On the face of it, the declaration by the Ministry of Natural Resources that a preliminary report has shown that deforestation in 2013 has declined relative to 2012 is to be welcomed.
However, in light of what has been learnt recently about the scale of log exports and the government’s longstanding lack of credibility, a lot more information will have to be provided before the rightly skeptical Guyanese will be assured.
The results are derived from the 4th Annual Assessment of Deforestation and Forest Degradation under the Monitoring Reporting and Verification System (MRVS) for REDD+ which Guyana established following its path-breaking deal with the Kingdom of Norway for forest protection. The MRVS report is now subject to two overviews before the figure is finalised: the first by a team of accuracy assessors, who will be working to establish the statistical validity, uncertainty levels and precision of the reported results, including the deforestation rate; and an independent third party verification by a company contracted by Norway.
This process last year led to confirmation that Guyana’s deforestation for 2012 had risen compared to 2011 even if still below the outer benchmark which had been set. This meant that Guyana lost US$20m from the Norwegian deal for last year. Even with the reported drop in deforestation for 2013, Guyana is still at risk of losing more of the Norway funds this year as it is still over the lower limit referenced in the agreement.
Under the updated Joint Concept Note underpinning the Guyana-Norway partnership, Guyana is eligible for full payment if the deforestation rate does not surpass 0.056%. For deforestation rates between 0.056% and 0.1%, payments would be pro-rated.
According to the Ministry, total deforestation was 12,702 hectares for 2013 or 0.068% whereas in 2012, the figure was 14,655 hectares or 0.079%. Both of these figures are over the lower benchmark of 0.056%.
It averred that “The main reason for this decrease in deforestation rate is on account of a decrease in deforestation from mining activities, which dropped to 11,487 hectares from the 2012 total of 13,664 hectares, a decline of 2,177 hectares” and further credited new technology and more responsible and low-impact mining practices for the turnaround.
All very well, although the public knows little about the new technology and low impact mining practices that miners might have adopted. What technology has led to lower deforestation? Is it that gold recovery is up even though the miners themselves have been suggesting that this is not the case? The mining community has not been known to be progressive where it pertains to environmental protection as evidenced by its years of opposition to the discontinuing of mercury use in gold purification.
More fundamental to the present debate is how the MRVS apportions deforestation to the various heads. How for instance does the MRVS and its assessors determine the difference between deforestation caused by mining and that attributable to forestry? What tools are used and what measures are taken to accurately distinguish between the two?
The methodology of delineating the two did not specifically arise in the last two years but given what has been reported in the last few months about the log exports of Chinese company BaiShanLin and Indian company Vaitarna coupled with the fact that this has been ongoing for several years, there is need for a more textured explication.
Guyanese want to be convinced, as the government and the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) have been attempting to do, that log exports are not beyond the allowable limits. In his mid-year review, the Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh attributed higher forestry exports to plywood when other figures from the GFC differed and classified more of these exports as logs. To date, despite the implications for the accuracy of his entire mid-year report, the Minister of Finance has not retracted these figures. It is this type of opacity and doublespeak which necessitates greater explanation from the government and its MRVS about the deforestation figures.
The drop in deforestation due to mining for 2013 may well be accurate when account is taken of the decline of gold prices and the reported drop in gold mining. As an aside, this is also a development that the government had initially sought to deny by suggesting that miners were hoarding gold.
While the drop for 2013 may be credible, there are bound to be doubts about the accuracy of the figures and this is what the ministry should make a special effort to address. Even the present figures it has provided affirm that deforestation from forestry has risen. Deforestation in 2013 rose to 330 hectares from 240 hectares – a 37.5% hike which was more than likely attributable to higher logging. Could this figure have been even higher?
Another category also raises questions in the figures provided by the Ministry. Deforestation due to infrastructure was a staggering 342 hectares for 2013 -higher than all of that for forestry compared to 127 hectares in 2012. Something is not right about that figure. The infrastructure figure could have possibly been related to the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project Road but much of that deforestation would or should have occurred long before 2013.
For all these reasons and more, further explanations will have to be forthcoming from the Ministry before these deforestation figures are deemed acceptable. It is hoped also that the international review will shed more light on the contradictions.
