THE Amaila Falls Hydropower Project (Amaila) remains a hot potential game changer for Guyana’s development. So whatever the imperfections are, in the interest of Guyana, politicians should sit at the table for as long as necessary and sufficient, to weed out the failings to reach some agreement. This has not yet happened, and it is not too late.

In the meantime, the unpatriotic campaign to destroy Amaila continues apace, with politicians demonstrating zero effort to meet, but expressing tremendous passion to expose the flaws of Amaila through its sustained courtship with the media. Politicians being the people’s representatives, at this time, should let their people speak.
However, what Guyanese today are witnessing is a crusade against Amaila. I said before that the crusade’s intention is to block the People’s Progressive Party/Civic Government from becoming the architect of hydropower reality in this country, particularly as the critics’ arguments are unsubstantive, irrelevant, and packed with political self-interest.
In fact, this crusade is fairly similar to what Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in 2011 had to say about opposition in Ethiopia and Egypt to the building of the 5,000 plus MW dam on the Blue Nile River. Zenawi referred to his opposition forces as “hydropower extremists” and that their behaviour was “not only irrational but also bordering on the criminal”. But Zenawi also staked his claim for the hydro project, thusly: “If hydropower dams are to be built anywhere on earth, then Ethiopia is a prime candidate.” I believe that Guyana, too, really needs Amaila, but  it remains the subject of unfair reviews!!!
A content analysis of the media’s presentation on Amaila may very well show that Amaila is the victim of untested assumptions used for deriving conclusions, showing consumers will not benefit from reduced electricity charges when the project kicks in and that the total project cost is too expensive. These untested assumptions refer mainly to the economics and finance of the project.
And so, for the benefit of the Amaila watchers, critics of Amaila may wish to outline the assumptions underlying the financial parameters they used to derive their conclusions, and to review whether such assumptions have been tried and tested for reasonableness within the context of the local environment and social factors.
The World Commission of Dams (WCD) report in 2000 argued for people to see beyond the constricted economic decision making, and to also include environmental and social factors when making decisions. Indeed, this approach does not suggest that the hydro should be constructed at any cost. But integrated decision making to include economic, social and environmental costs has to be a precondition for making definitive conclusions on whether or not Amaila is feasible. The critics’ conclusions used to victimize Amaila seem to be largely in the economics and financial domains, perhaps more financial than economic, and, therefore, contrary to the WCD report.
The crusade against Amaila is in full swing. Just recently, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) leader Mr. David Granger explained that he rejected Amaila because his interest is with Guyana and its people. This was Granger’s response to the U.S. Ambassador D. Brendt Hardt’s plea for unanimous political support for Amaila.
Well, Granger’s remarks seem to have a touch of sincerity for what the populace wants. But how does he know that the majority of Guyanese may not favour Amaila. Perhaps, given the hugeness of Amaila in terms of national benefits and costs, Granger should call for a Referendum to hear the people’s verdict on Amaila.
A referendum, a vote of the electorate, is a reasonable mediating mechanism to determine whether or not a country should construct a hydropower project, or any project of national significance. There is the mandatory or obligatory referendum under the constitution or legislation and its result is binding. Then there is the optional or facultative referendum called by the executive or some legislators and its result may not be binding. Here are a few examples of huge projects where referendums were used to determine the people’s choice.
In 2002, Quebec, a Province in Canada held secret referendums among the Crees to see whether they could support the C$3.8-billion Eastmain and Rupert hydroelectric projects. About 70% of the Crees voted to permit hydropower and forestry development. The project came to a standstill after disputes arose between the indigenous people and the provincial government.
In 1983, Tasmania held a referendum that intended to break the deadlock between the legislatures on the building of a hydroelectric power project in southwest Tasmania. As a protest, one-third of the ballots were deemed as spoilt. And Bulgaria in 2013 went to a referendum to determine whether it should continue to construct the Belene nuclear power plant. There are other examples of the usage of referendums to facilitate the people’s voice, especially when it comes to national impacting projects.
And a game-changing project as Amaila is a magnetizer for people and parties desperately seeking accolades and material goodies for Guyana’s development. No party wants to be left behind in the face of a project of such huge national significance. If this be the case and so as to prevent any future political stymie, the people’s verdict is critical.