-Murray raises accountability questions
The National Assembly yesterday endorsed Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) after opposition members raised concerns about consultations, transparency and accountability.
“The PNCR recognizes that the national interest is paramount…and it is in that context that we support the principle, we support the idea. We believe it needs to be discussed more. I think we need to genuinely win people not coerce people”, said Winston Murray, PNCR-1G Member of Parliament. Murray – who led the opposition’s contribution to the debate, added that he does not think that it is an unfair statement to say that the Amerindian community as a whole is yet to be convinced and to be shown how the LCDS is really going to be beneficial to them.
But his contentions were rejected by speakers on the government side with Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh, hailing the consultation process as “unprecedented” while expressing surprise at the Opposition’s “audacity” to question government’s accountability. “Our track record for accountability is there for all to see”, he said.
Leading off the debate, which at times descended into raucous exchanges between the Parliamentarians, Agriculture Minister Robert Persaud said that considerable progress has been made in the past months to make Guyana’s LCDS vision a reality. Persaud proposed the motion in the absence of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, who had put forward the motion in the House. He pointed to several activities being undertaken such as sourcing capital for strategic investment for a low carbon economy. He hailed the consultation process to heckling that it was “presentation sessions, not consultation”. Persaud said that the LCDS is about the future of Guyana.
Not intensive
But Murray, speaking after Persaud, said that it was only because of the insistence of persons advising the government that they should not move forward without the participation of the opposition parties in the National Assembly that the LCDS motion was brought to the House.
He raised several concerns including on the consultations done, which he described as extensive but not intensive. It is necessary to have further and deeper consultations, he declared. He noted that the document is “tailor-made for a committee process” so as to have a better understanding of it.
Murray, an economist, also raised the “vexed question” of the financial mechanism for receiving and utilizing the projected US$580 resulting from Guyana following an avoided deforestation path. He noted that in Guyana’s forest preservation agreement with Norway, the Guyana REDD Investment Fund (GRIF) has been identified as the mechanism with the Ministry of Finance responsible for the execution of its operations with oversight from a reputable firm. Little is known about this and the party has observed that no mention has been made of the Consolidated Fund; he stated noting that the money goes to the GRIF. “But what happens to this money after it goes into this fund? Ought it not to find its way into the Consolidated Fund of this country? It is my profound belief that that has to happen if we are to be compliant with the requirements of Article 216 of our Constitution”, Murray declared.
He noted that Article 216 says that all revenues raised or received by government shall be paid into and form one Consolidated Fund. Murray that there is strong reason for wanting to know whether the money from GRIF will be deposited into the Consolidated Fund pointing to the lotto funds and the sale of state assets by NICIL. “We have genuine and proper reason to be worried about what becomes of US$580M if we got there one day, whether it’s going to find its way into the Consolidated Fund”, he stated.
He also raised the issue of the selection of the international fund management firm asking how this will be determined and whether it would be done transparently. In the document too, Murray noted, there is mention of an Infrastructure Investment Fund. In this regard, he referred to the “infamous” Infrastructure Development Fund bill 2004, which was not assented to by President Bharrat Jagdeo. He questioned how it was going to be managed. “We have deep concerns about an institution like that and without any reference whatever to the Consolidated Fund as the repository for the monies. We are also concerned because a lot of this money will be spent on public procurement of goods and services for all these projects”, he said noting that to date the government does not find it convenient to have the Public Procurement Commission established.
Gravy train
The economist said that serious thought needed to be invested before approving the financial mechanism that is being proposed. “I am worried that there are some crooks, there are some folks sitting licking their lips, seeing a gravy train coming”, he stated. He also called on the government to quickly re-establish a multi-stakeholder group to prepare an updated National Development Strategy, one that will take into account the proposals of the LCDS, that will also determine what other projects ought to be executed, that will prioritize the use of resources for projects and that will recommend an acceptable multi-stakeholder body that will receive and disburse the resources. That is the only kind of body the Party can see as a substitute for the Consolidated Fund, he asserted.
Earlier, while expressing support for the LCDS, Murray had cautioned that it must never be forgotten that the forests are the patrimony of all Guyanese and whatever is done, must take into account that it is their welfare which counts first and foremost.
He acknowledged the role and work of President Jagdeo in perceiving the opportunity that concerns about deforestation may offer countries such as Guyana, in having the technical work done to develop a framework for Guyana and in his advocacy not only for Guyana but internationally as well. The president’s grasp of the issues having to do with climate change is profound, his understanding is full and his advocacy is passionate, said Murray.
He also noted that there are some other issues that need clarification, elucidation and even reconsideration. In the LCDS document, he pointed out, mining and forestry are identified as major contributors to the rate of deforestation and forest degradation here. He pointed out that the message is that those sectors are under immense scrutiny and they have to be prepared to look to alternative sources for their income because there will be displacement. Murray noted that many companies have been experiencing difficulties in having their Timber Sales Agreement renewed. “As we speak of higher standards of environmental sustainability in these sectors, let us not use these words really as a façade for killing the operations of miners and mining companies”, he warned. While acknowledging the need for operators in that sector to clean up their act, the contributions of the activities to the well being of the thousands, who rely on them for a livelihood, must be understood, he stated.
Opt-in
He was also concerned about the language in the document in relation to Amerindian communities, particularly as it states that in the first six months of 2010 they will have to decide whether they will opt-in to the REDD+ scheme or not.
“If you are giving them a choice to opt in it has to be total and unconditional. I do not agree that any such conditions to be put limiting them to the first six months of next year. If they choose not to opt in for the whole of 2010 so be it. Why do you have to limit them to six months”, he questioned. He stated that he viewed this as “a subtle point of pressure”.
“We recognize the national interest is paramount and we wish fervently to play our part; a meaningful, not a peripheral one in advancing the cause of Guyana in seeking and obtaining adequate compensation for avoided deforestation”, Murray told the House. This can only be done if the tenets of proper consultation and the addressing of serious concerns are taken on board; are not treated as simply something to be scoffed at, to be shouted against from the opposite side, from the government benches, he said adding “we have to take on board genuine concerns and consultation has to be meaningful. Consultations must have content and meaning. Sometimes we feel…it is seen as a convenient tool for periodic invocation.” Better needs to be done and can be done and the PNCR awaits meaningful and serious signals from the government so that they can play their part, Murray said.
Several other speakers spoke in support of the Motion with those from the opposition side raising similar concerns as Murray. Speakers from the government defended and hailed the strategy. The motion was passed last night but the PNCR-1G staged a walkout after amendments that they proposed were described as superfluous by Persaud.
The motion sought to have the National Assembly recognize the efforts to build national consensus and mobilize the international community’s support for climate change and Guyana’s LCDS; support Guyana’s model of a low carbon development pathway tabled in the House as the revised LCDS.
