There have been a surprising number of readers who have contacted me concerning the observation that the Draft LCDS is, to put it mildly, unclear about the true size of Guyana’s forest cover. In the revised draft a footnote on page 12, seeks to shift blame for this onto two sources: the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). It is meekly indicated in the footnote that more precise data would be forthcoming in 2010. This is quite remarkable, considering how basic and essential this figure is to Guyana’s definite call for payments to be made to the country by the rest-of-the-world, in order to encourage future avoided deforestation.
Readers’ reactions to this disclosure have followed two principal lines of demarcation. On the one hand, several readers have attributed the differing sizes of forest cover in the text to a mixture of carelessness, sloppy editing, and very casual fact-checking. In general, these readers assume that incompetence is to be blamed for this outcome. The variations/errors have therefore, been made in “good faith”, with no deliberate intent to deceive or mis-represent the facts.
On the other hand, there were those readers who expressed the belief that this outcome reflects a deliberate effort to manipulate the data, or lack of it, in order to enhance Guyana’s claims on the rest-of-the-world. From this standpoint the variations reflect “bad faith” efforts to deceive. Indeed, to a minority of these skeptics, this follows the pattern exhibited in the e-mail scandals over climate change, which have been linked to the University of East Anglia in Britain. Their view is that those making a case for pro-environment policies are prone to go down the slippery slope of manipulation and exaggeration of “scientific” data in order to buttress their case. As recent history shows, however, those who practice such deception will not prosper in an increasingly vigilant world.
Apropos of all this, one reader has reminded me that in an earlier discussion with him I had adverted to the fact that in the space of two (2) pages of Guyana’s Readiness Preparation Proposal (RPP) submitted to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (September 2009) Guyana’s forest area is variously given as 18.5 million hectares (85 percent of the country) and 80 percent of its land area (approximately 16 million hectares), pages 4 and 5 respectively! Is this sloppiness or an effort at guile?
Consequences of fuzziness
As I have indicated before, fuzziness about the total area under forests also make imprecise other measures contingent on the accuracy of this sum. Consider for example: 1) On page 5, the Draft LCDS, states that the lands under Amerindian titles equal 14 percent of Guyana’s land area; while on page 43 the sum given is approximately “1.7 million hectares of forest under the jurisdiction of Amerindian communities”. This total includes land under the present jurisdiction of Amerindian communities as well as land pledged to be placed under their jurisdiction. These sums do not square. 2) On the same Page 43, the LCDS refers to “leaving intact as protected areas the 10 percent of Guyana’s forests with the highest conservation value”. But nowhere is the absolute area of the land reserved for biodiversity given. 3) The LCDS also refers to the area of “non-productive” land under forests as estimated by the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) to be equal to 20 percent of the country’s forest cover. This area is required to be subtracted from the area of forests and therefore excluded from measures of the standing value of the timber in Guyana’s state forests. This “non-productive” area covers “inaccessible mountain areas, streams and other natural obstructions”, but again its absolute size is not specified.
Sustainable land management practices
On page 40/41 the LCDS makes the bold assertion: “To date very strict sustainable forestry rules in Guyana have limited extraction [from Guyana’s forests] to less than 20 cubic metres (20m3) of timber per hectare over cycles as long as 60years”. The document goes on to point out that this implies an allowable logging of 0.33 cubic metres (0.33m3) per hectare per year (this information was obtained from the GFC and companies engaged in logging). The LCDS notes though that substantially greater quantities of between 60-70 cubic metres (60-70m3) could be harvested from prized hardwood species (greenheart, locust and mora) if there was a laxer regulatory regime in place. This possibility is offered as an indication that a regime of logging not constrained by environmental sustainability could bring “substantially greater” private profit (benefit) for operators in the industry.
Based on the above, the LCDS calculates on page 11 that avoided deforestation in Guyana could bring for the world avoided emissions of greenhouse gases the equivalent of 1.5 gigatons of C02e by 2020. This is calculated from the loss of above and below ground biomass of 418 tonnes of carbon dioxide (418 t C02e) per hectare of forest. To quote page 11 of the document: the “assumption is loss of above and below ground biomass, at 418 t C02e” per hectare based on data from FAO Forest Resources Assessment 2005. However, in the calculations for the Model of Economic Value to the Nation (EVN) and Economic Value to the World (EVW) the credit for carbon stored is based only on above-ground biomass! Thus the LCDS (page 37) makes the assumption of “loss of above-ground biomass only, at 342.78 t C02e per hectare”. Exhibit 3, which gives the Indicative Remuneration Plan for the LCDS from 2009 to 2020, says clearly that payment from the rest-of-the-world could avoid approximately 1.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions. Again, there is a recurring element of imprecision!
Looking ahead
Going forward, we shall see beginning next week that the price per ton of abated carbon dioxide emissions arising from avoided deforestation of Guyana’s forests ranges from US$2 to $11 according to the LCDS and based on McKinsey studies of global marginal costs of abatement. This sum is estimated to be less than for other abatement options. Indeed, from the data provided in the Draft LCDS (pages 13/14) these range upwards to US$97 per ton, and include such related efforts as dedicated biomass (US$58 per ton); cropland afforestation (US$30 per ton); and re-forestation (US$25 per ton).
