Ministry of Natural Resources responds to Policy Forum Guyana

See below the full release from the Ministry of Natural Resources:

The ongoing allegations by Policy Forum Guyana (PFG) regarding EITI implementation in the country once again take the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) aback. While we remain focused on the ministry’s primary functions of providing oversight in the sector, such allegations, if not addressed, could, over time, create a negative impression. The ministry is henceforth compelled to address the PFG’s recent allegations issued on November 18, 2025, as wit: 

1. MSG renewal 

It is blatantly false to state that PFG only became aware that the MSG had ceased to exist in January 2025. We have attached two such communications, dated October 01, 2024 and October 18, 2024, both captioned “Approval of Retroactive Extension for the MSG Members’ Terms”. These exchanges speak to the contrary. These communications were dispatched to the MSG and its members. The MSG meetings and the minutes of same confirm the falsehoods being peddled by PFG in this regard. 

2. GYEITI Secretariat 

Fifty-five countries are implementing the EITI. Over 90% of implementing countries have the EITI National Secretariat embedded within a government agency. This allows the administrative and operational aspects of the Secretariat to be overseen by the oversight ministry/agency, while implementation priorities, including the work plan, reporting, corrective actions, etc., are overseen by the MSG. Only two countries, Nigeria and Liberia, have fully legislated the EITI, where the national secretariat is an autonomous agency of government. 

3. Civic Convenor 

In 2017, at the inception of the EITI in Guyana, the then Minister selected PFG as the civic convenor. There was no open bidding or vetting. PFG has never questioned the process leading up to its own appointment as convenor under less transparent guidelines. Instead, PFG continues to question a more transparent and open process leading up to the recruitment of a civic convenor. If the authority to appoint the Convenor was flawed, why didn’t PFG seek to correct this while it served in the role for six years? 

You will note that a process to recruit a civic convenor was launched with an open call published in the local dailies from 29 September to 15 October. Four interested parties applied: Policy Forum Guyana, Dr Ivor English, the Private Sector Commission (PSC), and Dr Nanda Gopaul. While PFG raised some concerns about whether the PSC fully met the civic definition under EITI, it is interesting that PFG is the only contestant to object to the results. Additionally, Dr. English, the Convenor, who has not been active in the mining sector for a few years, has publicly stated that he has no interest in the mining sector going forward. 

4. Civic definition 

The ministry agrees on the definition of CSOs outlined in PFG’s press release. The emphasis on organisational representation is interesting. One would then ask why every member of the civil society representatives on the MSG since 2017 has been more or less operating as an individual representative, rather than an organisational representative? The EITI allows for domestication of its Standard while ensuring core conditions are met, and this fact seems to have evaded the PFG. 

Rules should be equally applied at all times, not when they work in your favour.

Further, one would ask whether the PFG had any issues with the criteria outlined in the public announcement for the civic convenor, including conditions for individual or organisational applications. If so, why did it not register its concerns at the time? Instead, PFG applied for the role and frowned on the results when it was not selected. 

The process 

The role of the convenor is plain and simple. Pull civic members together and have them set their own rules and guidelines, leading up to selecting their members. The convenor has NO influence whatsoever over who or how a civic representative is selected. So, why are there all the pushbacks? 

The ministry reiterates its commitment to the EITI process, including respect for the CSO Protocol and Requirement 1.4 of the EITI Standard. This provision requires civil society to choose its representatives freely.