Weak and volatile
Several analysts have directly blamed the absence of a coherent economic strategy to guide Guyana’s development since the PPP/C administration came to power in 1992, for the volatile and inadequate economic growth which has prevailed since.
The data for the period reveal that, between 1992 and 1999, annual average real GDP growth was approximately 5.6 per cent. And, between 2000 and 2010 the annual average real GDP growth was just under 2 per cent. For the first period there was one year of negative growth (1998 = minus 1.7 per cent) and for the second period there were three such: years: 2000, 2003 and 2005. Table 1 A and B below indicate these results.
Misleading growth
Recently some analysts have been referring to an improved growth rate for the period (2006-2010). The growth rate of about 4 per cent for these later years is misleading on account of two incontrovertible statistical considerations. One is that, as revealed in Table 1 B, statistically the rebased GDP will show higher growth rates. And second, 2006 reveals the statistical bounce-back effect found in all GDP estimates, which follow immediately after a disaster such as the Great Flood of 2005.
Table 1 A : Annual Real GDP Growth (1992-1999) Table 1 B: Annual real GDP Growth
( 2000-2010)
Year Growth Rate (%) Year Growth Rate (%)
1992 7.8 2000 (-1.4)
1993 8.2 2001 2.3
1994 8.4 2002 1.2
1995 5.1 2003 (-0.7)
1996 8.0 2004 1.6
1997 6.2 2005 (-2.0)
1998 (-1.7) 2006 5.1
1999 3.0 2007* 7.0 (5.4@ 1988 prices)
Compound 2008* 2.0 (3.0@ 1988 prices)
Annual Average
(1992-1999) 5.6 2009* 3.3 (2.3@ 1988 prices)
2009* 3.3 (2.3@ 1988 prices)
2010* 4.4 (Revised August 2011)
Compound
Annual Average (2000-2010) 2.0
Notes: * = 2006 prices for Table 1 B
Source: C Y Thomas (2011)
It is, however, an exaggeration to attribute the weak and volatile performance of the economy solely to the absence of a coherent economic strategy. Several other factors have played significant roles in the poor economic outcomes. However, for present purposes, of greater concern is that several of these analysts now see in two documents: the First Draft of the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) 2008 and the second Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) (2008) belated efforts to establish a coherent development framework. The civil society National Development Strategy prepared during 1995-1997 and the National Competitiveness Strategy 2006 were never promoted as definitive development frameworks. I shall expose in this and columns to follow the inner dynamics of the LCDS and the PRSP.
The one-sided Guyana-Norway MoU
Earlier columns (November 29, 2009-August 1, 2010) had assessed the LCDS and the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), (November 9, 2009) between Guyana and Norway regarding cooperation to fight climate change, protect biodiversity, and advance sustainable development. There I had revealed, among other things, the intrinsic opportunism of the MoU. Thus, the Prime Minister of Norway has publicly declared his goal in providing finance to tropical rainforest countries in order to encourage their carbon sequestration is to secure the fjords of Norway for its future generations.
Norway, however, remains on a per capita basis, one of the worst polluters of the global environment and also one of the most ardent hunters for yet more carbon-based sources of energy supplies.
The Government of Guyana has however stated: “It committed to protecting its standing forest in exchange for compensation for low carbon led growth … within the framework of the global initiative for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).” It further relies on, “Norway committing to providing substantial resources in support of Guyana’s efforts” (PRSP 2011-2015).
Alarmingly, the focus of the MoU is on the disposition of Guyana’s pristine forests. There is no requirement for Norway to take sustained domestic action in regard to global warming, climate change, reduced emissions of Co2, or protection of biodiversity. This one-sidedness indicates that, whatever notions of fairness, environmental justice, and partnership may have been there at the outset of the negotiations, they disappeared under the pressure by Norway to secure its national interests. As that pressure mounted, Norway has held a distinct advantage over the poorer and less resilient Guyana.
Norway’s darker side
Readers should also recall from the earlier columns, Norway is: 1) the world’s third largest net exporter of oil; 2) the world’s third largest producer of natural gas; 3) the world’s 11th largest producer of oil; 4) along with Russia, it may possess (in the Barents Sea reserves) as much as one-third of the world’s oil and natural gas reserves; and 5) the holder of the world’s largest coal reserves.
In revealing the darker side of Norway in the global community, I was at pains to point out also that Norway is a key player in the arms export business, and hence the promotion of global violence and terror. Its annual arms export, at half-a-billion US dollars, is on a per capita basis the world’s largest!
These facts contrast with Norway’s studiedly-constructed image of being one of the world’s most peace-loving and ardent environmentally green countries. This type of paradox is typical for Norway. After all it is the Norwegian, Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, who is the renowned sponsor of the Nobel Prizes, including the Peace Prize.
Double-speak
This type of cynical double-speak is not unique to Norway. Throughout history it has been a hallmark of all rich and powerful countries. Norway is not, therefore, being singled of out for criticism. Rather my critical evaluation is directed at exposing the inner dynamics that drive the LCDS and PRSP.
By portraying itself (and the country) as ardent global environmentalists, the PPP/C administration is highlighting the unique posture of a small poor and highly open economy, (exposed to brutal external shocks) yet remains fully willing to surrender its pristine rainforests to help in the fight against global warming and climate change.
This is particularly noteworthy in a period of intense global financial and economic crisis, which many describe as the worst since the Great Depression. If true, this would indeed be exceptionally noble.
Next week I shall continue the discussion.
