01 de octubre 2013 | Por Knews | Filed Under letras
Para aquellos de ustedes que me conocen, yo no soy un amigo o un enemigo del gobierno o de la oposición de Guyana. Yo era el ex director del Programa de Mejoramiento de la Educación Primaria ( PEIP ) durante 1994-1997 .
No matar el proyecto sin un análisis adecuado .
Joe Persaud .
I have been following the impasse of the captioned project. The bottom line is that the public and the opposition are claiming that adequate information was not provided to them for review. In order to remove all doubts, this is a proposal to reconsider the project:
1. Expert review of all documentation on the project, from the inception to the present, including the feasibility study.
2. If not done, air photo (photogrammetry) and localized contours at approximately 500ft or 1000ft intervals.
3. Examine cost of preserving the environment, watersheds, bridging of streams, small rivers, large rivers, in addition to all other associated capital works.
4. Scope the entire project, quantify, qualify and budget.
5. Do a revised Class D estimate.
6. Do a break-even analysis which will include all capital cost, operation and maintenance cost, interest, etc. over a thirty and forty-year period.
7. The review will also consider comparison of alternatives, using ethanol, fuel over a thirty or forty-year period.
8. Prepare a draft Terms of Reference for the government, the opposition and public sector organization for their reviews and comments, to execute the above.
For those of you who know me, I am not a friend or an enemy of the government or the opposition of Guyana. I was the former Director of Primary Education Improvement Program (PEIP) during 1994-1997.
I am prepared to have a team of experts within three to six months to complete a comprehensive review of the above. I suggest that since the IDB was doing a review, the IDB through a technical cooperation funding or the government, provide the cost for this expert review.
Don’t kill the project without a proper analysis.