Dear Editor,
I was extremely disappointed when your newspaper chose to place a very important news story way down at the bottom of the news list [in the SN Internet edition]. I am referring here to the item captioned, ‘Persaud questions level of scrutiny afforded ,’ (June 29), in which Agriculture Minister Robert Persaud, at the Sixth Meeting of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Participants Committee, questioned whether other countries faced the same level of scrutiny as Guyana.
His questioning stemmed from the fact that while the Readiness Plan Idea Note (R-PIN) was approved ahead of other countries, some of those countries received their US$200,000 grants from the World Bank earlier this year, ahead of Guyana. “We would like to know if the same level of due diligence that is being applied to Guyana was also applied to these other partners. After all, we constantly talk of the need to ensure that there is transparency and consistency.” He noted further, “It is indeed unfortunate that we were only able to have the grant agreement for the initial US$200,000 available for signing in May 2010, even though we were told that this would have been available soon after the Readiness Plan Idea Note was approved in June 2008.”
First, I don’t know what factors guided the WB in dealing with Guyana on an apparent first-come last-served basis, but the Minister’s quoted remarks here aroused my interest in trying to determine whether the WB is actually scrutinizing Guyana with the aim of dealing with it out of genuine concern over its government’s own transparency and consistency or because the WB does not see Guyana in the same light of economic need as the other countries threatened by deforestation that received their grants earlier.
The Minister went on to call for “a clearly defined process so that we know what the next steps are” because his government does not want to be “subject to changing goalposts and benchmarks.” For example, he noted, his government wanted to know what conditions must be satisfied for disbursement of the remainder of the FCPF monies, adding that, “Unless this is done in a transparent manner, it makes a mockery of the planning process; it also offers no motivation to pursue implementation of the RPP (Readiness Preparation Proposal) in the aggressive, comprehensive manner that our multiple stakeholders have indicated.”
Editor, that the Minister would be using that forum to publicly air the real or perceived differences between his government and the WB is all the proof we need to conclude that all is not well in the relationship department between that institution and the government. And it certainly did not help when the Minister inelegantly asked, “What guarantees can we get that the disbursement of the remaining US$3.4 million will be done in such a manner that ensures continuity of the process?”
He also made it clear that the FCPF initial grant was US$200,000 and Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) awareness and consultations cost over US$200,000.
What was the WB’s response to all this? Manager of World Bank Carbon Finance Unit, Joelle Chassard, simply promised “they will take the feedback and examine how to do better and more efficiently.” Hello? How much better or more efficient can the WB get in a situation like this? It is either the Minister doesn’t get the message or someone has to hand-deliver it to him in black and white! I know of no country in standing that can tell the WB how to do its job, but especially when the country is the one seeking the bank’s help.
Second, it also doesn’t help the government’s credibility to be talking about transparency and consistency when a recent revelation in the news stated that, whereas the government did mention the role of the WB in providing some sort of financial backing for the controversial Amaila Fall project, the WB responded through its local representative that the government never presented any proposal on the Amaila Fall project to the bank. Who really has a problem with transparency and consistency?
Rather than take umbrage with the WB or any foreign organization closely scrutinizing the Guyana government – which is different from scrutinizing Guyana – the government needs to use its recognition of this scrutiny to do some ‘soul searching’ and find out what it should be doing to reduce or end the scrutiny.
By the way, the WB is not the only foreign entity that has the Jagdeo government on its radar; so are other foreign entities and governments, and if these entities/governments engage in sharing information, this could explain why Guyana is at the receiving end of negative reviews, reports, delays and rearranged priorities, thus constantly forcing the government into a defensive posture.
I really don’t think foreign entities/governments have nothing more important to do than to conjure up unpleasant allegations against or spend quality time scrutinizing, because under the Jagdeo presidency, is a blip on the global landscape. It has potential, but that’s all it has right now: potential; and until and unless Guyana has a visionary President, as opposed to this one who keeps running overseas for help and refuses to deal transparently and consistently with the people, it will always come under scrutiny.
Third, Minister Persaud assured that “US$70,000 from the grant will go to the National Toshao’s Council for consultations in indigenous villages with interpretation in the relevant local dialect.” I hope that some sort of mechanism is in place for the WB to determine that this US$70,000 reaches the group mentioned.
I also hope the WB helps get the message to this and similar groups targeted for funding that the monies are not politically linked to the government so that groups should ignore any attempt by government to use these monies to influence Amerindians to vote for the PPP in 2011. This is money which comes from external donors, not the Guyana government.
Finally, it was Minister Persaud who wrote a feisty letter shortly after the conference last December, singling me out as one of several misinformed critics of his government’s LCDS, and assuring the nation that will be getting tons of money shortly. Here we are six months later and the Minister has joined his boss in lamenting the international community’s lack of commitment to commit funding on the scale required to fight climate change.
He warned that, “The lack of strong political will and commitment in the international community will put at risk even the most comprehensive, practical, feasible and nationally supported strategies like the LCDS,” but this sounds more like a rehearsal of the reading of the last rites on LCDS, because ever since Guyana formally joined the FCPF in 2008, it has reportedly met and even exceeded in some cases, what was required of its performance in avoiding deforestation, yet money is the problem and the problem is no money. If Guyana’s future is really hinged on LCDS it might have to kiss that future goodbye.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
