Nov 29, 2009 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

By Raphael Trotman
AFC Leader

We in the AFC have always held firmly to the view that every effort should be made to conserve our forests and curb our carbon emissions, while being paid for it. This is nothing new and is already admirably adumbrated in the National Development Strategy that we fully embrace and are updating. This position has led to us being accused of giving blind support to the Jagdeo Initiative known as the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS).
We believe that Guyana, as are other developing countries, is entitled to benefit from funding being provided by the developing world to encourage the lowering of carbon emissions without sacrificing growth and development, and moving our people off the poverty line. We remain very concerned about the process of consultations, or lack thereof, the absence of a reference to the National Development Strategy, and with serious issues of transparency and accountability that attach themselves to these vast sums that have been pledged.
It is against this background that when recently invited by the Global Witnesss (NGO) to submit a question to President Jagdeo for a press conference held in London, we willingly agreed to do so, with the intention that we would seek to elucidate, in an objective manner, some of the issues and questions that remained unanswered. Unfortunately, the President’s did not see our questions in the same vein and reacted predictably, but disappointingly in a manner that left much to be desired.
The transcript of what transpired appears unedited below and it is surprising and disappointing that the President of Guyana did not, or could not, rise to the occasion and handle the question in a statesmanlike manner. Indeed one foreign commentator later reported that the way in which the President dealt with the “Trotman question” exposed the fact that “he runs a very personal and feudal system of government in Guyana”. Once again, Guyana was embarrassed. We posed what we consider to be a very fair and objective question; a question that is on the minds of many stakeholders as has been expressed by them.

“EXCERPT OF TRANSCRIPT GLOBAL WITNESS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT JAGDEO – 18TH NOVEMBER, 2009

“Question”

Raphael Trotman, Head of the Opposition Alliance For Change Party, Guyana. How do we ensure meaningful assembly involvement in such important processes as developing on Low Carbon Development Strategy and overseeing REDD payments?

President Jagdeo:
I’m surprised that Trotman asked you to ask the question here where he could pick up the phone and call me. And we tabled the Low Carbon Development Strategy in the National Assembly they did not debate it and they walked out of Parliament so as I said more recently I can’t force the Oppositions to be part of the process.
I think I have to make sure that the Consultations are Transparent and Broad Based but the Opposition has taken a negative attitude in Guyana to the whole process. I’m prepared to put it back, to table it again in the National Assembly so there could be a full debate and he could ask all the questions and it’s televised in Guyana so then everyone would see and the answers would have to be given in the National Assembly.
The same questions you raised about transparency, etc are all outlined in the MoU. There will be a reportable international institution that will manage the funds; the Ministry of Finance will implement it. There will be reports in the National Assembly, Audits done, an international firm will do the audits of the project and money can only be used for projects identified through the consultation process in the LCDS; we have listed a number of areas. It will have to be done through public tender. All of these have been outlined there, but I’m very surprised this is the problem of the past, the opposition can’t pick the phone and call me and ask me about this. And they have opportunities.”

OUR COMMENTS TO PRESIDENT JAGDEO’S RESPONSES ARE:

1. Where is the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that was signed between the Governments of Guyana and Norway, and why hasn’t it been made public in the interest of transparency?
2. The Opposition Parties of Guyana were never invited into meaningful consultation with the PPP government to discuss the LCDS. Instead we were invited to a public launch at the Convention Centre some months ago.
3. The AFC did not walk out of Parliament and not debate the LCDS. At the time when the LCDS was put for debate, we had chosen to be out of the National Assembly because of a stubborn refusal by the Jagdeo administration to consider the joint parliamentary Opposition Parties request for a debate on the revelations coming out of the Simels trial, and to follow up with an international inquiry.
4. Re-submitting the LCDS for a televised debate is not going to address the critical question of how we as a people ensure that the national patrimony is not squandered, and that future generations of Guyanese can benefit from the funds that are received; whilst at the same time enjoying the benefits of the God given resources that Guyana has been blessed with.
5. A televised debate will be a side-show for public entertainment and can never replace serious and meaningful engagement.
6. The issue of public tender was once again raised by the President, but what he failed to tell the international gallery was that we have been without a Public Procurement Commission since it was mandated by the Constitution in 2000, and that Transparency International continues to rate Guyana very lowly in its handling of corruption, siphoning off of funds, and malpractices in the tendering processes etc. Who is being fooled by this resort to the public tendering processes?
7. As to the call for the Opposition parties to pick up the phone and make a call, maybe the President can advise when he is in Guyana long enough to engage in meaningful discussion on matters of national interest. Amidst the suffering of the Guyanese people, the LCDS pales in comparison on a scale of national issues.

---

---