Dear Editor,
Over 85% of Guyana is covered with tropical forest, and although we have been utilizing this resource for centuries, the maximum export revenue to Guyana from forest utilization has been just over US$60M.
Now that the Government of Guyana (GoG) has come up with a visionary strategy to get significant financial incentives for this resource while keeping it intact, one would expect all Guyanese to embrace and support this strategy wholeheartedly. This is especially so since it was publicly stated that these financial incentives will be channelled to support the urgent development of low carbon economic opportunities for all Guyanese. Unfortunately, it seems that no matter what positive steps are taken by the GoG to further stimulate national development and economic growth, there are always the irrational few who have to be critical even when there is no justification for same. In this context, I refer to two letters that were in the July 10 and July 11 editions of the Stabroek News. The first was captioned ‘Developing a low carbon strategy should wait till after the Copenhagen meeting’ and was written by Michael Maxwell; and the second was entitled, ‘The Low Carbon Development Strategy uses a simplistic formula,’ and was signed by Kofi Dalrymple.
The government in December 2008 presented a document on Guyana’s Avoided Deforestation Initiative. That public document gives in great detail the economic analysis that Maxwell is asking for. Mr Maxwell should also be alerted to the fact that this analysis was done by a world renowned firm working in collaboration with the GoG. The annex of the LCDS document also includes part of the economic analysis which was clearly not read by Mr Maxwell or Mr Dalrymple.
Mr Maxwell is right when he states that there are likely to be radical changes to the existing Kyoto framework. These changes are likely because of countries like Guyana voicing their concerns that any new agreement must include standing forests and avoided deforestation. That is why Guyana has pioneered this model to show the international community at Copenhagen that there are models which are workable and which present a win-win situation. As such, Guyana cannot wait until the Copenhagen discussions are finished before presenting our LCDS model; we have to continue maintaining the momentum. Already we have several major countries like the USA, UK, Norway which are supportive of the LCDS; international organizations such as the World Bank have also hailed it as a visionary strategy which is workable. Guyana therefore needs to continue active promotion of this strategy at Copenhagen.
It has also been made public that this is a draft strategy for discussion and after an initial period of three months, the document would be refined for Copenhagen. For both Mr Maxwell and Mr Dalrymple’s benefit, it was made absolutely clear that there will be no loss of sovereignty, and neither has the GoG entered into any agreement with any country at this stage. This will only come about after the consultation process when all Guyanese would have had the opportunity to comment on the strategy.
It was also made clear that financial incentives will have to be linked to meeting agreed benchmarks, and that a Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system had to be in place.
Mr Maxwell accuses the Minister and the government of being myopic; I suggest that Maxwell is blind not to see the vision that is being put forward for the positive development of the country through the LCDS. Contrary to what he tries to imply, this document was arrived at through a thorough analysis and a strategic planning process. Detractors like Mr Maxwell will however never have anything good to say about any strategy that has the development of Guyana as its objective.
Mr Dalrymple in his tirade misses the point totally that tropical forests are Guyana’s greatest asset in terms of natural resources. The GoG has consistently maintained that the people of Guyana are our greatest asset. If Mr Dalrymple had read the LCDS document carefully or attended any of the consultations, he would have known that the financial incentive mechanisms are yet to be worked out, inclusive of the benefit flows. The GoG has committed to transparency in this respect.
Mr Dalrymple asserts that the strategy does not deal with oil. I wonder which document Mr Dalrymple has been reading since page 5 of the LCDS Frequently Asked Questions makes it clear that Guyana will continue to look for oil resources for the export market. Mr Dalrymple like Mr Maxwell misses the point that this vision is intended to take Guyana down a low carbon development path. Guyana has no intention of becoming a major contributor to carbon emissions, and that is why the LCDS targets the urgent movement to low carbon economic opportunities and the development of hydropower.
For the sake of both gentlemen let me also give the assurance that Guyana has technical experts who attend all the international climate related meetings globally. These experts are supported in country by several committees such as the National Climate Committee, the Climate Unit, etc. Guyana contributes meaningfully at these climate change and climate related meetings and we are also integral members of several international groups. It is thus very disturbing that Mr Dalrymple can make the statement that Guyana accepts the findings reached by outside groups without careful and critical examination. This statement shows his ignorance of what takes place at these international meetings.
The issue of risks associated with the strategy was also clearly articulated. It was made pellucid that if the international community did not provide the kind of financial incentives required to support the low carbon economic alternative opportunities, then the LCDS simply would not work. At this time, we can only hope that the global community would see the benefits to all and provide their support. These financial incentives will also be used to invest in communities and human capital, contrary to Mr Dalrymple’s assertions that the LCDS does not focus on the intellectual development of young people.
China and India are sovereign nations and they have national circumstances that have to be taken into account. Guyana still hopes that both of these nations along with all other would come to an agreeable solution in terms of carbon emission reductions by 2050. However, what Messrs Maxwell and Dalrymple need to realize is that Guyana has chosen to embark on this strategy because not only is it achievable, but it has the potential to bring in significant financial incentives to Guyana whilst maintaining the forests intact. Our unique mix of conditions and low population pressure, along with a stable political and social environment provide us with the enabling environment to make it work.
What we need now is for all Guyanese to support this initiative. I therefore request both of these gentlemen to read the documentation thoroughly. If they need further clarification, or if they have any additional contribution to improve the document, I invite them to send same to the Climate Unit of the Office of the President or to the relevant website.
Yours faithfully,
Erica Smith
