Projects: net social benefit, not maximum capital scope

Newsday reported on August 14, 2015 that NAPA, PoS was partially closed in 2014 due to safety and health reasons, and was completely shut down in 2015, due to problems with air quality and structural issues.

It was subsequently reopened in early 2016, but closed again, as reported by Newsday on May 14, as a result of health and safety concerns related to the structure of the facility, and “caution tape could be seen across the exterior of the building.” NAPA PoS was built under an undisclosed government to government arrangement with China. There was no competitive tender for the project and the contract was given on a sole-select basis to the Shanghai Construction Group at a cost of $500 million by State company, the Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago, UDECOTT.

The facility was opened with the 20th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in November 2009.

The Artists Coalition of TT (ACTT) was not impressed with the facility. Among the shortcomings identified were no loading area for the main stage; poor stage floor construction; flawed dance studios; no costume rooms; a defective orchestra pit; lots of problems with lighting, sound fixtures and equipment; no showers; no dressing rooms; and two rooms which were said to be smaller theatres but had no seats. ACTT estimated then that it would cost $80 million to fix the problems.

Our decision-makers always plan for mega projects, which by their very scale would be beyond the capacity of the local firms, and therefore foreign establishments are necessary, resulting is locals being required to hustle to seek joint-ventures and sub-contractual arrangement with the foreigners.

President of the Joint Consultative Council (JCC) Dr.

James Armstrong said in the Sunday Guardian article, “The way these requests for proposals are issued, they lock out local contractors on technical issues… there needs to be a conscious policy of the Government to engage local companies and give them the opportunity so they can generate employment.” Another recent example of a failed mega-project is the Trinidad Rapid Rail Project (TRRP). The project was always operated with minimal public involvement, bordering on secrecy. In fact, the very purpose of the planned public consultations on January 18 and 19, 2010 was that they were a requirement of the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) and a necessary condition for the granting of a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) – therefore the logical conclusion is that if a CEC was not needed, there may have been no need for stakeholder presence.

It is difficult to imagine the biggest mega physical investment to face taxpayers then and perhaps ever, and the Authorities did not seem to accept the need for meaningful citizen participation. These were the first public consultations despite the project starting in 2005, nearly five years before.

These first two public consultations were cancelled, and another series was set for April 6, 7 and 8, 2010.

Vernon Khelawan, writing in Newsday on Thursday March 25, 2010, stated that “with nothing substantial to show, except for site visits by the Environmental Management Authority (EMA); persons doing field surveys and a letter and questionnaire from the National Infrastructure Development Company Limited (NIDCO), to possible affected persons, reports indicate that the Rapid Rail Project has already cost this country’s taxpayers more than $500 million in consultancy fees.” On Thursday April 8, 2010 at the weekly post-Cabinet news conference, the Works and Transport Minister stated that, “We, as a government, are very committed to a modern mass transit system [and] I expect consultations to take at least another two months, and then we would be in a position to make recommendations for Cabinet to make their investment position … The recommendations are predicated upon the outcome of the consultations.” These are very strange statements.

How could a decision to implement rapid rail be made from a CEC consultation? This writer attended the last one on April 8, 2010, and there was not a single member of the Government or their representative present at the head table, or to field any questions. Someone in the audience stated, “It’s a pity that the people who made decisions like these are not here to face the fire.” General Elections were called that very night.

The primary objective of every infrastructure investment must be net social benefit, not maximum capital scope.

Next week I plan to share some simpler projects with far-reaching social benefits.

e-mail: info@ccost.org