Dear Editor,
Happy New Year to all. I have noted the letter by Minister Robert Persaud (SN, 1.1.2010) and his attempt to shed further light on some of the issues I have previously raised as it relates to Guyana’s LCDS. I would like to assure the Minister that it is not my intention to misinform the public on this issue of national import but to flesh out the ramifications which this government seems not to have fully considered.
I am tired of platitudes and speeches that are not grounded on the real issues and which ignore the fine print of agreements. No effort was made by the Minister to recognise or answer some of the issues raised by my letters to the press, namely:
1. How will the LCDS disrupt the very healthy mining and forestry sectors?
2. What would be the detailed impact of this strategy on job losses and income generation from these sectors even in light of alternative employment opportunities which have to be created from scratch?
3. How much of the funds from the Forest Protection Agreement (FPA) with Norway does the Minister expect will be used for direct developmental activities to meet the opportunity/income/ job losses in these two sectors? I recognise that the Norway MoU is still interim in nature, but in the same light we must not propagandise the US$250 million like it is set in stone since we still have a long way to go before all or portions of those funds will be accessed.
I am of the opinion that tying ourselves into an arrangement with Norway which will significantly alter our strategies in mining and forestry is a suboptimal strategy to meet our developmental needs. Even when the Copenhagen funds are formulated later this year, we will not be the beneficiary of adequate funds to accelerate our developmental ambitions in a fashion that can grow more of our people out of poverty. In 2009, forestry and mining contributed US$420M to Guyana’s foreign exchange earnings compared with US$235M in 2006. This is an increase of US$185M over three years, in excess of the expected receipts from Norway for a similar period. By engaging Norway, there will be a trade off and there is a high chance it can go against us. What will be done then, blame the Norwegians?
Now if the Minister of Agriculture is not willing to acknowledge the concerns being raised, how can he have buy-in for the LCDS? The Minister raised some issues that leave more questions than answers, and I shall address each.
* The Minister claims my letters were woefully inadequate in terms of facts and hastened to state that additional financing from other sources will cover the cost of independent forest monitoring. What are these other sources the Minister is referring to here? The World Bank? Copenhagen? I am clearly aware that Guyana’s REDD+ Readiness Preparation Proposal will cost over US$10 million to fund and so far a US$200,000 formulation grant was disbursed by the World Bank. However, the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership will only fund US$3.6 million when approved. So where will funds to bridge the deficit of US$6.4 million come from?
I can only conclude that this US$6.4M is going to be met from Norway’s resources since Section 4 of the Joint Concept Note between Guyana and Norway clearly states that a portion of the support will finance specific Redd+ capacity building activities in Guyana. The document further lists these activities to include the MRV system, Operational Costs, Annual Verification Cost by the Neutral Experts and support for the establishment of Independent Forest Monitoring (IFM). There is clearly no contradiction. Norway funds will be used to meet independent forest monitoring costs. Thus the money is not available solely for developmental purposes as the Minister would like us to believe, unless the government has renegotiated the MoU and has not made this public.
The Minister by his own admission accepts that the MoU will fund the acceleration in the implementation of REDD+. This confirms that less funds will be available to finance core alternative economic initiatives to diversify our economy and create the alternative jobs the Minister alluded to.
* In light of these factors, it is imperative that civil society look more carefully at the instruments of economic policy being engaged by this Jagdeo administration. There are many flaws with them and the government must address these flaws before they make public pronouncements. One of the pitfalls I foresee is the MoU will have an adverse impact on small loggers and miners. Where will all the displaced miners go if they cannot comply with the LCDS and REDD+ conditionalities? We are talking about thousands of Guyanese being displaced from their current livelihood and being driven out of their profession because they have to meet certain mining standards.
This is no figment of my imagination as the Minister would like to think. Stabroek News in the same edition also reported on the disquiet in the mining community itself over the government proposals for miners to give six months notice before they could commence operations and the potential impact of this on small miners. The process has started and the small miners and loggers must agitate firmly for their rights and not allow wool to be pulled over their eyes.
