being knowledgeable of the work of the Standing Committee of Parliament on Natural Resources and of
deliberations at Cabinet sub-committees by virtue of his presence in the Office of the President, Mr Lumumba
should have been precluded from pursuing much less concluding any such deal….”

“… The government has however had a twin-track approach to these matters. Its friends get the type of
treatment they desire while those who are not favoured feel the full and punctilious measure of
crawling bureaucracy, rules and regulations.

How else does one reconcile this deal Mr Lumumba has managed to secure with the stringent and
draconian rules that have been dangled over the heads of small and medium-scale miners?...”

Readers would get an appropriate introduction to this most unseemly state of affairs by reading the previous articles “Lumumba
Mining Deals Raises Queries” and “President’s Role in Lumumba mining Deal Questioned”.

And so, finally, Lincoln Lewis again to summarize the formidable restrictions being slowly tightened around the necks of a sizeable
portion of Guyana’s population …

18
 “… As a trade unionist I hold dear the principle that each and everyone has his/her unique potential and such
potential can best blossom in an environment that respects rights and the rule of law. In fact the foundation of
every modern society is built on this principle. Nations are run by governments which are the custodians of the rule
of law and rights, and therefore tasked with the primary responsibility to ensure these are respected thereby
creating the enabling environment for all to prosper according to his/her respective definition of prosperity.

It is no secret that rights and the rule of law are under siege in Guyana. My argument and fight has and
will continue to be for the respect of the rights of workers (past, present and potential) consistent with the rule of
law, international conventions and time-honoured principles which will allow any worker the opportunity to unleash
his/her potential in whatever he/she chooses. It is not my responsibility to tell anyone which field of economic
endeavour he/she should gravitate to, or participate in. The constitution guarantees the right to work, prosperity
and freedom of choice. Labour views every form of legitimate work as contributing to its goal of full employment. It
matters not whether that person is an employer, employee, self-employed, private or public sector worker.

The point I am consistently making is that there are many instances of Africans who have chosen their
respective field of endeavour and have been met with the deliberate and calculated roadblocks of this
government. A revisiting of my writings on the issue of economic empowerment would see cases cited of people
seeking opportunities as employer, shareholders, cooperative, self-employed and employees in both the private
and public sector. I have cited the case of bauxite workers who wanted their pension fund of more than $2.5 billion
to be used for the creation of an investment fund where they could borrow at competitive interest rates; bauxite
workers wanting to buy out the state-owned Bermine; and some businessmen wanting to lease Everton Plant from
the Government of Guyana. In Everton’s case the plant is lying idle with both the calcine and dryer rotting! The
government prefers to have them rot than give the African businessmen an opportunity to create work for
themselves and others.

On being employees, bauxite workers have their pension and thrift plans destroyed by the government and tax-
free overtime stopped by the government. The traditional public servants continue to be disrespected as a group
and the government continues to disregard their rights to freedom of association, and collective bargaining.

Turning attention to the more than two-month old strike at Aroaima one would see the hands of the government
giving tacit and overt support for the disregard of the rule of law and the transgression of bauxite workers’ rights.

On self-employment I cited a case of an African businessman who wanted to own a prime property in
Georgetown, and had the state-run Privatization Unit adhered to its established rules, as the second highest bidder
that African businessman should have been given first preference after the highest bidder withdrew.

On property ownership a motion taken to parliament to regularize African properties bought in the immediate
post-slavery era was rejected by the governing parliamentarians who used their majority to throw out the motion.

Opportunities for a second chance at a secondary school education and advanced learning are being
limited to those desirous of same with the government’s refusal to obey the law and disburse the subvention that
was passed into law via the national budget. Similar treatment has been meted out to the Guyana Trades Union
Congress in an attempt to limit the potential of a section of organised labour to their constitutional rights in
national decision-making and protection of workers’ rights. Since then the government continues to deny
taxpayers their money to invest in their development.

