Dear Editor,
Please permit me a place to carefully analyse the Environmental levy Bill tabled by the coalition Government on the January 5, 2017 in Parliament. The Finance Minister argued that the rationale of the Bill is to prevent future debacles that stemmed from the ruling, demanding the Government to pay Rudisa Beverages and Juices .2 billion dollars. Editor, the Minister further went on to state that the Bill would enable “imposition of broad-based, non-discriminatory environmental tax” that will prevent any reoccurrences. These are motions I strongly agree with, but the absences of infrastructure and a tested system that is required to enable the consumer to not directly feel the impacts of this Bill is glaring.
I strongly believe the Minister, presumably acting under the advice of his many highly paid fellow Ministers or contracted advisors, failed to carefully look at the bigger picture. Yes, I understand that the Coalition has a vision to progress Guyana, but we cannot model our society on what is being done in North America and Europe, when we lack the basis infrastructural amenities necessary to safe guard the common man’s best interest. Editor, the environmental levy of per unit will be instantly transferred to the consumer. The reason for this is because Guyana lacks any recycling facilities for metal, plastics or glass-based materials. As a result, I do not understand how levying a cost on these materials will “promote the green economy”, when in fact all they are doing is imposing a higher cost on the consumers.
Secondly, Editor, waste disposal in Guyana does not have an established sorting environmental policy or enforcement task force. Take for example; in Canada, waste and waste diversion are impacted by regulations from three levels of government (federal, provincial and municipal). In fact, there are specific laws and regulations governing the proper disposal of recyclable and landfill based waste (Refer to https://www.rco.on.ca/how_waste_is_regulated). Editor, these policies are enforceable because there are established regulations, systems, checks and balances, and infrastructure.
In conclusion, while I agree an environmental levy may be the answer to halt the environmental eye sore and promote better consumer practices, more could have been done to establish a system before this decision was made. The Government should have consulted interested stakeholders to fully/partly fund a large scale recycling facility and establish a tested system for recycling. These are plans that will take time, but levying a Bill on the importers will only increase the cost on the common man, leaving you to wonder whether the raise in threshold or disposal income would make any differences to those on the bottom line. Let’s not forget, these local manufacturers will be paying VAT on electricity and water in 2017, making one to wonder how the prices of some basis commodities will fluctuate in the near future.

Regards,
Dr Michael George