President Irfaan Ali winged his way to COP26 in Glasgow last week without the nation having much idea about what Guyana’s climate change plans were. When he was in office former President David Granger had committed the country to transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2025, but Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo recently said that the current government had found it necessary to revise the commitment since it was not realistic and there was no project in place to achieve it. In terms of what he told reporters at a press conference last week, that much, at least, was true. What he did not tell reporters was what new goals had been substituted.
The nation made that partial discovery when the President made an oral commitment at the Glasgow conference to cut this country’s gas emissions by 70% by 2030. What was not clear was whether that commitment had been made before or after he met the UK’s Minister for Europe and the Americas Wendy Morton, who had asked him about Guyana’s Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs. These are a nation’s targets for emissions’ reduction relating to the entire economy and/or specific sectors that have to be communicated and/or updated every five years.
The requirement to submit these targets is a part of the Paris Agreement from COP25, which was held in 2015. Consequently NDCs should have been prepared by last year, although owing to the delay caused by the Covid pandemic, the international community got a year’s extension. Guyana, like other participants, should have had its NDC ready before President Ali took off for Scotland, but the government let it be known that it would not be presenting its updated NDC until after a four-month consultation on its enhanced Low Carbon Development Strategy had taken place after the conference had ended.
Perhaps Mr Jagdeo did not read the Paris Agreement, because there he was telling reporters last week that some sectors of civil society as well as Mr Granger had a “mistaken impression” that Guyana’s climate change plans would be discussed in Glasgow. The topics on the agenda, he said, had been put in place ahead of the conference and it would be impossible for a country to be able to discuss its proposed national strategies on the global stage. “The agenda is set,” he asserted. “The issues are defined already so to think you can go there and radically change what is being negotiated is wishful thinking.” This statement invites the comment that if there was any wishful thinking involved, then he was definitely the one who was guilty of it, not those he named.
This disingenuous defence of the government’s modus operandi came in the context of criticism that there had been no consultations on Guyana’s plans in relation to carbon emissions and the like prior to President Ali making his appearance at the Scottish Event Campus in Scotland’s largest city. But nothing daunted, there he was at a high-level discussion of the Climate Vulnerable Forum organised by the Commonwealth and chaired by Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheik Hasina last week, calling for all climate plans to be “comprehensive and inclusive.” The Office of the President informed Guyanese that the President used the opportunity to update participants on Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy, explaining that it is a route which safeguards the country’s standing forests while creating value and supporting the livelihoods of people through the implementation of development strategies.
Since no consultations have yet been held, are we to presume that the Climate Vulnerable Forum was the beneficiary of information which the nation has not yet been told?
Even before he left these shores, civil society campaigners in the form of A Fair Deal for Guyana had admonished President Ali for failing to meaningfully consult with citizens. “Your government has not consulted us in our communities,” they wrote in a letter to the head of state; “We are deeply disappointed by this failure.”
As mentioned earlier, for his part Mr Jagdeo insisted that all Guyanese would have four months in which to submit their views before the NDC was finalised by March next year. Exactly what form these consultations would take was not spelt out; perhaps the government has not thought the matter out as yet, which would hardly be surprising given their apparent unfamiliarity with what they were required to do under the Paris Agreement.
But there was a lapse in relation to lack of consultation with a specific group which they should have been far more sensitive to. This is the Indigenous people, who the Guyana delegation might have noticed were very much in evidence at the conference, and with good reason. They are, as we said in our report, regarded as guardians of the forest and frontline environmental activists. They were interviewed frequently by British media and no doubt those from other nations as well on their struggles to conserve their forest and lifestyle, and their confrontations with destructive mining companies, among others. The UN accepts that they have earned their place at the climate change discussion table.
Even if there were no Indigenous representatives in our delegation – and nor could there be given that there was no prior consensus, or even partial consensus on our NDC − at least at a minimum their view should have been listened to along with those of other communities before President Ali made his appearance at COP26. It was Deputy Speaker and Leader of the LJP Lenox Shuman who wrote him about the lack of consultation with Indigenous peoples before he went to the conference. Despite this, Vice President Jagdeo had said at his encounter with the press that Guyana’s negotiating position in Glasgow included securing justice and benefit for Indigenous people, although precisely what this meant was not adumbrated.
In his October 28 letter, Mr Shuman referred to a June 3, 2021 event carrying the theme ‘The Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Crucial to Tackling Climate Crisis.’ At this event UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa had stressed the critical importance of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform in the lead-up to the Glasgow summit, and had gone on to say that in order for that summit to be successful, “the momentous progress of the [platform] and the historic alliance between indigenous peoples, local communities and Parties must be upheld and strengthened.”
It is almost certain that the government disregarded this, just as they seem to have done in the case of the Paris Agreement. One presumes too, that Mr Shuman’s allusions to the many UN documents which underline the vital connection between Indigenous people and the efforts against climate change were similarly ignored, and that they remained immune to his mention of rights of the Indigenous peoples contained in the Constitution.
“[I]t becomes difficult to understand under what circumstances and conditions we are to work to protect and preserve our cultures and our environment when the first peoples are not even aware of Guyana’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution which will transition to our NDC. Short of such, it can be viewed as a constitutional shortfall of the state in its responsibilities to the indigenous peoples,” the LJP Leader wrote.
Since the government did not regard it as sufficiently important to at least canvass opinion about our NDC before the summit let alone consult in a genuine sense, one wonders how serious it is about listening to the opinions of communities and Indigenous citizens. And even if they do hold meetings, which presumably they will, do they really have any intention of taking on board any of the viewpoints?
In a country like this in the middle of a pandemic, four months is not much time to organise meaningful consultation. Much depends on how it is done and the form it takes, in order that the maximum number of those who might have concerns will be able to express themselves in some way or another. And how will communities be able to access what other groups have suggested? And will there be any arrangements for feedback, or will all proposals just fall into some black hole in an as-yet unnamed government department and never be heard of again?
And, finally, is it the case that the administration will genuinely listen to what is being suggested, let alone take on board any of those proposals? Their record in this regard is hardly impressive. Our governments have always suffered from the illusion that they alone have all the answers. Clearly this whole process will need to be monitored by concerned citizens.
