Dear Editor,
Minister Persaud’s July 6, letter to Stabroek News titled ‘Low carbon strategy makes it clear that areas already allocated for sustainable forestry will continued to be harvested’ in response to letters from Eric Phillips and articles by Stabroek News and Kaieteur News provokes some serious thought. While I have no issue with a country receiving fair and adequate compensation for sustainable development and conservation and for properly exploiting its resources, I wonder if Minister Persaud and the government possess a comprehensive understanding of the ramifications of Kyoto and the current and anticipated global carbon trading system and their impact on Guyana’s strategy. Also, I wonder if the government would provide us with some short, medium and long-term quantification of projected revenue from this venture and the basis for their quantification. At a minimum, the government should inform the Guyanese public about its expected revenue stream in hard numbers and also the predictability of revenue. If Guyana’s forests have a conservation worth of US$580M to the world each year what exactly do we expect to receive in compensation as a nation and under what terms and conditions?
Also, Minister Persaud should tell the people of Guyana why is the government so keen to implement this strategy when there is likely to be radical amendment to the existing Kyoto climate change framework when the world meets at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen in December 2009. Everything connected with
Guyana’s low carbon development strategy (LCDS) is contingent on the outcomes of that convention. In fact, Copenhagen promises to deliver better outcomes than Kyoto considering that Kyoto has been heavily criticized with consensus on the need for amendment by most nations; the USA has an environmentally friendlier government; the G8 countries have embraced carbon reduction, environmental protection and conservation; the global mechanisms for carbon trading and valuation have improved; and the populace in the world’s biggest polluters (mostly developed nations) support carbon reduction. While the global recession would impact on the Copenhagen outcomes it should be minimal, considering the focus of any protocols will be long-term. Overall, the prospect of an improved system of governance and compensation for conservation and carbon credit elimination to emerge out of Copenhagen is excellent. Why can’t the Government of Guyana wait for this critical event to transpire before making any final decisions on the LCDS?
One has to wonder whether the government’s concerted push to finalize the LCDS has anything to do with possible assurances and promises it has already made to developed nations such as Norway and the UK for rainforest credits. Maybe the government will clarify if this is indeed the case. One has to hope for the sake of the nation’s future that the government has not sealed its fate at this momentous juncture. Entering into agreements or granting assurances with respect to our valuable rainforest before Copenhagen would be a calculated risk of reckless and naive proportions.
What the Minister failed to mention is that any agreements under the LCDS will be performance-based. If Guyana fails to perform it could result in non-compensation to Guyana while the developed nation could still obtain the carbon credits if it fulfils its obligations. Knowing Guyana’s affinity for those tried and true woes of incompetence, mismanagement, corruption and pilfering, one has to wonder whether under-performance and non-performance will be the standard results. Our non-performance or under-performance under these agreements could generate nothing meaningful to the people of Guyana but will accrue carbon credits to some wealthy nation.
It would be reckless and myopic for the Guyana government to foreclose on this matter of national importance before Copenhagen. That is when the nation would be armed with new ground rules and should commence negotiating in good faith with interested governments. The government has a duty to the people of Guyana to maintain flexibility until the environmental world map is redrawn at Copenhagen. Subdued optimism and caution should be the mantra. Minister Persaud should indulge in an exhibition of patience. Strategic thinking, risk management, forecasting and planning should be undertaken by Minister Persaud and the government on this matter.
Our nation must lean towards caution when it comes to any potential foreign influence over our resources and our management of it, particularly when decisions affecting our future will be made by others while we stand on the sidelines.
Finally, if this nation is on a march of prosperity as Minister Persaud claims, why should we be this forceful in hounding this issue before Copenhagen 2009 – why not wait and enjoy the economic growth?
Yours faithfully,
Michael Maxwell
