Dear Editor,
The concerns raised in the media regarding the technical expertise of Ms. Alison Redford, the consultant hired to review and evaluate the Payara Field Development Plan (FDP), is serious and disconcerting. However, an important consideration that is overlooked is the source of funding for the consultancy. The consultancy is being funded through a grant as part of the long-standing bilateral cooperation between the Government of Guyana and the Government of Canada. As such, the Government of Guyana may not have had much say in the decision to hire Ms. Redford.
In international development cooperation projects, whether through grants, co-operative agreements, or contracts, decisions about key personnel ultimately rest with the donor. After all, the donor is paying for the technical assistance and needs to ensure they are getting value for money. In some instances, they are ensuring that the services are provided by independent and competent persons instead of ending up in the pockets of friends and families of the cooperating country’s government. In other instances, the donor has an incentive to ensure that the lion’s share of the development assistance returns home. In this case, Ms. Redford is a Canadian citizen and her compensation will be taxable by the Government of Canada.
While the Government of Guyana could have recommended the most qualified person under the sun and moon to review and evaluate the Payara plan, the ultimate decision rests with the Canadian Government. And given how quickly Ms. Redford was recruited and selected for the role, it is conceivable that her name was suggested by the Canadian Government as part of the grant agreement. In the international development world, when a recruitment suggestion is made by a donor, it usually means that they want that person to be selected.
More so, the current situation is not novel or out of the ordinary. A similar arrangement existed when the Government of Guyana requested technical assistance from the British Government to advise and build the capacity of the Special Organized Crime Unit (SOCU). As a result, Dr. Sam Sittlington was contracted and paid directly by the British Government to serve as an Advisor to SOCU. Despite Mr. Sittlington’s unceremonious exit from Guyana, back then, like now, the Government of Guyana would not have had much say on who was hired. They would have gladly accepted the technical assistance in whichever form it came.
That the Government of Guyana may not have had much say in the selection of Ms. Redford is not to say that they should accept poor advice and rush to decide on a project of national importance. This is especially crucial given what transpired under the Granger administration and the fire sale of the Liza One and Two projects also in the Stabroek block. And while Ms. Redford may be short of specific experience or expertise in the opinion of some industry experts, she should be allowed to do her work. After all, she was deemed acceptable by the Canadian Government and other international organisations, including the World Bank. And if she needs additional support or resources, she should not hesitate to reach out and request such assistance. Having Ms. Redford review the Payara FDP is a positive sign as it relates to transparency and accountability. It is much more than Guyanese got under the first two projects. However, the ultimate decision to approve the plan rest with the Government of Guyana. If they are dissatisfied with the advice received, the onus is on them to seek additional assistance to make an informed decision that is in the best interest of the country. More importantly, they should strive to include all stakeholders and not succumb to any pressure to expedite the approval process.
Yours faithfully,
Omchand Mahdu
