Mariano Browne
Commentators on the Sandals project raised the four main issues points; first the procurement process and as a corollary, the issue of transparency; second the environmental issues and the safeguards to protect a fragile ecosystem; third economic feasibility; and fourth the tax concessions. None of them said that they were against the project complaining mainly about the project process. Those claiming credit for the “stopping” the project (Watson Duke and Devant Maharaj) are political deviants searching for the limelight.
The commentators have valid points, especially when reading in conjunction with the recommendations of the UFF Commission report. Both the Prime Minister and Stuart Young were intimately involved in the UFF Commission (albeit on different sides) and both have publicly committed to the implementation of the procurement legislation, a by-product of the commission.
Was the process transparent? At best “informal”, as the Prime minister (PM) revealed during his media “session” on January 17. It emanated from a chance meeting between the PM and the Stuart et al at a public function whilst in opposition. It is now being pursued by “the salesman in chief for T&T”. Further, that he had extensive public conversations in Tobago and had done, a la Trump, “more than any other PM” to include the public in the information loop as “they had been lied to so often in the past”. Yet it required court action to get the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) released, with Minister in the PM’s Office saying ironically, “there was nothing to hide”.
Similarly, Minister Young dismissed information presented by Mark Meredith in a four-part series published in the Express, indicating that the contents were “fabricated” and should be disregarded. But Meredith’s information was taken from public documents submitted to the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) seeking various permissions thus rubbishing Minister Young’s portrayal of the information as “fabrication”. Minister Young’s abysmal ignorance of basic information regarding the project was astonishing. How could the public repose any confidence in the information provided by the PM’s office in the future?
The PM also attempted to reassure the public that the proposed development did not threaten the environment. These reassurances are at odds with the EMA’s 14-page letter requesting additional information before proceeding. No environmental impact assessment has as yet been attempted or completed. Since the Sandals project challenges the National Environmental Policy, the National Wetlands Policy, and impacts a protected area, on what basis could these reassurances be given if no technical work had been done?
Notwithstanding the PM’s professed understanding of the public’s cynicism, no basic feasibility was done thereby ignoring a key recommendation of the UFF Commission. To speak in broad terms of the project benefits without technical evaluation or detailed costing is not very prudent; the devil is always in the details. In short, from a negotiating perspective Sandals had been given free rein. This in part explains why the provisions of the MOU are one-sided leaving little wriggle for the detailed negotiations which were yet to be undertaken. Indeed, MOUs should set out broad parameters allowing both parties “negotiating latitude” in the contract negotiating stage.
The GORTT has done at least seven hotel projects owning all of the properties through different mechanisms; Hilton, Chagacabana, Radisson in Tobago (Now Coco Reef), Farrell House (now Cara Suites), Hilton Tobago (now Magdalena), Hyatt, and Napa’s 64 rooms. Only two, the properties operated by Hilton and Hyatt, have been successful and there were no tax concessions in the Hyatt arrangements. The arrangements for the Hyatt property contrast sharply with both the procurement method and the tax arrangements set out in the Sandals MOU. Given the difficult financial conditions under which the GORTT will operate in the medium term, it is natural that the public would be concerned about the size of the investment and the terms.
It was noteworthy that the PM confirmed that neither the Tourism nor Finance Minister was in the “loop”. This is interesting given the very public complaints by the PM as Planning Minister he had been “bypassed” during the Manning administration.
Even more amazing was the PM’s vehement denial (and subsequent apology) that he had appointed a “Sandals” committee headed by former finance minister Wendell Mottley (announced on June 29, 2016). It was not even a distant memory to the PM as the committee had never functioned. One wonders how many more committees are in a moribund state. In other fora, the Communications Minister has denied that PM ever said that the refinery would not be closed or that it would not be sold. The refinery is now closed and there is a process that will result in its separation.
What are we to make of these contradictions? These are not minor issues easily brushed off, particularly when the media is accused of misinformation. All the critics raised valid points, none of which have been addressed. Leadership is about doing the right things and management is about doing things right. Improvements are urgently required in both areas.