Tra Fas De: Organising the gold sector: who pays, who implements and who oversees? (part 2)

Even a sausage seller must know how much sausage to purchase, what his costs are and how much he has left after the sale. In an operation such as the formalisation of the gold sector, that financial substantiation may certainly be expected. Yet the published explanation of the new formalisation plan lacks concrete, measurable targets and financially substantiated forecasts. Implementation is planned for the 2026–2028 period. But stating a period does not yet make clear which results must be achieved by which date.

The first part focused on accountability for previous formalisation attempts. That history is important. Those who cannot indicate why previous efforts produced insufficient results can hardly convincingly explain why a new approach will produce results. This is compounded by a second responsibility: making clear in advance what this operation will cost and what it must yield.

What will the formalisation cost and what will it yield?

What will registration, training, equipment, inspections and staffing cost? Who will pay for it? How much additional state revenue is expected annually and what are those expectations based on? How much will remain net after implementation costs have been deducted?

Announcing more revenue is easy. Presenting a verifiable calculation, however, requires figures, assumptions and insight into the risks.

Environmental targets must be measurable

The environmental targets must also be measurable. How many miners must be working without mercury at what point? By how much must mercury use decrease? What improvement in water quality is being pursued? Who records the baseline situation and who measures progress?

In the plan, the Nationale Milieu Autoriteit (NMA, National Environmental Authority) is given an important role in training and alternative extraction methods. The NMA has statutory environmental duties, including oversight, awareness-raising and involving experts. But this does not yet establish that all necessary personnel, resources and technical knowledge are available.

Through the EMSAGS project, staff from, among others, NIMOS, the predecessor of the NMA, and the formalisation organisation previously received training in geology, mining techniques and monitoring. What knowledge has been retained? Who will provide the practical training? Who will subsequently verify whether the techniques are being applied responsibly?

Legal powers and implementation capacity

The working group must also provide clarity from a legal perspective. The Milieuraamwet and the decree on environmental impact assessment (MEA) provide instruments, but this does not yet demonstrate that all implementation regulations for this approach are in force.

Which powers can be used immediately and which additional regulations are needed? A presentation does not resolve missing powers, staff shortages or a lack of resources.

Clear division of tasks among government bodies

The Belastingdienst and the health authorities should be involved from the outset. But merely sitting at the table is insufficient. It must be structurally established which agency registers, who verifies data, who collects taxes and who takes action in the event of violations. This must be matched by clear powers, sufficient staff and an available budget.

The same applies to the announced access to healthcare. Who will organise this care, who will finance it and who will monitor its implementation? A working group can prepare an approach. Implementation must be sustainably assigned to institutions that are responsible and accountable for it, even after the working group has completed its mandate.

What critical questions did President Simons ask?

The role of President Simons also deserves attention. She was chairperson of De Nationale Assemblée (Suriname’s parliament) for ten years. Someone with that parliamentary experience may be expected to probe further into previous formalisation attempts, the legal basis and the spending of public funds.

According to the report, she responded enthusiastically. What critical questions did she ask? Did she ask about the results of OGS and the existing demonstration sites and training centres? About evaluations, financial accountability and the NMA’s capacity? What conditions did she attach to implementation? The public also has the right to know what substantiation the president required and what agreements were made before public funds are spent again.

Every guilder of public money spent must be verifiable

Without financial accountability, all those promises are worth little. Every guilder of public money spent must be verifiable: how much was spent, on what, by whom and with what result? This requires public financial reports and independent oversight.

Therefore, publish a budget, substantiated revenue forecasts, measurable environmental targets and deadlines. Also immediately establish who is responsible for what and report at fixed intervals on costs, progress and proceeds.

Suriname must be able to determine what this formalisation truly yields: for the state treasury, for the environment and for the people who live and work in the areas concerned.

Promised change must become visible

Under the old way of working, hardly any accountability was provided. During the election campaign, this government promised to change the system and follow a new path. Give that promise form: make clear what this plan will cost, what it must yield, who is responsible and how accountability will be provided. That openness would be a first concrete step towards making the promised change visible.