Dear Editor,
There are a few more weaknesses of our LCDS I would like to highlight:
1. The G-20 must have the motivation and the willingness to compensate those who are preserving their forest. Thus in this time of reducing global economic resources and the overwhelming demands from their home market for job and wealth creation programmes, there is very limited opportunity for Guyana to benefit from any serious financial flows. The US government is right now spending billions of dollars increasing the efficiency of their cars and their industries with a view to stabilizing their carbon emissions. How would Guyana respond if the US government states it will complement these initiatives by planting millions of new trees at home and at the same time creating jobs for their citizens?
2. The UNFCCC and its REDD programme clearly have laudable ambitions, but this global economic crisis came at the wrong time, since it is constraining any action by the main polluters to support the work of the UNFCCC in helping many poor developing countries. What many of the G-20 countries have started to do is to use their economic stimulus package to scale up their own renewable energy production, increase their environmental protection programme to create new jobs and enhance their energy conservation at home. The G-20 countries are busy advancing their development plan with their own money (or in the case of the US, borrowed money). What are we doing in Guyana?
3. We do not need to convince the UK, the EU, Norway or Switzerland about the LCDS since that is like speaking to the converted. We really need to convince the USA, China and India of the political importance of them supporting our LCDS. As Jagdish Bhagwati said, “If Copenhagen is not going to be a shipwreck, initiatives to bring the US back to sensible thinking are necessary.” Have we done our part to make the USA aware of our plan? Have we highlighted for the USA, India and China how the LCDS will help them politically and economically? Why have we not met Obama on a one-to-one basis and his Energy Secretary to discuss our LCDS and demonstrate how we can help each other?
4. Guyana will not see the flows it may be expecting from Copenhagen, and this is because McKinsey needs to explain how it arrived at US$580M annually as the value of our forest. I know for a fact that there are many species and sizes of trees in our forest that have low economic value (not every tree in our forest is a greenheart). Thus, it would have been a very inexact science to value our forest without doing a comprehensive audit of the stock of commercially harvestable trees, and there is no mention of this process being followed in the LCDS. Thus, this valuation and its associated quantum of financial compensation are questionable at minimum. Do we have the details of the comprehensive forest audit if the USA asks for a copy in their consideration of compensation? If the USA says it would want to do a sample test of the forest to certify this figure, will it stand up?
5. The LCDS states that if Guyana reaps its forest, it will have negative consequences for the world. So what? If the G-20 countries decide to plant trees by the millions, then it becomes irrelevant to the world what Guyana does with its forest. I hope it is becoming clear why this document is weak, since it is being positioned as if we have the political leverage to instruct the world. The most we can do is ask a Sir Shridath Ramphal calibre team to soften the political stance of the powerful and work for the best. Let us make it clear in our mind, Obama, Manmohan Singh or Hu Jintao would not lose any sleep if Guyana cut its forest down and we must stop deluding ourselves.
6. The powerful of the world will repair the environment but on their terms and to the benefit of their people, and this is where I will raise India’s position. The confrontation between China and India on one side and the USA on the other side over climate change initiatives is a disaster in the making for Copenhagen. India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh (a very close ally of Sonia Gandhi) stated that India had been among the lowest emissions per capita, and thus there was no need to face an actual reduction in emissions. He further went on to state that India would not “discuss signing up to any legally binding obligations to make absolute cuts in greenhouse gas emissions for at least 10 years.” These statements were made when Hillary Clinton visited India in July 2009. If India and China do not sign on, where is Copenhagen? Just another talk shop with more communiqués and platitudes.
I trust that analytical minds in Guyana can understand why it is a matter of concern that while we pretend to be a global leader in climate change, other countries are spending their taxpayer money pursuing a long-term development plan (even the USA is engaged in such a programme with borrowed money). Unfortunately, we are being set up as the poster child for the climate change lobby that will provide little to us at this point in time. However, this climate change initiative will contribute to us losing focus from our principal developmental agenda.
Advocacy against the grain by one of your own is most unnerving for any political class, especially if they are struggling to provide answers to the issues. My advocacy is not an attempt to be in the spotlight or to undermine this document, but is driven by a deep concern that we are continuing to lose valuable time running on the spot as a country, as we allow ourselves to be distracted by what Copenhagen can or cannot gave us. All Guyanese should feel most disappointed as we continue not to deal (as a top priority) with the main obstacles to our development – social cohesion, hydropower, unchecked crime and job and wealth creation for the masses.
The fact of the matter is, we are losing ground as a country again and the PNC is not the cause this time around. Any soldier of righteousness must fight this backwardness today, just as we fought the PNC in the past. I know the taste of power is sweet but at the end of the day, it is subservient to that higher calling of a politician – serving the working class. It is not too late to help the masses.
Yours faithfully,
Sasenarine Singh