Careful study or understanding of societal power structure would reveal that the realization of the stated
projects/proposals/operations/opportunities have to pass through the government bureaucracy which would have
to give the green light. In all instances these were rejected.

I am not in the business of making excuses for Africans. The facts are there for all to see!

Having been around the PNC and PPP administrations I can say with conviction this is the first time in
Guyana’s history there has been such a complete effort to marginalize a people economically...”

And now, below, a synopsis of the Auditor-General’s Report for 2006 … illustrating why the LCDS as a truly “national” response may
be doomed before it began... because of the very real possibility that while government functionaries and supporters will end up with
even more $60,000,000 houses (carbon credits or not), the vast majority of the people will probably get ... nothing!

1. Please remember this plea in November 2009 regarding the Auditor-General’s Office:

“… Not only is this office subject to its own act but it is also a constitutional body with serious responsibilities and
functions. One of the first but fundamental points to note about the head of this office is that the constitution
makes no provision for an acting Auditor General and the job description clearly requires a
professionally qualified accountant. In fact the incumbent has no such qualification and it would be a
travesty for him to be appointed substantively to the position.

It may be convenient for the government to have him there, but surely it is dangerous for the taxpayers of the
country and severely compromises the quality of its reports. By retaining him the government is aware that
the real authority in the Audit Office is no less a person than the spouse of the Minister of Finance. It is
hard to believe that neither of them nor anyone in the government, nor in the international donor community that

19
 keeps putting money into the Office, recognizes this obvious conflict of interest or simply is not interested even in
token accountability.

Even with that major weakness the Audit Office is operating at half its required manpower and this helps to explain
why it keeps falling back and down on many of its public commitments. Like the Minister of Finance’s mid-year
report, the Audit Office’s report on the Government accounts for 2008 is also late. By law this must be submitted
to the National Assembly within nine months of the end of the accounting year. We are now in the eleventh month
without any word about when this report will be available...”

2. And now (February 1, 2010) this development:

Guyana hopes to conclude discussions with the World Bank and Norway in February to receive an
initial US$30M through the forest preservation agreement with Oslo.

“We have complied with all of the conditions for last year. The only outstanding thing now is the
settlement of the trust fund mechanism through which the money will flow to Guyana,” President
Bharrat Jagdeo told reporters at a press conference on Tuesday.

He noted that Guyana is already eligible for the US$30M and hopes to conclude ongoing
discussions in February. This will be reflected in this year’s budget, said Jagdeo.

Leading one commentator to offer “… This shouldn’t be a far trip from Norway to Switzerland …”

After reading the piece below, extrapolate for 17 years … and then dare to believe that it was meant to be better than this!

Roger Williams
Georgetown
Guyana
July 27, 2009
Updated February 14, 2010

PS: So, now, the challenge for citizens who love Guyana:

4th February, 2010

Executive Secretary,
The Inspection Panel
1818 H Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20433,
USA

Gentlemen,

This letter should be considered as an open and formal letter to the President of the World Bank, and it’s Inspection
Panel, by a private citizen of a member country. It is founded in part on the following comment by a local
accounting luminary: "...It is hard to believe that neither of them nor anyone in the government, nor in the
international donor community that keeps putting money into the Office, recognises this obvious conflict of interest
or simply is not interested even in token accountability…" (See "Financial Lawlessnes on the Increase";
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/business/11/08/financial-lawlessness-on-the-increase/ )

It is being copied to the CARICOM and Commonwealth Secretariats, the Norwegian Agency for Decelopment
Cooperation, Norway’s media, the Carter Center and CARICOM's Attorneys-General.

1. I, the undersigned, am a citizen of the Republic of Guyana, and would express my concern over the fact that
the World Bank may be about to further contribute to a state of affairs in Guyana that may be irreconcilably
opposed to its stated position on corruption, racism and good governance.

