LCDS is a theoretical document with minimal realism

Aug 07, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
With reference to the letter from Mr. Michael E. Brotherson, from the Office of the Climate Change Unit in the Kaieteur News (August 4, 2009) there are just a few points that I would like to clarify:
1. – I must first thank him for highlighting the numbers recognised by the Climate Change Unit as per the size of our forest at 15.9 million hectares.  However, even if one uses his numbers, Guyana will still have c0.4% of the world’s standing forest.  Thus, there is no material difference in the analysis and this leaves one to wonder if this is an attempt by Mr. Brotherson to discredit my analysis by being economical with the analytical facts.
2. My message remains very simple – the LCDS will not fly in its current form.  It is sub-optimal to pursue a strategy that is subject to failure as a result of flawed assumptions.
3. I have for Brotherson’s information read that document again after his letter and remain even more convinced that the foundation and core assumptions of the document is severely flawed.  As a result of this flawed document, the owners will fail come December and they must not, upon their return from Copenhagen, blame anyone but themselves for their failure. They must be men, not boys and take the responsibility for this failure squarely on their own shoulders.  The G-15 countries are just not ready to compensate Guyana for its forest and that is a fact.
4. The Government can pull out all the theatrics out to convince themselves and the local diplomatic community that they have done national consultations and that the majority of the people and the national parliament are fully signed on to this plan. However, theatrics will not work when the G-15 countries assemble in Copenhagen to meet with the rest of the world.  These chaps will be mercenary in defending their vested interest and this is where Guyana will fail since there is too little money available at this point in time to encourage any significant flow south (save an except the flow from Norway).
5. The G-15 leaders are answerable to their respective people and they will be looking after their homes first before they will ever consider silly threats from Guyana to cut down its forest.
Who care if Guyana cut down its forest, it is only 0.4% of the standing forest in the world?  If Russia or Canada or Brazil harms their forest materially, then we have a crisis on our hands.
Now let us remove all the fluff from this document, break it down into nuts and bolts, and put a splash of reality into it:
• What does the Government of Guyana want? (Payments for our forest)
• What are they offering? (To preserve our standing forest in exchange for these payments)
• Which countries have committed real cash to date including the Carbon Trading Mechanism (Norway whom might be offering a few million US$ in the near future)
• How are we going to get the world’s main polluters to deliver what we want? (We will go to Copenhagen, present our LCDS, and then demand that the G-15 countries compensate us for preserving our forest.
They will make declaration after declaration with minimal financial commitment since all of Obama’s money is already earmarked for replanting his trees and to make his factories and cars more efficient – just ask Dr Steven Chu – Obama Energy Secretary)
• Are we going to get any real cash in the next 5 years (small amounts)
• Do we have competitors for these funds (many, which make our share of whatever pie on offer less)
This LCDS document talks of many issues including:
• transition funds (which is not supported with any pot of funds at present)
• carbon market (which is right now under investigation in the UK for VAT fraud fears)
• payments from partners (only Norway on board to date and the people with real cash, the G-15 countries are all ambiguous  in their financial commitments to date) Need I go on Mr. Brotherson?
From where I stand, highlighting these issues is in no way intended to belittle the initiatives of the Government of Guyana. The principle of compensation for our standing forest is a commendable one, but in developing a project plan, you have to build it within the realities of the day and this is where this LCDS fails.  It is a theoretical document with minimal realism.
It can serve the nation best in a University classroom as teaching material on how not to construct a development strategy.
I wish them the best of luck but practically this plan is the highway to nowhere and those who want to jump on that highway, be my guest.  I am convinced that thousands of youths in Guyana have already made their minds on the issue of which highway they do not want to be on and that is why they are fleeing Guyana from the front, side and back door.
Sasenarine Singh
Manchester, UK

---

---