The Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) has expressed its displeasure at what it states is the Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo’s campaign of disinformation concerning the association’s criticism of the carbon credits programme.
This was stated in a release from the APA dated April 14, which complained “once again” of “… Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo’s deliberate misinformation about the operations of the association along with its recent complaint to Architecture for REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) Transactions (ART) Secretariat hosted by Winrock International.”
According to the APA, on March 8, following consultations with Indigenous leaders, it filed a complaint with the ART Secretariat outlining the government’s violation of the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). The complaint, it explained, stemmed from the December 2022 issuance of carbon credits to the Government of Guyana and the failure to address what it viewed as the “gross violation” of the TREES Standards.
The association maintained that its objections to the manner of consultation and “deliberate” violation of the FPIC process by the government are well documented in the local media and with its partners. Further, those objections were raised during the certifying process and after the first issuance of carbon credits by ART. “Therefore, it is disingenuous on the part of Vice President Jagdeo to accuse the association of nit-picking on Indigenous issues,” it surmised
It was noted that the Vice President at his press conference, on Thursday, April 14, continued to “peddle” accusations that the APA was being controlled by the political opposition. However the APA firmly rebutted this claim by reminding that it has repeatedly stated that it is a “politically neutral” organisation. “Jagdeo seems incapable of comprehending this point since he sees any criticism of his government as an attack that requires him to go to battle.”
The APA also said that it is being accused of trying to block funding to Indigenous communities, which again it asserts, is a misrepresentation of the association’s position.
The ART Secretariat and Board have been approached by the APA, the release stated, to publish the reasons for its decisions to approve the credits, considering what it refers to as the “substantial concerns” raised regarding Guyana’s respect for Indigenous peoples’ rights and therefore compliance with the TREES standard. The association also informed that it has recommended that the credits issued to Guyana that have not yet been purchased be “frozen and suspended” and that “no further credits be issued” until the government fully respects the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The release charged, “The Vice President in his tirade against the APA, failed to address the substance of the association’s complaint to ART which is his government’s failure to respect the right of Indigenous peoples to proper consultations along with the failure to fully comply with TREES Standard, among others. Additionally, he has consistently failed to defend his government’s violation of Indigenous peoples’ right to FPIC.”
Face value
It also remarked that it was “extremely concerned” to see the ART Secretariat and the verification body, Aster Global Environmental Services, take the government’s claims of having respected Indigenous peoples’ rights at face value without a critical analysis of whether those actions constituted “proper” consultation, let alone “true respect” for Indigenous peoples’ rights to effective participation and FPIC.
The APA also observed that the government’s summary of “consultations” failed to record comments specifically made by many Indigenous persons at these meetings and as such did not consider that the meeting could properly be called a “consultation”, but a mere information-sharing session. In addition, it was pointed out that the government’s own summary of “consultations” noted requests for information to be shared in simplified language and in translations, and for training to help communities better understand the LCDS. However, the release informed that despite the commitment made by government officials to share translations and to conduct training of trainers, to date, there have been no translated copies of the LCDS, or simplified information regarding ART-TREES shared in Indigenous languages, nor any such training conducted.
As far as the APA is concerned, “The right to effective participation requires, inter alia, that Indigenous peoples are provided with adequate time and understandable information (including translation into a language that they understand), and access to technical support and guidance so that they can effectively participate in the decision-making process.” These requirements, the association insists, were not met by the government and several Indigenous communities have complained in that regard.
The APA has also noted with alarm that Jagdeo continues to attack the organisation instead of providing evidence that the principles governing FPIC, and effective participation were adhered to by the government. As such, it has taken the step to challenge the Vice President and his government to answer the following questions:
How much time were Indigenous communities given to prepare for those “consultations”?
How long did a “consultation” session last?
How many sessions were held with the communities?
Were Indigenous communities presented with simplified/user-friendly versions of documents relating to the LCDS 2030, ART TREES Standards and carbon markets?
Were those documents sent beforehand?
Were Indigenous peoples afforded the opportunity to present their own proposals on how a carbon crediting scheme can work?
Was there any meaningful way for Indigenous peoples to present their own proposals for benefit sharing under this carbon deal?
Does the government believe that its “consultations” were effective in seeking the consent of Indigenous communities prior to the sale of carbon credits?
Was there any meaningful opportunity for Indigenous peoples to give or deny consent to their lands being included in the proposal?
“The APA reiterates that it is not opposed to development but maintains that development should not come at the cost of Indigenous peoples’ full and informed participation,” the release added.
