Controversy over fishing licences underlines need to change antiquated systems
The controversy continues around the issuance of the two seabob fishing licences. The Ministry of Agriculture has issued a statement saying that a Rampersaud Sookhdeo from La Jalousie, West Coast Demerara, was granted the two licences. The statement described Sookhdeo as a Guyanese who was operating in Trinidad for the past fifteen years, but recently had to return to Guyana because of the COVID-19 restrictions and regulations in Trinidad.
The Stabroek News article reports the Guyana Association of Trawlers Owners and Seafood Processors (GATOSP) as having no knowledge of Rampersaud Sookhdeo. (`Trawler owners say they have never heard of the holder of the controversial licences, Stabroek News, Feb 03, 2021’.) The minister has been recorded, claiming that the new licencee is a Guyanese who is well-known and well-established in the fishing industry. However, the GATOSP has no knowledge of, nor information about him nor his Trinidadian company, Haseed Enterprise. This leads to the questions, “Well-known to who?” and, “What is considered well established?”
This now opens the door to insinuations of unsavory practices surrounding the two licences. Who is Sookhdeo? What is his connection to the minister of agriculture? What is his connection to the PPP? Why are the minister and the PPP Government and as whole, willing to take so much reproval for this man? Unfortunately, Guyana has inherited systems from the British Colonials, which we have kept to our (the population’s) detriment but to our Governments’ benefit. The British employed systems which were designed to centralise the power and authority into the hands of a few persons, trusted by them.
These people were the ones who gave, if pleased, or who took away, if displeased. Fifty-five years after independence, we continue to use those systems. We continue to concentrate the powers into the hands of the few ministers of whichever political party is in Government at the time. We desperately need to change these antiquated systems, which continue to allow for: corruption, cronyism and nepotism to occur and become rampant. There is limited transparency and democracy within these systems. No minister should have the power to grant or revoke fishing licences or any other such, for that matter. The minister should be a policy maker and not the granter of benefits.
Corruption, cronyism and nepotism are rampant in Third World countries because our governments refuse to change the systems left to us by the colonials. Our governments benefit from these systems and choose not to change them because they are used to control their populations. Some members of government believe they are better than, and above the rest of the population, and can therefore e.g., issue and/or revoke licences at their will. This type of system is abhorrent. Our present government has the golden opportunity at-hand, to start changing these systems. New systems which are fully transparent should be developed and installed, in order to combat the corruption of the present one, and the bribery which has become the norm in it.
For example, with the issuance of fishing licences, the fisheries department can determine, in consultation with the GATOSP, how many licences are needed for the industry to be economically viable and sustainable. The agreed number of licences could then be sold at a yearly public auction, which would have a starting bid price of an agreed amount, maybe $1,000,000 per licence. Each trawler would be required to have a licence. There is presently a limit of eighty-seven trawlers for the seabob industry. An auction of the licences for these eighty-seven trawlers would bring in a minimum of eighty-seven million dollars ($87,000,000) yearly.
A system such as this, will remove the authority for issuing a seabob fishing licence from the minister. It will be transparent, everyone will know who has made a bid for a licence and for how much. A licence will be only valid for twelve continuous months. Trawlers found operating without a valid licence should be impounded and the owner(s) taken before the courts. This type of public auction can be repeated for each of the different types of licences issued for trawlers.
This system would not be foolproof, but it would remove the claims of corruption, cronyism and nepotism and allow for much more transparency than the present system does.
Yours respectfully, Jonathan Yearwood
I have decided to write this letter in response to Kaieteur News’ Glen Lall’s appeal for professionals to get involve in influencing the direction of our oil and gas industry. I had decided to stay out of the public space and discussions on oil and gas for two reasons: One, I wanted to give the government a fair chance to roll out their plans for oil and gas, and the second reason is that I felt the space was a bit busy.
The specific areas that I could support are: Component A - Enhancement of Legal Framework and Stakeholder Engagement, Sub-component A.2. Support stakeholder engagement and transparency; Component B – Capacity Building of Key Institutions, Component B.1. Support immediate technical needs at key institutions with responsibility for Oil and Gas, Sub-component B.2. Support critical training needs at key institutions with responsibility for Oil and Gas, and Sub-component B.4. Strengthen Environmental and Social Management.
While agreements are extremely difficult, almost impossible to renegotiate, I was hoping to work with the Government on a programme similar to reforms that was done in Mexico. One of my recommendations to the government would have been to reform the judiciary, the criminal justice system, law enforcement, etc. so that investors would develop more confidence in the independence of the judicial and law enforcement systems, in an effort to strengthen Guyana’s negotiation ability. One aspect of negotiation could then be for investors to agree for at least a clause to be included in investment agreements for certain matters to be resolved in our local courts.
Foreign investors are protected under International Investment Laws, and one of the reasons why both the APNU+AFC and the PPP/C governments have been relatively silent on the renegotiation of the ExxonMobil agreement is because they are aware of this. These are international contractual agreements that have serious contractual obligations attached to them. Which brings into the discussion, international mechanisms for ‘Investor-State Dispute Resolutions/Settlements’. There are specific mechanisms internationally for foreign investors and states to settle disputes, which is another reason why both the APNU+AFC and the PPP/C government are almost silent on the renegotiation of the agreement in question.
Hence, another of my recommendations would have focused on; for example, it is very difficult for Third parties to join international dispute resolution cases, therefore if Guyana reforms its judicial system and investors’ confidence in the independence and professionalism of the local judicial system increases, our new model for agreements could include in environmental and human rights matters, third parties would be allowed to bring these matters against foreign investors, before the local courts. For example, if there is some kind of pollution in the waterways in an Amerindian community, representations from those communities would be able to seek redress in the local courts.
Other areas I was hoping to work with the government on are: harmonization of human rights and investment norms; interactions between human rights and investment treaty norms, aligning international investment treaty regime with human rights laws in Guyana; as well as examining tensions between human rights, law of the sea, environmental laws in the Guyana context and investment norms. In September, 2020, I wrote to the Vice
President (Please see letter attached), expressing an interest in working with the government in these areas, and have not even received an acknowledgement of my letter from the government. However, on October 9, 2020, after all these good intentions, extensive research, and sacrifices in an effort to contribute towards the development of my country, my services were terminated. Additionally, the government cannot say that Guyanese do not have the expertise - persons such as myself and Dr. Vincent Adams were fired.
Finally, one of the reasons I was advocating that the Director of Public
Prosecutions and Guyana Police Force and the public sector generally, operate professionally, is because I knew that in the larger scheme of things, investors feel a greater degree of confidence in a professional public and private sector, so it really is bigger than GECOM, much bigger. I am still hoping that if funding can be accessed, some aspects of the project can be implemented, even without the support of the government. Hence, I am hoping to begin some of this training in April, perhaps starting with the media on how to refocus its advocacy on oil and gas for greater impact.