2. I am very concerned that your staff in Guyana may not be reporting the disturbing episodes of financial
misconduct and social disenfranchisement (some have called it 'corruption that is ruinous to the state', while others
have referred to 'economic genocide’) that have been a feature of economic and political life in Guyana these past
10-15 years.

The attached document further illustrates my initial concerns and gives a short summary of the available evidence.
I have referred to this brief "snapshot" as "Greed, Genocide ... and now 'Green': Corruption and Under-
Development in Guyana" ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17958657/Greed-Genocide-and-now-Green-
Corruption-and-Underdevelopment-in-Guyana )

3. It is clear to me, given the initial evidence in the brief attached summary, that the hopes and dreams of a
maturing nation are being (have been) sacrificed on the altar of common and loutish thievery, racism and fascism!

20
 It is inevitable that many Guyanese are being, and will continue to be affected negatively by same if corrective
action within constitutional boundaries is not encouraged/facilitated immediately.

4. To the extent that the above continues to this day, why is your local and institutional staff not recommending
that the many examples of legal/institutional injustices in Guyana be fixed before you commit to Guyana's latest
bid for World-Bank funds?

5. An investigation and review (of your resident staff in Guyana, and of Bank-policy relative to Guyana) seems
necessary to allay my considerable fears that the imminent disbursement of US$30 million in World Bank Forest
Carbon Partnership Fund (FCPF) and climate-change-mitigation funds to Guyana will meet with the same fate as
that of billions of dollars in the Auditor-General's report for 2006 (and 10 previous years).

Please also advise me, and other citizens of Guyana, on what the World Bank is doing to address corruption and
racism issues in its member states, specifically Guyana.

6. You should also feel free to direct these inquiries to that section/department of the World Bank that can best
deal with them. I would appreciate your communication of the e-mail address of any responsible
officer/department in that regard.

7. I formally request the Inspection Panel recommend to the World Bank's Executive Directors that an investigation
of the matters in the attached report, and specified at (5) above, be carried out. I should not have to mention that
it would accrue to the benefit of ALL Guyanese if these investigations were carried out, and fixes implemented,
before any FCPF funds were disbursed!

Best regards
Roger Williams
Guyana

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,

and the love of God, and the communion
of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen."

2006 Auditor General’s report states Govt. abuses public funds…

Billions unaccounted for ….
AUGUST 8, 2008 | BY KNEWS | FILED UNDER NEWS:
HTTP://WWW.KAIETEURNEWSONLINE.COM/2008/08/08/2006-AUDITOR-GENERAL%E2%80%99S-REPORT-STATES-GOVT-ABUSES-PUBLIC-FUNDS/

Despite the fact that the Auditor General Report for Guyana came in one year late, it has proved to be very revealing.

The report on the audited public accounts of Guyana and on the accounts of ministries, departments and regions for the year ending December 31,
2006 has verified a complaint by the Parliamentary Opposition parties regarding the Contingencies Fund.

According to the report presented to the National Assembly by the Auditor General, the Contingencies Fund continued to be abused, with amounts
drawn from the Fund being utilised to satisfy expenditure that did not meet the eligibility criteria as defined in the Act.

“According to the statement, amounts totalling $3.945 billion were drawn from the Fund by way of 138 advances….As at 31 December 2006, forty-
nine of these advances, totalling $1.721 billion, remained outstanding.”

The report, which was made public yesterday, after it was presented to the Speaker the previous week, also noted that amounts totalling $579.438M
were shown as contingent liabilities for entities that were no longer in existence, yet the Ministry of Finance and the Accountant General’s Department
have still not taken steps to have these liabilities transferred to the public debt.

As regards the affairs at Transport and Harbours Department (T&HD), the Department continued to request, and was granted, blanket waivers to
award contract selectively. This selective tendering was done without the requisite pre-qualification of contactors and the invitation of at least
three contractors to bid for these contracts.

The Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation was also cited on the executive summary, and caused raised eyebrows.

According to the Auditor General, GPHC, which is now a separate entity from the Ministry of Health, continued to use the Ministry’s Cabinet
approval (funds) to purchase drugs and medical supplies from specialised agencies both local and overseas.

$608.4 M SPENT ON MEDICAL SUPPLIES. HOSPITAL CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASES

21
“It did not re-tender or obtain a new no-objection from Cabinet for the purchases of drugs and medical supplies…Further, during 2006, amounts totalling
$608.406M were expended on drugs and medical supplies…However, the corporation could not totally account for drugs and medical supplies
purchased, since there was no central point of accountability.”

In relation to Customs and Trade Administration, the Auditor General noted 17 Permits for Immediate Delivery (PID), with a total value of $2.832 billion,
had not yet been perfected at the time of the audit in January 2007.

Incoming vessels at ports in Guyana totalled 1,089. However, completed ship’s files in respect of 243 ships were not submitted to the Quality Review
Section, and as such, were not made available for audit examination.

$11M PAID FOR ARMS, AMMO IN 2003, YET TO BE DELIVERED

In relation to the Ministry of Home Affairs, it was noted that a quantity of arms and ammunition, to the value of $11.160M, which were paid for in 2003,
had not yet been delivered, nor has the Ministry been able to recover the amount paid.

It was also noted in the report that several ministries and departments also recorded overstatements on their appropriation accounts, and the
unspent amounts have not been refunded, “…Subvention agencies not returning the unspent portions of amounts paid over to them for
specific expenditure.”

The Auditor General also cited in his report what he called the overpayment of contracts.

“Several Ministries and Regions have not recovered amounts overpaid on various contracts in prior periods….In addition, some of these
Ministries and Regions, such as, Education, Amerindian Affairs, Regions Two, Three, Six, Seven and Ten continued to have overpayments on
various contracts during 2006…One such example was recorded under the Ministry of Education, where $10.982M was overpaid on eleven
projects which were mainly for the rehabilitation and extension to schools.”

$13.6M SPENT ON HIRING VEHICLES FROM A PERSON HIRED AS A MAID

In relation to the Guyana Defence Force, it was noted that the Force continued to hire vehicles from a civilian and members of the Force. During 2006,
one hundred and one payments, totalling $13.697M, were expended on hiring of vehicles owned by one civilian, who is employed as a maid,
and nine members of the Guyana Defence Force.

This was a serious breach of the regulations, which strictly prohibit sponsoring of tenders for Government contracts by Government Officers.

Gifts also raised eyebrows, with the Auditor General noting that the continued lack of reporting and accounting for all gifts to Ministries,
Departments and Regions resulted in the miscellaneous receipts of $2.053B at December 31, 2006 being understated by an undetermined
amount.

As it relates to bank accounts, several transfers from other accounts to the Consolidated Fund were not effected, and several accounts had
overdrafts.

This was documented as follows:

Transfers not effected

(i) The amount of approximately $7.190 billion, representing balances held in 13 special accounts;
(ii) The balance of $34.336M held in the General Account
(iii) The balance of $527.139M held in Non-Sub Accounting Ministries and Departments’ Bank Account
(iv) The balances of 66 inactive bank accounts, of which eight had balances in excess of $100M.

(b)Accounts with overdrafts were identified in two categories:

- the old Consolidated Fund bank account was overdrawn by $46.906 billion at 31 December 2006; and
- Forty-two inactive accounts had overdrafts totalling $685.991M. Of these accounts, 24 were overdrawn by amounts in excess
of $1M.

The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 (FMA Act) provides for the regulation of the preparation and execution of the annual budget, the
receipt, control and disbursement of public monies, and the accounting for public monies, and is the most vital legislation governing the transparent
and efficient management of the finances of Guyana.

According to this Act, a number of Public Accounts Statements are required to be prepared and submitted.

22