A little over a year ago, in an installment of ‘Critical Perspectives’ entitled “Management of Technical Support”, I spoke about the need for the creation of a central hub of information to take full advantage of the technical support offered to Guyana by overseas agencies.

It is coincidental that just a few months, I was engaged in research relevant to one area of work I’m involved in, but could not find the specific information I was looking for. I incidentally mentioned my dilemma to a colleague who reminded me that roughly four years ago a study was done on the very area I was looking into. Try as I might, I could not put my hands on a copy of that study.

As stated in article referred to above, millions of US dollars have been spent by donor agencies supporting various studies, technical documents and consultancies in the past decade alone – a much higher figure if we factor in all the contributions since independence – to use the most logical benchmark. While some of these have been undertaken with the full input of government, a significant number has come about as conditionalities attached to some grant or loan, a minority of which may not have been useful in themselves. That said, we can safely assume that most of what emanates from these consultancies, technical papers of varying colours (white, blue, pink, green) is useful for the overall development of the country.

However, prevailing factors might prevent the maximization of benefits from individual projects. For example, while a recommendation may call for the overhaul of a particular entity in order to streamline performance, financial constraints might stymie that overhaul in the short to medium term.

How many of those studies either lie languishing on some shelf somewhere or, in the case of older ones, have disappeared altogether? In addition, there is also the phenomenon of persons leaving crucial posts, taking away not only the institutional memory they possess but, in many cases, the actual physical or virtual memory of a particular entity or office in the form of hard and soft copies of crucial documents. In my last article, it was suggested, as mentioned earlier, that there is need for a central information hub, yes, but I wish to expand the concept to include a larger national database, one which would mitigate against these negatives.

Twenty years ago, this may not have been possible. Today, however, the management of information has advanced tremendously. Two decades ago, for example, many consultants’ reports would either have been presented in a type-written format, or a word-processor produced document; the original file of which may or may not have been kept due to considerations regarding availability, reliability and cost of storage. Contrast that with the situation today – and here is an apt example – where the draft paper on Guyana’s “Low Carbon Development Strategy” was available on the Internet, via the Government Information Agency’s (GINA) website, even before it was officially presented at the National Consultation.

Not only is storage now years ahead of what it was two decades ago but search and retrieval have also advanced considerably. Intelligent search engines such as Google, as an example, focus on the accumulation, analysis and retrieval of information. Google Earth, Google Books, Google Analytics and even Gmail are all fundamentally based on archiving and access of information, whether it is coordinates on a map, a scanned copy of a Shakespeare play or archived information on the surfing and online purchasing habits of website visitors and Gmail subscribers.

Modern technology, even in a generic form, can be the basis for the type of central database being proposed, a multi-tiered mechanism which provides access of information to various groups of people based on identified needs. For example, a government official from state agency A can access an IDB-study originally done for state agency B, once that report has been categorized and filed as having cross-sectoral relevance; the same report however, depending on the sensitivity of the information presented, would not be allowed to be accessed by the University of Guyana student whose research falls under the sector in which State Agency A is involved. The university student would however have full access to a wide range of information classified as being less sensitive.

Another positive has to do with the timeliness of recommendations made – a recommendation that may not be feasible at present, for whatever reasons, may become feasible some years down the line. A repository like the one proposed would mitigate against the duplication of efforts in this regard. When the environment for implementation becomes a reality, there is no need to redo the entire study or consultancy.

Indirectly related to – but nevertheless possessing potential serious implications for – the proposed database, is the enactment of appropriate legislation in Guyana. Ideally, such legislation would include not just a theoretical mechanism under which information can be accessed, but a working system which makes the access of that information timely and hence relevant to the needs of the person accessing it.

Finally, I wish to end on a personal note. This issue relates to one which I had cause to address via letter in the media over the past few weeks. I was approached by a young woman who sought my advice on some vicious and untrue rumours being circulated about her on the Internet. Interestingly enough, I had only just learnt about a vicious smear campaign being carried out online against me. Now, ever since I’ve been in the public light with a mandate to bring about some sort of change for the better, I have done this with the understanding that it would make me an automatic target of those for whom the retention of the status quo would be an ideal thing – that reality has not had iota of impact on my resolve to execute my job without favour and, especially, without fear. The truth is, however, that not everyone is immune to this sort of thing. I am a great believer in the power of the Internet to educate and inform – but obviously, as evidenced by the sort of character assassination that has been becoming widespread in recent months – there is a darker side to the net. I would like to state that online sniping from behind anonymous e-mail addresses is cowardly and indicative of a lack of credibility. If there is something to be said, and it has any merit, there is no danger in coming out boldly and saying it