The majority of articles have recognized Guyana’s pioneering work in forging climate change solutions

There have been numerous articles in the media on the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS); the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Norway; Guyana’s participation in the Climate change agenda internationally, inclusive of Copenhagen; and the advantages/disadvantages of the outcomes of these meetings to Guyana.

The majority of the articles have been factual and very supportive of Guyana’s visionary leadership role on critical issues such as movement toward a low carbon economy.  These articles have also recognized Guyana’s pioneering work in forging innovative environmental and climate change solutions such as the landmark MOU between Guyana and the Kingdom of Norway.

It is clear that the writers of these articles have taken the time to update themselves on the significant advances being made by Guyana on all fronts and on the current and potential benefits that the national LCDS brings.  Of major importance here is the fact that the opposition parties have supported Guyana’s low carbon growth path; additionally, a Ram and McRae survey (KN, December 21) indicated that “the government has won overwhelming support for its pursuit of the… LCDS.  This is according to the results of the Ram and McRae Business Outlook  Survey for 2010.” A recent public opinion poll conducted by a New York-based pollster, confirms broad public support for the LCDS.

Unfortunately, however, a minority of writers who clearly do not fully comprehend the issues seek to misinform the reading public. In the interest of the public understanding of the facts and an appreciation of the tremendous advances made by Guyana, I wish to offer a few comments/clarifications.

Emile Mervin (KN, December 21) incorrectly assumes that because Copenhagen has not yielded the international community’s expected results, “the LCDS bubble has burst.”  This is not only incorrect, but divorced from reality, as much of Mr Mervin’s ramblings are.

Guyana has already secured financial commitment from Norway alone of an initial sum of US$250M over the next five years.  This money will be used to establish the foundation on which the LCDS will be based.  The LCDS is not something that will be implemented overnight;  it will be based on a thorough review of policies and the formulation of strategies and plans in a very consultative manner.  This will take time; time which will allow Guyana to seek additional funding from the US$10B/year pledge made at Copenhagen two weeks ago.

Guyana unlike other countries, because of its pioneering work is now well placed to take early advantage of these opportunities and position itself for even greater financial benefits once we meet the agreed international standards.  The LCDS certainly then is not “a gamble.” Contrary to what Mr Mervin states, the model must be pursued by Guyana – a model that helps us to sustainably utilize our natural resources, obtain financial incentives for same, and use those incentives in a very transparent manner for the socio-economic development of all Guyanese.

Leon James Suseran in the same edition of KN implies that Guyana’s participation at Copenhagen was a waste of time.  What Mr Suseran has not understood is that Guyana was involved in all of the negotiations that preceded the final meeting at Copenhagen.  It is because of the collective efforts of many developing countries, including Guyana, that the ‘Copenhagen Green Climate Fund’ was committed to by developed countries to support immediate action on climate change.

Over the next three years, this will be a minimum of US$30B and Guyana is well poised to benefit from this fund since we already have most of the key institutional structures in place to allow same.  Mr Suseran should also be made aware that a key success of the Copenhagen summit was that REDD+ is now included as a concept in the international frameworks; this is something that Guyana had lobbied for since the Kyoto Protocol was established.

The SN (December 24) reported that Guyana is to be part of the Norway Climate Group which will discuss measures against deforestation.  Norway’s Prime Minister Stoltenberg indicated “As part of our efforts to reach a binding climate agreement in Mexico in 2010, I will initiate the establishing of a group consisting of the most important rain forest countries, among them Brazil, Indonesia, Guyana, Gabon, PNG and others.”

Surely this is undisputed evidence that Guyana is recognized as an important partner in the fight against climate change and that our presence at Copenhagen was not just necessary, but was essential.

Let me now refer to Mr Mervin’s ‘President Jagdeo needs Plan B in case LCDS fails’ (SN, December 28). Mr Mervin needs to wake up from his slumber and put away his partisan-like perspective.  The President and all those engaged in providing public information on the LCDS made it explicit that if funds were not forthcoming in the magnitude required, then appropriate adjustments would have to be made to the LCDS. The LCDS continues to be a work in progress as the second draft is being reviewed.

