WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS DEAL?

Oct 04, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The Alliance For Change has scored a major victory in the struggle for greater accountability and transparency in the use of government funds. It has managed to ensure that whatever funds come the government’s way as a result of the low-carbon development strategy is administered with direct involvement and oversight of the National Assembly.
The need to ensure that funds earned through the provision of environmental services of forests do not fall under the thumb of the Office of the President, but are instead administered in a transparent way, was just one of the points emphasised by the Alliance For Change during its meeting with the Norwegians, who are financing aspects of Guyana’s climate change response.
The announcement by the President that an investment fund will be created and managed under the control of the National Assembly with representation by the World Bank represents a huge victory in the struggle for greater transparency and accountability.
Hats off to the Alliance For Change which is showing that results can be forthcoming by being a smarter rather than tougher opposition, that objectives can be achieved through lobbying and dialogue rather than through disruptive and other energy-sapping and time-consuming activities.
The Alliance For Change (AFC) must however not drop their guard. There are aspects of this Low-Carbon Development Strategy which must be scrutinised, and this includes the role of environmentalists, external companies and foreign governments in the strategy.
Guyana is not leading anyone as regards climate change. Guyana is being led. It is being pulled along by powerful and vested interests and therefore all Guyanese must demand that whatever the government signs under this Low-Carbon Development Strategy must have the consent of the National Assembly, otherwise we can end up selling out our national patrimony.
It was not Guyana which came up with REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation). It was not Guyana which woke up one morning with the bright idea that there was a need for an international agreement that would reward countries for keeping their forests intact. Long before our President took up his climate change initiative, the Prince of Wales was bemoaning the high deforestation rates and calling for a reduction of forest destruction and degradation.
Guyana’s partnering with Norway in the environmental sphere is also not new. Norway in fact has long now purchased environmental bonds from Costa Rica. Many see Norway’s assistance as a means of positioning itself to benefit from a post–Kyoto deal. So Guyana is not leading the world when it comes to climate change. Guyana is a mere pawn in this grand attempt to create a new market for carbon trading and eco-services.
Let us also not forget that just after the energy crisis of two years ago, Guyana was moving towards setting aside lands, lands which would have required the felling of trees on a massive scale – dedicated towards the production of sugar cane to be used for the production of ethanol.
So this bandwagon that we have jumped on is not of our own construction. We are hitching a ride on a caravan which is being led by environmental groups, business corporations and foreign governments which have an interest in benefiting from a new international deal which hopefully will emerge in December in Copenhagen.
But who will benefit if this deal materialises? And to what extent will we benefit? Will the returns that will come to Guyana be disproportionate to that which will go to those countries with the scientific and technological wherewithal to value and market these services? Will the environmental consultancies not be the prime beneficiaries?
And to what extent will we have to surrender our sovereignty should a deal emerge at Copenhagen that would allow Guyana to obtain value for keeping its rainforests standing?
Last year, a report appeared in both the local and overseas media indicating that a corporate grouping called Canopy Capital had secured rights to environmental services of the Iwokrama Rainforests.
According to the reports on the Internet, under this deal which has been inked, Canopy Capitol will finance the Iwokrama protected areas for five years in return for “ownership” of forest ecosystem services and a claim on future profits.
It needs to be asked therefore, that in relation to this large tract of our forests, whether we have not already sold out the rights to the future carbon services that will be generated; whether this deal does not amount to Guyana putting money in the hands of the twenty investors that form this grouping; and also whether in the process we have not also surrendered our sovereignty over the area.
So the AFC must not become too heady at this stage. It must demand from the government an explanation about the ramifications of this deal between the Iwokrama and Canopy Capital as it relates to Guyana benefiting from the sale of eco-system services.
The AFC must keep on the ball so as to ensure that Guyana is not taken for a ride as a result of pursuing a low-carbon development strategy?

---

---