Dear Editor,
Peter Persaud of TAAMOG (“The President gave responses to all the questions, concerns and recommendations aired at the regional consultations for LCDS’ SN, August 14) tells a different story from the formal records of these consultations as displayed on the LCDS website (www.lcds.gov.gy ). Just taking the Annai meeting on June 19 as an example, at which Mr Persaud was present, and excluding the pro-forma “Support was expressed for the LCDS /Support for the LCDS was noted,” there were 18 points or questions raised by participants and answered by the President’s team. There were a further 68 points which were raised but for which the formal record indicates no response. Some of these latter points were duplicates – the same point raised by different participants – but still the number of unanswered points is quite different from the assertion of Mr Persaud, that “all of the questions, concerns, suggestions and recommendations raised were adequately answered and responded to in very simple language.”
The Office of Climate Change (OCC) is neither communicating the basis on which the LCDS is founded nor replying comprehensively to stakeholder questions. Why should any citizen make suggestions for improving the LCDS, via the black hole of the LCDS website which does not display such suggestions nor offer a debating forum, and when the OCC is silent? Stabroek News’ website offers an excellent example of an interactive website, on which anyone can post comments or read all the comments posted with regard to any news item, or letter or feature article. In addition, I am sure the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) would be happy to give the OCC guidance on how to run a debating forum.
Concerning the 15th Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at Copenhagen in December this year, Mr Persaud seems not to appreciate the nature of these mega-meetings. The draft negotiating text of 200 pages was debated at a technical meeting in Bonn in June 2009. A member of the OCC was present, and he will know that in this text there was no mention of the LCDS. That text has to be distilled down to 30 pages for the Copenhagen meeting. There will be space for at most one page on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). It is misleading to imply that the LCDS, which has not been brought forward at technical working groups of the UNFCCC or to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), will suddenly have a significant role at Copenhagen. A few months before the Bali meeting of December 2007, Rashleigh Jackson, former Foreign Minister, had helpfully suggested that Guyana should “undertake a carefully structured and sustained diplomatic effort to attract support and to build solidarity alliances. I can think of approaches to Caricom, the Association of Caribbean States, Amazonian countries through ACTO, the RIO group…” (‘Guyana should build diplomatic support for its rainforest proposal’ SN, October 31, 2007). A few months later, I had suggested engagement with international technical groups (‘Guyana must take more active role in climate change arena – Bulkan’ SN, January 16, 2008.). Neither of these suggestions appears to have been taken up.
The OCC should be looking at the heavily square-bracketed UNFCCC text and using an open forum to debate how Guyana might profit by fitting into mainstream climate change negotiations instead of standing outside them. This is indeed a tremendous opportunity for a serious re-think about our medium-term and long-term development, but not through the sketchy paragraphs of the LCDS. Other commentators have pointed out that sea levels are going to rise by thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers and ice caps for decades ahead. Tipping unconsolidated riprap rock on the foreshore is pointless when the sea level will overwhelm the sea walls at or before the end of this century. This is a time to look again at the excellent work of the National Development Strategy of 1995-6 and to develop a realistic action plan which takes into account our greatly improved understanding of climate change over the last 13 years. Is the OCC up to this task?
Yours faithfully,
Janette Bulkan