In this same missive, he makes wild assumptions that Guyana will not benefit from the US$10B a year agreed on at Copenhagen.  Here Mr Mervin confuses Least Developed Countries (LDC) with “most vulnerable countries.”  Mervin needs to carefully re-read the Stabroek News December 25 article captioned ‘Jagdeo upbeat on climate $$.’  There it is pellucid that whilst Guyana is no longer an LDC (something which has probably upset Mervin), Guyana ranks highly on the vulnerability index. With most of our population and built infrastructure lying below sea level, Guyana is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The US$10B is for the most vulnerable countries such as Guyana.

Also as mentioned before, Guyana’s profile on climate issues is so high internationally that it is almost certain that Guyana will gain access to these funds.

Additionally, for Mr Mervin’s enlightenment, all Guyanese governments have always had the policy in place of sustainable utilization of the forest.  It never has been the intention of the PPP/C government, or previous governments to pursue any other developmental path.

Also, letters by Sasenarine Singh (SN, December 21; December 27) are woefully inadequate in their presentation of facts. Mr Singh has to be advised that contrary to his claims, additional financing will cover the costs of independent forest monitoring.  To date independent financing has covered the costs of all consultancies associated with the development of the Monitoring, Reporting & Verification System (MRVS) framework.  As indicated in the MOU, funds will be used to accelerate the implementation of the REDD+ activities.  This involves the provision of alternative employment opportunities – a critical component of the LCDS.  He must also recognize that Copenhagen was in many ways a success for Guyana.  A major deficiency in the Kyoto Protocol has been corrected with the inclusion of the concept of REDD+; additionally Guyana will benefit from the US$30B fund for the vulnerable countries.  The criteria for quantifying what will come to Guyana from this fund is still to be developed so it is a real mystery how he arrives at the sum of US$45M for Guyana.

In his correspondence, he also implies that the Norwegians may demand that some funds be used for the replanting of trees.  This is absurd.  The MRVS system to be developed for Guyana will establish with great precision, Guyana’s rate of deforestation.  If Guyana, in future years goes beyond this rate, then it will be to our detriment financially.  Norway will not tell Guyana what to do with its forest, except that for continued significant financial incentives, we must maintain our rate of deforestation or lower it even more. Guyana, in any case has committed to improving its stewardship of natural resources – with or without the MOU with Norway.  There is absolutely no danger of the forestry and mining sectors being marginalized; government has made it abundantly clear that we will continue to use our resources, but in keeping with environmental best practices.  Thus the threat of loss of employment is simply a figment of Mr Singh’s wild imagination.

For Mr Singh’s further enlightenment, let me inform him that the government has convened several meetings with the forestry and mining sectors.  At these meetings, full assurance was given by both sectors of their support for the LCDS, and for the MOU with Norway.  Stakeholders also indicated their understanding of the implications of both the LCDS and MOU of Norway and the vast benefits that these would bring to Guyana.  Both sectors agreed to cooperate fully with the guidelines for natural resource extraction, as well to enable Guyana to meet the obligations under the MOU with Norway. The letter writer also does not appreciate that the MOU speaks to a set of interim values.  When the MRVS establishes the rate of deforestation, then we will be in a better position to re-negotiate financial incentives.

On the subject of independent verification, I think anyone with a cursory understanding of international transactions will appreciate that this is a necessary provision to ensure credibility and transparency.  Why the letter writer would question the usefulness and cost of this is beyond comprehension.

In closing, let me thank the multitude of individuals who have come out in support of this direction that our country has taken. I wish to encourage the letter writers referred to above to learn more about these issues.  Let me assure readers that even though there will be challenges ahead, and adjustments to be made, the benefits to all Guyanese will adequately compensate for these minor hurdles.

I also urge all who may not be familiar with the issues to seek clarification from a reputable source such as the Office of Climate Change. Guyana is at a critical juncture and we need the support of all citizens to make this and other national development initiatives successful.

Yours faithfully,
Robert M. Persaud
Minister of Agriculture
with responsibility for Forestry