Dear Editor,
After conducting a thorough review of the draft low carbon development strategy (LCDS) document, I wish to put forward these preliminary points for discussion. Because this strategy has significant implications for the future of Guyana, these observations will be set out in a detailed, but concise document which will be posted on the internet for all Guyanese to review in the very near future.
1. The document presents a fairly accurate description of some of our development problems. I think this is good because it facilitates open debate on how to address the multiplicity of challenges that the country faces.
2. However, I find the LCDS approach to be oversimplified – it uses a simplistic formula which is rooted is enormous uncertainty and depends heavily on the decisions made by other countries, who may not have our best interest at heart. The basic formula is ‘save the forest’ = ‘lots of money’ = ‘widespread development.’
3. The strategy is not people-centred or people-oriented. It states that the pristine forests are Guyana’s most valuable asset. I think most people would object to this belief. Guyana’s most valuable asset is its people. The citizens are our most valued resource. We are the most cherished resource of our country. I think we need a strategy which places more focus on people, particularly allowing for Guyanese innovation to become the engine which drives national development, not uncertain forest payments. To me, a good strategy will reduce the size of government, lower taxes, increase security, reduce government bureaucracy so that people can pursue their dreams and aspirations which leads to national development and true individual happiness and fulfilment. Government serves the people, people serve the country.
4. I’m afraid that the strategy will enlarge the size of the government, to which most of the so-called payments for the forest will go. It is unlikely that the ordinary person will see any of this money to do as he pleases with his freedom. Instead he will remain subject to government and its policies and inefficiencies.
5. The strategy fails to mention any reference to Guyana’s intention to explore offshore drilling for oil. I’m not sure if the omission of this means that we are willing to give up these aspirations if the strategy goes through, or if we are being disingenuous because it’s a source of controversy in the energy debate.
6. The strategy does not include the estimates of carbon emissions which can be expected from massive development, particularly in the early stages of forest payments, given that most renewable energy sources are currently not economically viable to support such development. It is generally accepted that oil will remain a major source of energy for another 50 or more years.
7. I find very few technical bases for the arguments on climate change in the document. I am becoming increasingly concerned that we are paying too little attention to the actual science of climate change and that a sovereign government such as our own tends to accept the findings reached by outside groups without careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. We find validation and comfort in saying ‘the international community says’ assuming that the world is somewhat homogenous in its acceptance of all the conclusions reached on this issue. I think we sometimes need to accept that we, nor others, have the answers just yet, before we jump to make huge changes. If this doesn’t work, the government will be answerable to the people and the international community cannot be blamed for misleading us if we do not do our homework.
8. I am concerned about the message the strategy sends to young Guyanese. It looks like a ‘sit back, relax and watch the money roll in’ plan. It doesn’t address how young Guyanese can use their intellect to address their own problems, but makes it appears as if money will solve most of the developmental problems we face. My critique here is that the strategy doesn’t seem rooted in real innovation on our part. However, the rest of the world is either seeking to harvest the innovation of its people in solving the climate problem or simply forging ahead with little concern for the climate, arguing that the development of their people will take precedence over climate change.
9. There is no assessment of risks in the document. For example, it doesn’t indicate the chances of an avoided deforestation mechanism being accepted in Copenhagen in December 2009. The strategy in its current form is a huge ‘if.’ It doesn’t address changes in technology that may change some of its price estimates.
10. I get the impression that without the money through the strategy that the flooding problem will persist. We’ve been faced with a flooding problem since the days of Dutch colonization. Admittedly, 2005 was an extreme event, but the little ones add up too. Is this strategy really the solution now? A few years ago we weren’t sure where all the water was coming from. We didn’t have a map that showed all the inlets to the watershed. As a matter of fact we didn’t have a map of the watershed. So, I’m not sure how we plan to spend the money on solving the problem. Mind you, the rainy seasons will come and go each year until the first forest payment comes in.
11. The strategy indicates that 15 million hectares of forest has an economic value to the nation of US$580M and that we could gain this much if we exploit the forests. However, it goes on to say that it would be devastating to the world if we took this “economically rational development path.” Is it conceivable that we would exploit our resources to the point of environment degradation? Wouldn’t any sustainable development strategy, even outside of climate change, include sustainable forestry management? Does “economically rational development path” mean “unsustainable development path”? I think not. In the absence of climate change, we would still be required to manage our forest because of the tremendous non-monetary value to us.
12. It is clear that we have nothing to lose in this strategy, except if payments are stopped, as in the case of reduction in payments for our sugar in the preferential markets in Europe. Now we turn to the same region again to pay us for so-called “forest services” and do not expect that they would, probably in time, decide that they have forests of their own.
13. The strategy has to fit within a broader global framework to address climate change (unless we forget that this is the problem we are setting out to solve). According to the foreword, we need 80% cuts by 2050. An ambitious target that even the developed world acknowledges is probably not going to be met. In any case, China and India are major players in the overall equation and if they are not on board, then all our climate efforts and strategies may be in vain.
Yours faithfully,
Kofi Dalrymple
