Dear Editor,
Guyanese of all walks of life are actively participating in the on-going consultations on the draft Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). A healthy feature is that many are seeking to learn more about the draft strategy, and many others have and are making constructive inputs, even if these are preliminary. And yes, there are some persons who have different perspectives on the LCDS. This is a healthy, reassuring feature of our democracy.
Public debate and discourse on the LCDS can only lead to an enhanced understanding and the full appreciation of this Strategy in its national and international contexts.
What I find disingenuous are attempts by a few to mislead the public on the content and intent of the Strategy.
For example, I wish to refer to misleading letters by Eric Phillips in the Stabroek News of June 15, 2009 entitled “The Low Carbon Development Strategy is a new form of mendicancy”, and in the Stabroek News of June 29, 2009 captioned: “The Low Carbon Development Strategy is about the air we breathe”. This last missive was also carried in the June 29, 2009 Kaieteur News under the heading: “LCDS is about privatizing the air we breathe”.
It is most unfortunate that whilst the great majority of persons at the National, Regional and International Communities are praising Guyana’s visionary LCDS, a few individuals clearly unfamiliar with elements of the LCDS are openly critical, rather than seeking clarification to reduce their unfamiliarity with the subject matter.
To ensure that the public does not become confused by the misinformation peddled and to improve those individuals knowledge on the subject, the following facts are presented:
● The LCDS was quoted by these letter writers as saying that for almost every year over the past two decades, Guyana experienced positive growth. The letter by Mr. Phillips has not proven that to be incorrect. In actuality, he concurs with this assertion quoting the World Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy for Guyana 2002 which states that there was positive growth, however some years the growth was of a smaller rate than others.
It is evident, that Mr. Phillips in an effort to present a certain unfavourable situation quoted the report of 2002. He neglected to refer to the World Bank’s latest release of May 2009 on the World Bank’s new Country Assistance Strategy for Guyana 2009 to 2012 where it commends Guyana for excellent macro economic performance. The following was taken from the World Bank’s website
“Guyana has made significant progress in laying the foundations for macroeconomic stability and higher pro-poor growth…the Bank’s Executive Directors commended Guyana for its macroeconomic performance over the past decade and recognized the progress made in improving fiscal discipline. They emphasized the importance of accelerated broad-based and shared growth in order to mitigate the development challenges of high poverty and inequality. They also underlined the importance of Guyana’s economic diversification through private sector development, and stressed the need to have the International Finance Corporation, the arm of the World Bank Group that supports the private sector, actively involved in the country.”
● The LCDS makes it abundantly clear that areas already allocated for sustainable forestry utilization will continue to be harvested, but in accordance with environmental best practices and sustainable forest management guidelines.
Any assertion that none of Guyana’s rain forest will be disturbed is not factual.
● The claim is made that there is no pressure on Guyana’s Forests that would lead to increased deforestation. Examples are cited of other countries where there has been widespread conversion of forests but pronounces that Guyana’s rainforests will remain as they currently are for the next fifty (50) years.
This is where the authors unknowingly are praising a Government that has taken a conscious policy to ensure the sustainable management of Guyana’s forest resources even in the face of numerous requests by multinational investors who want to convert natural forest lands into oil palm plantations and other activities.
Further enquiries with the Guyana Forestry Commission would show the numerous requests that come in on a weekly basis for access to unallocated State Forest not only for conversion to oil palm plantations, but for other similar lucrative ventures. The Government, however, has stated categorically that utilization of the State Forest must comply with SFM guidelines, and further, that there will be no conversion of natural State Forests for plantation type forest or for agriculture. This policy also is aimed at protection of our rich and varied biodiversity and other environmental services that our natural forests provide.
● Then there is the ludicrous claim that the LCDS will compromise the sovereignty of Guyana. How can anyone arrive at this conclusion? The LCDS will allow for utilization of forests on already allocated State Forest. It will allow for the development of non-forested areas for a host of Low Carbon economic opportunities such as agriculture in the Canje Basin and Rupununi Savannahs; aquaculture development in other areas, to name a few.
The Forests that Guyana will get financial incentives for will have to meet some agreed conditions to ensure that they actually contribute to Climate Change mitigation activities. There must be a monitoring, review and verification mechanism. Some of our existing economic activities have to undergo a type of external review before we are permitted to export. The financial rewards to be obtained will be much more than what traditional logging activities will bring to Guyana. This does not translate into loss of sovereignty; rather it provides a win-win situation for Guyana and the global community. The Forest is and will forever be the patrimony of all Guyanese.
● The writer then misses the whole point of the strategy when he tries to include issues such as who owns the air we breathe, water resources, etc. The LCDS is based on protecting and maintaining our forests in an effort to reduce global carbon emissions and at the same time attract resources for our country to grow and develop. It does not focus on environmental services. Then the author forgets the point that Guyana is already protecting and maintaining our forest resources – so why not seek to get financial incentives from this to develop the other Low Carbon economic opportunities? This is not in any way going to compromise the ownership of any of the services the forest provides for Guyana – we simply have to meet agreed benchmarks for forest protection and maintenance, most of which we are already meeting.
● Several countries are named and the writer asks the question as to why they are not supportive of Guyana’s LCDS. He is totally incorrect. Several of these countries actually are in full support of the LCDS but because of their internal country situation, including the tremendous population and investment pressure for new lands for agriculture and other economic ventures, they have been constantly converting natural forest into other land use options. Some are however, seriously looking to adopt elements of the LCDS that they would be able to implement.
The assumption that Brazil should therefore receive twenty one and a half times what Guyana expects to receive is therefore seriously flawed – payments are made when agreed benchmarks are attained; not on the volume of the forest resources possessed by the country. The writer is not familiar with the current international negotiations that are occurring on this issue – if he was, he would be aware of the fact that countries have been able to argue successfully that national circumstances must be taken into account and no one strategy can meet every country’s expectations. Guyana and the countries mentioned have common views on many of the current issues, but because of the need to take national circumstances into account, there are some areas where more discussion is needed.
● Once again, the writer is also very mistaken that Canopy Capital has purchased the rights to environmental services. This is untrue since what Canopy Capital is actually doing is a valuation of the environmental services that are provided by the Iwokrama Rainforest, an area which was dedicated to the international community during the PNC Government. (I must state, a most commendable decision.) This will then help Guyana to go to the next stage of seeking compensation for the environmental services that the forests provide.
● In a weak attempt to discredit this visionary LCDS, there is the claim of lack of public discussion on the LCDS. This is most alarming and shows that the writers definitely have an anti-Guyana agenda. The public media has on a daily basis been providing regular information to the general public. There is a thorough consultative process which began with the National Launch by the President of Guyana on June 8th 2009 at the National Convention Centre. This is now being followed up by regional consultations which are targeting approximately 142 communities between now and the end of July.
There is no mention of the multi-stakeholder steering committee which is managing this process; this committee has representatives chosen by the indigenous groups, members of civil society including labour, business, youth, women, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund and representatives from the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED) – this is an independent UK group that was chosen by Norway to be part of the consultation process, in response to an invitation by Guyana to Norway. The writers are also conveniently forgetting that this phase of consultation will result in the feedback being used to upgrade the current LCDS document to make it a truly national strategy.
Perhaps, I would hasten to conclude that the letters were a clever ploy to try to sensationalize the issue since the attack on the LCDS cannot stand alone. One can only hope that we will see less misinformation and deliberate manipulation of facts and more effort to understand and contribute to this timely vision for Guyana’s development- the LCDS.
Yours faithfully,
Robert M. Persaud, MBA, MP
Minister of Agriculture