Collecting US$30-50 million a year from Norway can never compensate for the economic dislocation to the sectors which has already earned Guyana US$420 million in 2009.
* I would ask the Minister to enlighten the nation on these alternative employment opportunities that the government will create for displacing the small miners and loggers? I call on the Gold Miners Association, the Forestry Producers Associa-tion and the bauxite unions to immediately refine their database of the names of people who currently work in the sector and then retest this database in 12 months time to highlight the extent of the impending displacement. The government has a duty to ensure that all displaced persons are allowed to continue to contribute meaningfully to Guyana. The government record on job creation since Jagdeo took office is far from commendable.
* The government would like to boast that there was broad consultation on the LCDS, yet the due diligence team report from the World Bank on its meeting with the Amerindian community in October was very telling. In one community, the Amerindians repeatedly claimed that the consultations were not conducted well and that only one copy of the strategy was given to the Toshaos close to the meeting date with the World Bank team, and there was inadequate time to read, understand and discuss with the communities. The Amerindians have a host of issues which remain unresolved and the most important of the lot is the unresolved land issues. No doubt, this would also be a concern among many other communities. Yet, we have a host of government players shouting that they have consulted on the LCDS but many holes remain in the consultation process.
* Now the minister also questioned how I arrived at a figure of US$45 million as a possible Copenhagen payout? Easy. President Jagdeo stated a figure of US$40 million, but based on my calculations on our forest size (which is peanuts in the global scheme of things), we should expect an average of US$45 million from the annual US$10 billion (0.4% of the world’s forest). President Obama comments on these funds are very clear. They are to support the least developed countries to migrate and adapt to climate change. Guyana hopes to benefit as a vulnerable state but this will only be on the basis of our vulnerability, a measure which is quite arbitrary.
* While the minister says that Guyana will not have to replant its trees and will only suffer for exceeding a deforestation rate, Guyana has not considered the opportunity cost of what it is signing away. The McKinsey Report came up with a figure of our forestry resources having an economic value of US$580 million a year (a figure that is contestable and I am sure an alternative valuer will come up with a higher number). However, here we are today, very satisfied in accepting approx. US$30-50 million a year to constrain our deforestation rate over the next 5 years. The mismatch of the numbers means Guyana will be putting up its patrimony for a fraction of its estimated value. Are we pawning our forest because we are desperate for money?
* Our choice is simple, we should either pursue our developmental dreams just like China, India and Brazil are doing by utilising our traditional resources, or we preserve our forest but seek full compensation in exchange; not cents on the dollar as the Norwegian agreement is foisting upon us.
* The Minister should focus on seeking an opt-out clause for small scale mines and loggers. Patrick Pereira suggests 7% of our forest should be exempted for mining and I would suggest 10%. Now if we talk of sustainable forestry, this is going to limit us to medium and large scale mines with minimal scope for small scale miners and loggers.
* We also need to cap the number of international consultants that will be funded from the Norwegian funds to the minimum so that more of the funds can be directly spent on Guyana’s developmental ambitions.
As I entered this LCDS debate, I was propelled to re-read the pertinent chapters of the NDS and it is difficult for me to trade that document as Guyana’s development bible for the LCDS; it is like comparing gold to brass. However, I like many of the critics of the LCDS, remain open to embracing this LCDS but it has to incorporate the wishes of the working class and provide tailored solutions to meet their needs. I wish the Minister luck in his negotiations to finalise the MoU and hope that more funds can be bolted on since Guyana has lost too many years developmentally since Cde Cheddi died.
I would like to note that my focus is not that of an environmentalist; there are enough people to ensure we preserve the environment. My focus is to ensure that the working class are not short changed in this hurry to create a legacy.
Yours faithfully,
Sasenarine Singh
