Introduction:
A delegation from Norway is expected in the country within a few weeks for discussions on Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). This column summarizes a paper prepared by the AFC LCDS working group and seeks to pull together the issues that need to be considered if we are to implement a LCDS that is sustainable and in the long term interest of all Guyanese. A key component is that this LCDS should not be held hostage to the global climate negotiation process nor the policy decisions of any particular donor country or international financial institution. This column would not go into all the details of a development blueprint for Guyana. Indeed the LCDS needs to be put in the context of a revised National Development Strategy (NDS) for Guyana which comes out of a broad multi-stakeholder process. In such a consultative process the Guyana 21 road map for development of Guyana’s infrastructure also needs to be considered. The government has not presented a comprehensive economic plan and only touts certain projects as their plan.
Minimize the role of Government:
The LCDS really needs to be seen as making explicit that as a responsible member of the global community Guyana acknowledges that as it seeks to pursue a sustainable development path it understands that such a path should take a low carbon trajectory. In critiquing the LCDS offered by the Office of the President (OP) some of the issues that need to be considered in a non pie-in-the-sky development agenda for Guyana should become clear. Such a development agenda would be a low carbon development model because that is in Guyana’s and the world’s best long term interest. A sustainable LCDS for Guyana needs to be driven by a governance process that is inclusive, transparent, incorporates a lead role for private sector investment, and a government that acts as a facilitator of entrepreneurship and investment. Guyana is a nation that needs to come together and focus on creating opportunity for allits people. Historically Governments of Guyana have used the resources available to them to divide the country. This is why a comprehensive LCDS must minimize the role of government in those essential functions which only government can provide and allow the private sector, NGOs, and the wider civil society within a framework of the effective rule of law to maximize employment and economic activity.
Poor PPP track record
There are 30+ REDD schemes underway globally and in a serious deliberative process these all need to be considered within a best case development framework for Guyana. However based on the track record of the PPP government this is not going to be the case. The PPP government over the sixteen plus years that it has been in power has not shown a willingness to entertain viewpoints which differ from those it supports and proposes. Opposition to its agenda is commonly characterised as obstructionist, anti-national, subversive. In addition PPP government policy is often widely seen as designed to further a divisive agenda designed to garner votes for the PPP based on entrenching racial discord in Guyana. In summary the PPP is not known for working with other stakeholders in Guyana in a cooperative manner.
The Norwegian financial commitments to Guyana’s LCDS to date that we know of are for capacity building, and training, not for major capital projects like the Amaila Falls hydro-electricity scheme or repair/strengthening of Guyana’s coastal Drainage & Irrigation (D&I) works. If Norway is not committed to funding the OP-proposed LCDS on the scale envisioned therein what is the appetite of the rest of the world to get out of free rider mode and pay countries like Guyana to do what they are already doing, i.e. in Guyana’s case, maintaining relatively low deforestation and forest degradation levels? A caveat on this last point is that Guyana’s monitoring of activities in its rainforests is not a process which has a high level of confidence for the relevant stakeholders.
A better approach:
Guyana is going to be better off pursuing a LCDS in its own self-interest. Two immediate reasons are that Guyana is a net importer of fossil fuel and its coast line is vulnerable to sea level rise occasioned by global warming. However Guyana pursuing a LCDS in the absence of contributions/payments from the rest of the world (ROW) on the scale envisaged in the LCDS circulated by the OP depends on the quality of governance in Guyana. Transparent, inclusive, consultative governance in Guyana would lead to a framework where investment flows from all sources would be at a level which facilitates rapid sustainable development of Guyana.
The Norwegian government authorities, who at this point seem most likely ready to spend significant funds on some sort of forest preservation scheme in Guyana should not have any problems with Guyanese political and civil society groups insisting on inclusiveness and transparency with regard to the expenditure by the Guyanese authorities of any funds received from Norway to help Guyana protect its rainforest while advancing sustainable development. The Guyanese stakeholders only have to insist that the Norwegians apply the same standards to this potential funding as they do to how they invest unspent revenues from their oil and gas industry.
Another consideration that should go into the management of any funds received by Guyana for the territorial carbon in its rainforest is that a portion be paid directly to each Guyanese taxpayer. This is a suggestion made because the Guyanese rainforest does not belong to the Executive branch of the GOG. The rainforest belongs to the people of Guyana which includes the Amerindians. Thus it is only right and fair that the people should get direct benefits from their patrimony. This is not an exotic arrangement. These types of payments already happen in other national and sub national jurisdictions. Such an arrangement for direct payments to the Guyanese taxpayers would indicate a radical break from the democratic centrist governing style of the current government as well as expressing confidence in the ability of the Guyanese taxpayer to make rational choices within the context of the sustainable development framework which the Government of Guyana should be fostering.
Conclusion:
Guyana needs to retool its LCDS to fit within a national consensus on a development strategy constructed with the involvement of all stakeholders, which is represented by the National Development Strategy (NDS), and incorporating additional input such as the Guyana framework. In this way Guyanese would make a real contribution to reducing global carbon emissions rather than just serving as a tool for third party symbolism on global warming. Look for further discussions on this topic in future columns as we get the attention of those funding the current consultations.
Until next time, “Roop”
Send comments to peter.ramsaroop@gmail.com
