Dear Editor,
The partial destruction of the mangrove forests on the West Bank of the Demerara River has taken center stage. At the same time, it has given birth to yet another public controversy. The controversy hinges on the imminent establishment of a shore-based facility at a location where a forest of mangroves once flourished. Transi-tioning from a mangrove habitat to a shore-based industrial complex was bound to raise eyebrows in certain quarters. Government must have anticipated the public outcry, thus the response from the subject minister. In a democracy, an investment of that magnitude was expected to ignite controversy especially since environmental concerns are involved. When the Brooklyn Bridge spanning New York’s East River was being built, skeptics predicted the entire structure would collapse into the river. The bridge gave rise to numerous controversies. Some feared the bridge would harm trade, obstruct navigation along the river, that it would be a danger to public safety, harmful to jobs and the economy. In the end, the bridge was successfully completed. The rest is history. That experience aside, in some countries, the eco-services provided by mangroves are highly valued due to their unique capability of sequestering carbon at rates far exceeding those of other tropical forests.
Since Guyana’s coastline and riverbanks are replete with mangrove forests, this exceptional situation places Guyana at an advantage in its international campaign to sell carbon credits. Environmentalists and conservationists have long established that the eco-services provided by mangroves can contribute significantly to a government’s efforts at mobilizing financial derivatives. All things being equal, it seems therefore that, from government statements, the degrading of a portion of Guyana’s mangroves is affordable and would not in any way undermine the country’s potential to sell carbon credits in a rapidly expanding global market. But in the midst of the current development versus environmental debate, there is a missing element. It is to be assumed that whenever mangroves along our riverbanks are destroyed in favour of large scale developmental projects, the relationship between our rivers and the Atlantic Ocean is taken into account. Like all low-lying coastal states, Guyana faces the threat of rising sea levels and flooding as a result of global warming. Thus, while revetments will avoid flooding at that specific location where mangroves once flourished, our experience with the great floods of 1998 and 2005 due to heavy rainfall, show that flooding on the West Bank and West Coast of Demerara took place even with the existence of thriving mangroves forests. Erosion, inundation and elimination of coastal eco-systems is a natural outcome of global warming and climate change. That is why for a low-lying coastal state like Guyana, adaptation and resilience-building measures is an urgent necessity. It is hoped that the financial derivatives from the sale of carbon credits will help offset the high costs of adaptation and resilience building measures.
According to the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change; (IPCC), ‘The global average of sea levels should rise to 34 inches by the year 2100 or a much faster pace than the 4 to 10 inch increase of the past century.’ At the same time, the just released US 2020 EPA Report emphasizes that; ‘Climate change is driven by humans’ and that; ‘Sea levels are rising, and flooding is increasing in cities along the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico’. As sea levels rise so will our rivers, because of their interface with the ocean, there will be a greater intrusion of salt water to inland fresh waters. The resultant impact on the farming and other communities who eke out a living in the riverine areas makes the threat real and not just a gaffe. This brings us to the difficult problem we have failed over the years as a nation to tackle and resolve. I refer to our preference for living on the coastland and our habit for reengineering our surroundings as is the case at Malgre-Tout/Versailles and our failure to radically transform the interior of our country making it a major developed, more populated and bustling hub for investment, commerce and entertainment. The principal factors that have militated against this development deficit were: lack of financial resources and political will of previous administrations; the role of the international financial institutions, the belligerent stand adopted by Venezuela and reluctance of foreign investors. It is to be recalled that in 2000 Beal Aerospace Technologies and the Jinlin Forestry Industry Group pulled out their multi-million dollar investments from the interior of our country because of fear and threats to their investments. It is my sincere hope that the ‘Eager Beavers’ who continue to obsequiously exercise a preference for industrial development on the coastland will recognize the urgent need for equally rapid development of the interior of our country, notwithstanding the concomitant environmental and other external considerations.
The big question remains how to maintain a balance between massive developmental undertakings and the maintenance a green economy. When so many opinions that have been proffered about moving the capital from the coastland to the interior, it is time we put a team of experts together to revisit the proposal, whether utopia or pipe dream. It is not just about the degradation of mangroves and the reengineering the location with a new developmental project, nor should the thinking be ‘when we come to that bridge we’ll cross it.’ It is the much bigger question about continuing to live on the coast at our peril. In the final analysis, it is the race for development versus the race against climate change.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
