Dear Editor,
The first report on deforestation rates produced under Guyana’s MRVS presents the results of a series of assessments that concludes on a number of important areas including total forest cover within the agreed Marrakech Accord definition ranges, historical deforestation assessment across three time periods (1990-1999, 2000-2004, and 2005 to September 30, 2009), and deforestation assessment across various drivers of change, that together derive a total deforestation rate which allows for reference to be made, to an agreed level, between Guyana and Norway under the current agreement.
The results of these assessments, allow for important conclusions to be drawn on these key findings as each contribute to fulfilling a set of interim measures to allow for performance measurement. Whilst one cannot influence what aspect of the report makes its way into the media, it comes without surprise that the sensational, attention grabbing headline in the Stabroek News article of November 6, 2010, completely bypasses the main results of the report which is the total deforestation rate vis-à-vis the agreed level. Instead, what the headline of the article seeks to do is to focus on only one aspect of the Year 1 deforestation rate, and asserts that the report “blames mining.” The article, and more so the headline, do not reflect a balanced perspective and their partial tone fail to capture the main results of the report. It would be clear to objective readers of the report, that the content in no way seeks to lay blame on any sector, but simply provides objective scientific facts on key interim measures.
The main finding emanating for the MRVS Year 1 (October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010), Report on Interim Measures, is that the gross deforestation rate was assessed at 0.06%. This is effectively more than 50% below the allowable level on which payment is set to be computed, a basis which is clearly outlined in the Joint Concept Note. This is the main finding and also one of the more all-encompassing measures for the annual interim report. However, this vital fact seems to have gotten obscured by the Stabroek News article and undermines that prominence and implication of this main finding of the report, which is that Guyana is fully compliant with set levels and has performed favourably in the assessment period. The importance of this rate of gross deforestation cannot be overemphasized since it allows for an important benchmark to be set, not only to inform future plans for the various natural resources sectors and development programmes, but importantly to provide the status quo on land utilization on the whole.
The highlighting of one element and the blame-game tone of the article missed the point. It is also of no surprise that noteworthy findings like the forestry and agriculture sector remaining stable over time in terms of impact on forest cover, did not make it into the main thrust of the article’s headline.
The issues that are relevant to the mining sector, have already been identified by the government, and a number of steps have been taken to address these. Included in these efforts is the setting up of a Special Land Use Committee represented by both public and private sector stakeholders, that provide a forum for discussions that aim at developing workable initiatives that will safeguard the environment and at the same time the economic activities of both the forestry and mining sectors. This is still work in progress and areas of weakness regarding mining operations are expected to be corrected within the context of Guyana’s commitment to sustainable use of its natural resources.
Among two of the more fundamental misconceptions of the report, are that the first payment to the GRIF requires an assessment of the gross deforestation rate and other interim measures to be completed. As highlighted in the Joint Concept Note, the setting up of the MRVS roadmap is the first set of requirements in relation to the performance measurements, and the Year 1 assessment under the MRVS is required on the October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010 period. (see Section 2 of JCN: Indicators of Enabling Activities which outlines that:
Establishing a status quo/baseline database on the Guyanese forest sector, including assessments of historical and current deforestation rates at the latest by October 2010, will be a first priority.
The second misconception is with regard to the reference level, and that this is in some way set to encourage future deforestation. The set interim reference level allows for sustainable development in Guyana to continue, as Guyana’s climate change strategy expounded in the Low Carbon Development Strategy, is based on a REDD+ mechanism, and not one set against conservation or preservation. As such, and as strongly pointed out in the development stages of both the LCDS and the MRVS Roadmap, sustainable development must be allowed to continue and measured against the benchmark set in the JCN. This is not only impractical but a baseless assumption to make, when the entire discussion on REDD+ in the international context allows for sustainable development and the Bali Action Plan gives recognition to this.
The first report on Guyana’s MRVS embodies an extensive temporal scope and coverage whilst at the same time fulfilling the reporting requirement of Guyana on agreed interim measures. These results are most useful, if objectively analyzed and assessed holistically and against the requirements of the Joint Concept Note. Partial analysis will only lead to misrepresentation and selective reporting aimed at sensationalizing a series of very important baseline results for Guyana’s performance reporting under the Guyana-Norway agreement.
As part of the government’s commitment to transparency, the full report is available on the Internet.
Yours faithfully,
Robert M Persaud
Minister of Agriculture with
responsibility for Forestry
Editor’s note
Stabroek News did not bypass the main results of the MRVS report let alone try to “obscure” them. We stated quite clearly in the second paragraph: “It [the report] reveals a 0.06% deforestation rate between October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2010, well below the 0.45% interim reference level set under the Guyana-Norway deal which was inked last year…” This is expanded later in the story. Where the Minister does have some cause for complaint is that this was not reflected in the headline, and we can only say that we regret the omission. As for the other “noteworthy findings like the forestry and agriculture sector remaining stable over time in terms of impact on forest cover” which he believes should have been included in the headline, we should point out that the caption of a story should not itself constitute a mini-report; of necessity it has to be brief. As it was, the body of our report included the findings on both agriculture and forestry (contrary to what the Minister says above, forestry-related activity did not remain stable, it actually decreased). However, these were in any case subsidiary findings, since they did not contribute to the increase in the deforestation rate.
We are not sure where Mr Persaud has acquired the notion that we were guilty of some kind of “blame game,” other than the use of the verb “blames” in the headline. In that context – and we will say again, captions have to be brief – it is quite clear it means that mining ‘was responsible for’ or ‘accounted for’ the tripling of the deforestation rate. The MRVS report itself highlights the role of mining in this regard saying that for Year 1 it was the main “driver” of deforestation, so it is quite puzzling that the Minister should interpret this to mean that the sector was not responsible for the increased rate.
The first of the two “fundamental misconceptions” which the Minister accuses us of, doesn’t appear in our report at all. As for the second, he would seem to be suggesting that our report said that the reference level “is in some way, set to encourage future deforestation.” As is standard practice in a news story, we had no such comment to make. We did, however, cite commentators whose opinions have appeared in this newspaper and elsewhere as questioning the 0.45% interim reference level, because it is higher than Guyana’s historical deforestation rate and therefore would allow Guyana to continue to receive payments even if deforestation increased.
