Dear Editor,
I refer to two letters, one in the January 4 edition of Kaieteur News, ‘Are we pawning our forests because we are desperate for money?’ by Sasenarine Singh; and the other of the same date in Stabroek News, ‘Guyana is not an LDC so how can it qualify for climate change funding?’ by Emile Mervin.’ As has become the norm, both of these items of correspondence are filled with inaccuracies and again display the total lack of comprehension of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of Norway, the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) and the Guyana Readiness Preparation Proposal (RPP). I am now becoming wary of the agenda/motives of these letter writes given their consistent baseless, obstinate opposition to new, pioneering development ideas emerging from the PPP/C.
I had penned an earlier response to the misinformation by both of these letter writers during December 2009; however, I will again repeat some of the clarifications offered in that earlier response and use the opportunity to expand on a few points in the interest of full, accurate public understanding.
Firstly, it is simply unacceptable that Mr Singh continues to insist that the LCDS will disrupt the very healthy mining and forestry sectors. It is also incomprehensible that he speaks about job losses in these sectors. Nowhere in the MOU is there any mention that forestry and mining activities will cease. In actual fact, page three of the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ supplement to the Draft LCDS document (June 2009) clearly states that “Mining and forestry activities will not be required to stop. However, they will be required to strictly comply with standards set by our Mining, Forestry and Environmental Laws and the Low Carbon Development Strategy.”
The same document (page 3) also states that mining and forestry will not be required to reduce their activities, but be allowed to continue in accordance with more stringent monitoring and enforcement of compliance.
Please show me where and how these sectors will decline. Or is this mere scare-mongering to get public attention?
I am also puzzled as to why Mr Singh has issues with a policy position of utilization of our natural resources in accordance with best possible environmental, social and economic practices. This position was held strongly, not only by the late President Cheddi Jagan, but also during the PNC administration.
Further, Mr Singh needs to read a letter by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) Commissioner (ag) (Stabroek News, January 4) captioned ‘Neither the LCDS nor the Norway MOU suggests the cessation of mining.’ In that correspondence, Mr Woolford makes the point that “The LCDS and the MOU with Norway both expect, and require that miners continue to improve their efficiency and effectiveness in all areas. The GGMC and the GGDMA have always urged the miners to comply with all the applicable laws. The thrust for miners to operate in accordance with acceptable international standards continues to get stronger and certainly predates the LCDS and the MOU of Norway.” The same is applicable to the forestry sector.
In that same letter Mr Woolford also makes the point that the US$300M gross sales value of minerals bought by the Guyana Gold Board really translates into revenues of approximately US$21M. Mr Singh needs to understand clearly that the revenues from Norway and other potential partners are really additional to what the forestry and mining sectors will continue to bring in. The only difference is that these sectors now have to comply more with best practices, something that was being emphasized long before the LCDS/MOU with Norway. There is not going to be a “trade-off” as is suggested in his correspondence, simply additionality.
With respect to the additional sources of financing, government has already secured financing independent of the MOU to invite most of the top experts in the world to help in designing the Monitoring, Reporting and Verification System (MRVS) framework, and subsequently to assist in designing a road map for implementation of the MRVS. The Government of Guyana intends to use the same approach in seeking independent funding to finance the costs of independent forest monitoring and other associated activities. The clear intention as stated before is to use the majority of funds to finance developmental activities.
With respect to alternative employment opportunities, Mr Singh completely misses the point; the alternative employment areas are not intended to replace forestry and mining which will continue under the stricter monitoring and enforcement protocols. Rather, the alternatives are to complement these sectors thereby providing a diversification of activities and additional employment opportunities. There is going to be no displacement of persons as is being implied by Singh.
On the issue of the consultation process, Mr Singh should be aware that the government has taken a decision for the National Toshaos’ Council to lead the awareness process with the indigenous groups. Additionally, the process, though not perfect was hailed internationally as a very inclusive, transparent process. At the request of the Government of Guyana, the Government of Norway engaged the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) to provide independent advice to assist the consultation process and this was their conclusion: “The Independent Monitoring Team finds that the process of multi-stakeholder consultation surrounding Guyana’s LCDS has broadly followed principles derived from international best practice and has met these criteria. It is the opinion of this team that the consultative process, to the extent that its findings inform a revised LCDS, can be considered credible, transparent and inclusive. The government’s commitment to transparency and accountability has been commendable during the preliminary consultation process of the LCDS and it is hoped that the openness and inclusivity with which this first phase is proceeding will be strengthened and continued in the ongoing phases of its development and implementation.”
Mr Singh’s attempts to justify how he arrived at the US$45M are simply amusing and not worthy of a response. I will simply let that one pass; not flay him but forgive his error.
Again, I re-state that the US$30-50M per year is an interim figure which is to be renegotiated as more precise information becomes available through the MRVS.
The other absurdities and innuendos I will ignore in the interest of a healthy debate.
Let me now address the inconsistencies of Emile Mervin.
Mr Mervin remains part of a minority who cannot accept that the President of Guyana has been hailed internationally as a champion of the climate change agenda over the past 4-5 years. Also, let me remind him that the guidelines for sustainable forest management developed collaboratively in Guyana have been recognized internationally as a model of best practice. It is because of the satisfactory implementation of same that Guyana is recognized by the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) as being one of six tropical forest countries that is actually implementing sustainable forest management on the ground. This has contributed tremendously to climate change mitigation at a global level, contrary to what Mr Mervin states.
He again confuses the fact that the green fund agreed on at Copenhagen will not flow to LDCs but to vulnerable countries, Guyana being classified as a vulnerable country. For his information I wish to point to the UN’s Copenhagen Accord: “The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 – 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, Small Island Developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.” According to the UNDP’s classification of countries Guyana is listed as a small island developing state. See http://www.unohrlls.org/en/sids/44/ for a list of small island developing states.
Further let me assure Mr Mervin that the LCDS is still an evolving document which will soon be finalized after being enriched from greater public scrutiny, stakeholder input and technical clarifications.
If this government was interested only in money, then it would have issued out all available state lands as forest concessions for unregulated and unsustainable forestry. There is a great demand for our forest resources which can bag huge income for our nation, but at the expense of our people’s resolve for sound environmental stewardship of our natural resources. The fact that this is not occurring, even though there are numerous requests from local and overseas forest companies to access additional lands, clearly indicates that this government is committed to good governance and accountability, contrary to Mr Mervin’s claims.
In closing, let me assure the letter writers that Guyana is well positioned to benefit from the funds that were pledged at the Copenhagen summit. We have a low rate of deforestation attesting to the good policies, management and institutional structures that are already in place. Even more heartening, is the fact that we have the full support and commitment of the indigenous, forestry, mining, and other land use sector stakeholders who all acclaim the MOU and LCDS to be visionary and laudable developmental steps for Guyana.
I do hope that this intervention would have contributed to a better understanding of the subject at hand and enriched the free open public discourse, a notable feature of our democracy.
Yours faithfully,
Robert M. Persaud
Minister of Agriculture with
responsibility for Forestry
