Norway’s US$250M a drop in a bucket that actually needs US$ billions

Nov 12, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Before Guyanese start popping champagnes, jumping up and hollering with glee over Norway’s announced decision to pay Guyana up to US$250 million between next year and the year 2015 to preserve forests as part of a scheme to slow climate change, I wish we all would take a deep breath and slowly exhale, because as the Norwegian Environmental Minister said, disbursement of the entire amount is contingent on two objectives being met: “Provided that the expected results are achieved and that other elements of the partnership fall into place, our support for the years up to 2015 could add up to as much as US$250 million,” (Kaieteur News).
Rather than being pessimistic, I am being realistic, because all three of the major dailies in Guyana carried this deal as their lead story as though Norway signed a US$250 million check for Guyana.
I urge Guyanese, even if they experience a sense of relief after waiting 17 years for any sign that the PPP Government has a long-term plan to lift the economy from the muck and mire, to read the words of the Norwegian Minister and see that in order for Guyana to cash in on the entire amount heralded, Guyana has to first meet certain requirements, while other elements have to fall into place.
It is a pity that, at the time of signing, neither the Norwegian minister nor the President saw it fit to provide Guyanese with an insight into what are the specific requirements to be met or the strategy to this end. They also didn’t see it fit to identify what the ‘other elements’ are that have to fall into place. Maybe the Office of the President could shortly provide the specificities of these two areas that are crucial to Guyana actually receiving the entire US$250 million by 2015, because the last thing we want to hear later on is that Guyana did not meet the requirements or that Norway was not satisfied that all the other elements did not fall into place, and we never knew what these were.
For example, it is one thing to say Norway will provide financial support to Guyana at a level based on Guyana’s success in limiting emissions, but it is another thing to let Guyanese knows how this is to be measured and who will be measuring whether we are on target. I also know that since transparency and accountability have long been a problem for this administration, it is incumbent on the government to let the people of Guyana know the details of what is involved and what is at stake in this deal, because Guyana does not belong to the President or Norway!
Meanwhile, I am pleased to note that given the high level of corruption in the Jagdeo administration that an agreement was reached for Guyana’s Ministry of Finance to be held responsible for the GRIF’s operations, while a reputable international financial institution to be selected by Norway and Guyana will act as manager of the fund.
If I might add, I read some time ago what appeared to be portions of a transcript featuring a British parliamentary debate/discussion on the climate change issue, and my take was that there seemed to be a great deal of concern among developed countries about the pervasiveness of corruption in Third World countries that may be candidates for funds towards slowing climate change.
So while President Jagdeo ‘lamented that the underlying trust that is exhibited by Guyana and Norway has not been replicated by the rest of the world in its search for a global compact on combating climate change’ (Guyana Chronicle), he has to understand why that underlying trust does not now exist between other developed countries and corrupt governments of developing countries likely to receive climate change funding.
Look, though I have been an extremely harsh critic of this President and his government, I want to make it abundantly clear that for the sake of my fellow Guyanese who continue to suffer hardships at home, I pray this move pays off handsomely in the long-term for the nation and not be used as a basis for scoring cheap political points by the President or the PPP. They are 17 years late in delivering the goods, so let whatever euphoria erupts be tinged with a great degree of humility.
I must say also that I doubt whether most of the government’s critics today set out to criticise it after 1992 or even the President after he took over in 1999. Given what the PPP inherited in 1992, most of us were wide-eyed hopeful for a well-paced socioeconomic turn around, but the PPP devastated our hopes with one misstep after another, until feelings of disappointment turned to anger, which was then channeled through vitriolic voices, comprehensive commentaries, lively letters and elucidative editorials.
Had the PPP or even the President come up with a concrete plan catering for greater Foreign Direct Investments from the developed countries long before this LCDS gamble (which is what it is since it has no precedent), and the economy consequently showed signs of marked progress, many of us would have been hard pressed to even venture missives or messages critical of the government.
So, contrary to the President, many of us letter writers are not bitter because we hate him or his government; we simply hated that neither the PPP nor the President seemed to have had a real road map to progress for the nation, even though it was obvious some were enjoying sudden wealth while others were forced to struggle to survive.
And it is this group of struggling Guyanese that I am thinking about when I say I hope the rest of the developed world (even China) would follow Norway’s lead, because if they don’t then there is no way that US$250 million from 2010 to 2015 will make a major difference in our situation.
In fact, putting that amount in perspective, overseas Guyanese remit upwards of US$500 million a year (yes, a year) to help boost the local economy, so we really need a huge infusion of foreign finances into viable, long-term ‘green projects’ that create jobs and generate wealth for the nation. Hopefully, the UN climate conference in Copenhagen from December 7 will be the deal clincher and game changer we have been looking for since 1992, otherwise it is back to the drawing board for the political leadership and more digging in for the long haul by the struggling masses
Emile Mervin

---

---