The Beal deal terms
WHAT THE PEOPLE SAY
Government on Friday swiftly signed a controversial deal with Beal Aerospace Technologies for a US$100 million spaceport in the Waini, Region One (Barima/Waini) and will grant the firm an interim environmental permit to start draining the site. We interviewed some persons on Thursday afternoon before the deal was signed and another batch on Saturday after the deal was signed. Their views on the deal follow: Sharon Atkinson - resident of Santa Rosa: `I looked at a draft agreement in February. Some of the articles are very ridiculous. For example American laws appear to supersede Guyana laws in Guyana and this would give rise to a state within a state. They will build their own airport and if customs officials are not there within an hour or two, foreign personnel arriving and goods being imported would be considered legally (here) in Guyana. In relation to the environment we will experience problems. Our land is flat and it is only the mangroves and shell-mound that keep the water out. If they are going to drain the land this will definitely cause floods in some areas which would have negative effects on the people and eco-system. Warapoka, the closest village would be affected. The people in the Lower Waini have not been consulted at all. No system of compensation has been discussed with residents of Lower Waini except for two persons at Three Brothers. When I visited the area in early April they, too, said that they had no answers from government or Beal about relocation. They had no facts on the agreement. Since last year Santa Rosa and Waramuri villages sent petitions to the government on land issues and had no response. Now that the Beal deal is on we will demand land settlement. The 25-mile south east or the remote side will take us into Baramani Mouth where we get troolie and fish. Even now Amerindian fishermen are being turned back when they go to fish at sea because of the sea turtles. Who is more important, the turtles, Beal or we the people? With Beal not only the turtles will become extinct but we too.' Annette Arjoon - businesswoman: `I wish to respond to the recent emotional outburst on our local television channel that turtles are perceived as more important than people. This is incorrect but we should remember that turtles have existed for millions of years without us but we cannot live without them as they play a very important role in the eco-system. With regard to the Beal Deal, we need to understand that not because the deal is signed it automatically means that Beal is given the green light to go ahead and do as they think fit in any manner. We must remember that the all important Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has to be done and this is where we have to unite as Guyanese and not different organisations representing different ethnic groups or sea turtles and we must scrutinise the EIA under a microscope and make challenges where necessary. We should concentrate on prevention rather than cure and the challenge to Beal should be to develop the site without affecting areas outside their actual facility. The EIA must be developed responsibly and must be widely circulated to all of the Guyanese people, government technical specialists in the EPA and elsewhere so that everyone can challenge any artificial optimism or a major test of the EPA's ability to publicise Guyana's environmental laws and require the minimisation or deflection of negative environmental impacts of the largest industrial proposal to come Guyana's way.' Jad Rahaman - businessman: `Given the case study of the launch site in French Guiana and it being a major tourist destination there, I think it should augur well for tourism in Guyana. However, in relation to the deal. I am not satisfied with it. I think that the land should not be sold and should be leased on a short-term basis as is the case with government leasing lands for tourist sites. If government can give us only 25-year leases, I see no reason why government should virtually give away land to foreigners for nothing.' Jim Holder - retired public servant: `The government has done something that will have serious repercussions later on. That is for sure. Because it has been rushed through I feel that it will affect the popularity of the government and this will be seen at the upcoming general elections. A great number of Guyanese is saddened by the signing. What makes it more frightening and dastardly is the fact that heavy security was present. It is not that Guyanese are against investment it is simply that we want better terms so that everyone benefits, more so the people of the area. The Amerindians have not been consulted properly and under the agreement they are not properly covered. They should have held extensive talks with those especially in the Waini and adjacent areas.' Murray Leander - machinist: `It is not a deal in the first place. First of all government has not examined the company's reputation inside out. I do not think the investment is lucrative as Prime Minister Sam Hinds is saying. To me it is a giveaway, especially when one considers that the land is to be drained and ecological damage will result. While we need investment we must not accept anything in desperation. All in all from what I have read I disagree with 85% of the deal. Government has given them too much tax holiday. I also disagree with the selling of the land to an entity that has no track record. Frankly speaking I am very apprehensive about the investment which is basically not a deal for me.' Percival Johnson - self-employed: `I am disappointed. I don't like what has been revealed so far. It appears to be shady especially when the terms of the agreement cannot be revealed to the populace. This is shameful when other Caribbean territories have objected to the project on their territory and we are going for it because we do not have the negotiating skills to attract lucrative investment. We must be the laughing stock of the Caribbean. This is too nonsensical. No wonder people ridicule us when we go out of the country.' Hemchand Hemraj - senior secondary school student: `It would not be a good investment for Guyana. It would rob us economically and we would gain no profit from it given the conditions of sale and terms of agreement. I think it is an unhealthy investment and with a US$3 per acre of swampland and 99-year tax holiday other investors would want to use it as an opportunity to get similar bargains. We need investment and people with the capital to invest in the economy and not to take away from it. We have to take into consideration the state of the country's economy. We cannot afford to give people a 99-year tax break. This in my opinion is incomprehensible for a poor country like Guyana.' Sandra Hernandez - resident of Hosororo: `The whole agreement should be rewritten. The agreement as far as I am concerned makes for a state within a state. It was in this same region that we had a similar investment with Jonestown and we know what happened there. Are we going to allow another state in the North West? Just imagine if the investment is realised. Amerindians would not be able to use the waterways to travel from Moruca to Mabaruma and to Port Kaituma. Even the airspace would be under their control. As far as I gather they will have one custom officer and if he does not clear them within 12 hours or some such thing they would be deemed cleared. What is not clear to me is what provisions have been made for the Amerindian people who will be relocated. For the Amerindians this was an important area for gathering food; hunting and fishing and catching crabs during the crab season. Troolie palm which is used to thatch roofs is also gathered in this area. Where will they now go?' Colin Miller - self-employed: `There are many unanswered questions to me. Why is the government so secretive about the terms and conditions. Hinds was saying that the agreement the PNC revealed was an old one. Where is the new one? A 99-year tax holiday is unbelievable. Where could they get that in any other part of the world? Government pushing the deal in spite of so much opposition and concerns being expressed just shows how unconcerned government is about the common man.' Anthony Hussain - student: `I agree that the country needs investment and while I like the idea of the launching of rockets in Guyana, I think the price is too low for the land they will pay and the conditions under which they will operate will encourage the investors to do as they please without monitoring. Those are the aspects I do not like. We are a poor country and while we have so much resources we are still not benefiting. The Omai investment is one such example. We are not getting a fair deal. Government needs to renegotiate the deal. We should get experts to negotiate for us; experts who know the value of the swampland, technological experts and not simply politicians. In addition Guyanese businesses are not getting the tax breaks the foreigners get and no one will develop this country in the interest of Guyanese. This is the reason why we cannot go forward because we are not giving our own Guyanese the chance.'
|