LAST WEEK I said the Budget was one of contradiction. But it seems the Government itself is contradiction personified. I’m baffled. Why does this Government, which is so indebted (some may say bankrupt), seems to select the most costly project proposals?
For instance, the molasses tank project at the Bridgetown Port. how can Government justify accepting a proposal for construction of three tanks at a cost of $12 million when there was an alternative proposal for replacing one tank and repairing the other two for $3 million?
Furthermore, there have been concerns about us selling “Barbados rum” if the majority of the molasses used to produce it is imported, and the WIRSPA chairman recently complained of the negative impact the high cost and unsatisfactory quality of imported molasses was having on the Barbados rum market.
Under those circumstances, one wonders where the local molasses to fill these brand new, very costly tanks will come from since the raw material for molasses, which happens to be sugar cane (not river tamarind or cow itch), is rapidly disappearing and perhaps will shortly be only a memory. Yet the molasses and sugar cane issues seem to be treated separately.
On that subject, I see that construction fencing is now erected and there’s been some clearing of the site for the $400 million sugar factory. Does this make sense when there’ll soon be hardly (if any) cane for it to grind? Furthermore, has the funding been finalised and if not, is there a special reason for this preparatory work at this point?
There’s an Innotech sign on the construction fencing. Does anyone know who else tendered for this work? Taxpayers expect much more information on how their dollars are being spent especially from a Government that preached transparency and accountability.
Here again, those interested in the survival of the industry put a counterproposal which would’ve cost a fraction of the so-called “state of the art” factory, so that the cane acreage and yields could’ve been gradually increased before any such extravagant undertaking was considered. Of course, it wasn’t entertained.
Then there’s the most disturbing one of all – the Cahill waste-to-energy plant. Miss Mia Mottley’s revelations, Albert Brandford’s article in the last Sunday Sun and the Patrick Hoyos article in the June 22 BARBADOS Business Authority should certainly raise enough red flags for all Barbadians, not only to be very concerned about this project which could have serious repercussions for Barbados, but to ensure their concerns are taken seriously.
As far as I’m aware, our waste to energy plant was supposed to take care of excess garbage remaining after the recyclables, including the green waste (badly needed by our soils) were removed, so a proposal was put forward for a modest plant which would process this excess, and the bonus by-product would be a small amount of electricity.
Clearly, this modest option has been discarded in favour of a humongous plant whose main objective seems to be to produce electricity. Far from processing excess garbage, we’ll now have to import garbage to feed it. Amazing!
When the fact that Cahill was a shell company and had no experience in erecting such plants was raised, Minister of Finance Sinckler’s response was that Sustainable Barbados Recycling Centre (SBRC) didn’t have any experience in building its plant either. As someone said, “that’s not like comparing apples and oranges, it’s like comparing apples and arsenic”.
SBRC was built by Williams Industries, a solid, home-grown company operating for 44 years and known for its reliability. Furthermore, the processes used by SBRC are a far cry from those proposed by Cahill. Come again, Minister Sinckler!
At SBRC’s opening, Minister of the Environment Dr Denis Lowe was quoted as saying: “. . . the full operation of this entity will . . . allow for the recovery of significant volumes of valuable recyclables such as paper, plastic and metal, and the production of other materials, including compost, aggregates and mulch which would be most welcomed by those with a strong interest in agricultural and horticultural production.” If we construct the Cahill plant, won’t all this organic matter (and more) be needed to feed it ? You can’t use one set of waste twice.
All I can say is there seems to be much more in these mortars than the pestles. Are we prepared to sit idly by and let our country be ruined?
• Dr Frances Chandler is a former Independent senator. Email [email protected].
