February 2, 2016 By
GuyanaTimes
Last week, a team from Norway headed by that country’s ambassador to Brazil and Guyana, Aud Marit Wiig, arrived in Guyana to hold a series of meetings and field visits to project sites in the interior region. The core of meetings and visits revolved around whether or not Norway will continue the Guyana-Norway environmental agreement/pact from 2009 to 2015 for another five years.
While the pact is extended for another five years, it is expected that Guyana will have to demonstrate a more sound environmental stewardship to earn a huge sum of money (at least US$200 million) to limit forest-based greenhouse gas emissions and protect its rainforest to reduce climate change. The destruction of the rainforests is one of the main causes of climate change. Tropical deforestation contributes to about one-fifth of all carbon emissions according to various environmental websites.
Now, on the Guyana side, there was Raphael Trotman and there was Joseph Harmon, among others, and then there was this: Individuals who were leading the talks from Guyana with no practical experience in environmental issues before and after they became Ministers. The team’s first excuse is that the regime has been in power only for eight months which is inconsistent with the 100 days manifesto and promises. Worse still is that nothing new was said at the meeting.
Trotman and his team simply repeated what has been said all along, that is, to practise sustainable development. You would think that the team would show some spine since the new regime is moving away from the dependence on agriculture to the extraction of mineral resources in the interior region to generate growth and development.
At best, these individuals do not only represent but also add to the institutional weaknesses that have permeated and plagued the environmental sector since Guyana returned to the global economy in the mid-1980s.
Moreover, much has been said about the conflict of interest in appointing Simona Broomes to manage Guyana’s natural resources. The regime has pushed this brewing matter to a legal team for advice, and so far, the public has not received any new information.
Do we have to chalk this one up for experience?
What is also worrying is that Guyana’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Guyana Forest Commission (GFC) are supported by a host of international agencies: Britain Overseas Development Administration, Global Environmental Facility, United Nations Development Programme, Canadian International Development Agency, German Technical Assistance Agency, Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank, World Wide Life Fund and the Smithsonian Institute.
Guyana is also a signatory to many international environmental conventions and I know a few professional individuals who are preparing to come to the country to help out. Yet, the country has been struggling to control its forest resources effectively.
The reason for this predicament is that Guyana’s environmental sector is: (1) under-staffed, under-funded and under-trained; (2) undermined by the lack of updated technologies and resources; (3) void of a comprehensive plan on land use and supervision of resources; (4) corrupt and inefficient and (5) notorious for foot-dragging.
Meanwhile, forests are exploited through unrestrained logging, skidding, careless mining practices as well as the creation of unplanned new forest communities, especially in the Northwest region. The loss of trees and forests tends to have adverse effects on streams and wetland buffer systems, water and air quality, biodiversity, wildlife and human health. That said, the Norway team must realise the impact of their demands on Guyana to protect its forest. Foremost is that environmental colonialism and the structural adjustment programmes so associated with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank must be avoided. The strings attached to their funding have to be realistic and liberal while the Guyana Government has to be transparent, including on how the funds are spent throughout the course of agreement.
More seriously is that the Norway team have to understand that Guyana does not only comprise forests but also a coastal region that houses over 90 per cent of the population of 750,000. Forests comprise about two-thirds of Guyana but what happens in the coastal region also affects the forest region.
High rates of crime, corruption, suicide and a plethora of other challenges have prevented Government from delivering at desirable levels. That the first five years of agreement between Guyana and Norway to protect Guyana’s rainforest and reduce emissions has produced mixed results is directly related to the challenges listed above and polarised politics. The Government must bring these facts to the table so that funds could be diffused to those areas.
Of paramount importance is that the forest belongs to Guyana and that Guyanese should be placed in positions of leadership so that they will have the experience to become leaders of their own environment.
Using this approach will provide an opportunity for Guyana to build a future that will be free from the exigency of learned dependence and dependent development. Guyana must not bow to unrealistic demands since the ball is essentially in the field of the Guyanese team. Can the Guyana team deliver? (lomarsh.roopnarine@jsums.edu)
The US food system is broken and needs to be fixed.
Be a Seed for Change 
You must be logged in to post a comment.