Get cracking Vision 20/20 sub-committees

THE EDITOR: At the recent inception of the Vision 2020 exercise I predicted that the exercise was flawed in certain fundamental respects, particularly with regard to the insincerity of those who were seeking the vision and their incapability to arrive at a description, up-front, as to what developed country status would mean in the year 2020.

By insincerity I meant the unpreparedness or inherent incapacity of the committee to be objective and critical of the orthodoxy which could only result in a vision that would not be progressive and honest to the extent required to assist our escape from the third world. I hoped, however, that the exercise would at the very least, have forced a critical analysis of the way we did things in the past and provided a platform for discussion leading to some improvement in the way our affairs are being managed.

Despite the hackneyed and quite frankly boring content of a lot of what I have read as emanating from the various sub-committees (plenty economics and related stuff but very little politics, ideology, commerce etc), I have continued to keep a close eye on the press in the hope of seeing some sign of a new thinking from these sub-committees. Recently, there has been a lot published on the recommendations of the sub-committee on energy and I am now beginning to be more concerned than ever though it could be for the simple reason that the thinking of this sub-committee would be critical, to moving this country forward. In the hope that someone is listening (as my banker puts it) the following are my comments on the work of this sub-committee as reported.

There is an absence of historical perspective in that no analysis is presented of the past and the many mistakes we made in our dealings with those who controlled and still control, our natural resources. There are no analyses of the tax regime(s) we apply in the energy sector and consequently no recommendations for its improvement. There are no studies of other countries that have proven to be better than we are at managing their energy resources. There is no scrutiny and comment regarding the various contracts we have with those who exploit our natural resources and no clear statement on where, when and how renegotiations should be entered into. There is no evaluation of Government’s capability to competently negotiate contracts with transnational private sector companies in a manner that produces results that are in the national interest. There is no discussion on the issue of corruption, the many ways this may work to negatively impact current revenues and how we can best legislate against and effectively contain the many forms of corruption.

There is no detailed analysis of Petrotrin and Trinmar and how these companies can be made to better serve the national interest. Given the many companies that have enjoyed significant growth and profits from the exploration of our resources, there is no discussion on how Government could leverage for participation in this largesse by way of equity and as a bonus influence the operation and development of these companies locally and internationally. There is no detailed discussion on how to pursue joint gas exploration and monetisation, with Venezuela who appear to be seeking some 60 percent interest in their LNG facilities while we only demand ten percent. There is no discussion on ways to improve our reach internationally so as to play a meaningful and effective role in the global politics of energy and hopefully how to better manage our resources.

There is no evidence of awareness that those who are entrusted to manage our energy resources invariably end up working for foreign energy organisations operating locally and therefore no analysis of whether this happens by design, how it impacts on the management of the nation’s affairs and how this trend can be reversed. There is no serious discussion on how Government can engage the expertise of the private sector in its dealings with transnationals. There is no dynamism by way of suggested implementation programmes, processes and matrices showing how thinking can be transformed into action. There is no comment on the secrecy surrounding most if not all arrangements/contracts that exists in the energy sector. These are just some of the questions that come to mind — and I am sure there are many others. Hopefully, however, these are enough to get those experts thinking about frank, honest and intelligent analysis conducted with solely the national interest uppermost in mind.

EUGENE A REYNALD
Port-of-Spain