Guyana’s LCDS was based on widespread national consultations

Dear Editor,

The attempt by the Rainforest Foundation UK to discredit the low carbon development programmes in train by Guyana and other countries with tropical forests fits a pattern.

It is also not surprising that the Kaieteur News has given prominence to the report by the group, which seeks to shoot down the advice from international consultants McKinsey & Company to governments of forested nations.

A question that immediately comes to mind is how can Rainforest Foundation UK claim to be representing the best interests of countries like Guyana in the global climate change cause, when the United Kingdom does not even have forests to speak about?  

Rainforest Foundation UK has to be a misnomer, since there is no rainforest in the UK. In fact, the UK has very little forests, as is the case in so many other developed countries which have used up the forests and other natural resources they once had in their development pursuits.

From this rather shaky foundation, Rainforest Foundation UK proceeds to claim that the advice from McKinsey & Company could harm the Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD) scheme to stem destruction of the rainforest.

McKinsey has provided services to Brazil, Indonesia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Guyana in the context of the REDD global plan, which may be agreed at the United Nations climate change summit underway in Cancun, Mexico.

It is difficult to conceive that the governments of the countries with which McKinsey has worked could be duped by “flawed analysis” by the firm, and this claim by Rainforest Foundation UK is in sync with the patronising view of the developing countries by the so-called developed world.

The Western world still feels that it knows what is best for the developing world, hiding behind smokescreens of trying to ensure the rights of indigenous communities and other such claims.

While Guyana, Brazil and other countries have far advanced on low carbon development plans, the developed world is still prevaricating on basic issues, like making serious efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which they feel can affect their economic development. They want to proceed with development while the developing world lags behind.

Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) was based on extended, widespread national consultations with all stakeholders, including the indigenous people. The National Toshaos Council, the elected representatives of Amerindians across the country, recently passed a resolution supporting the LCDS, which has also been supported by Amerindian leaders at other levels.

The LCDS was crafted to ensure Guyana’s development while making a tangible contribution in helping to contain climate change. How many developed countries can point to such an endeavour?

Rainforest Foundation UK timed the release of its criticism of McKinsey to coincide with the opening of the Cancun summit, so it’s not difficult to understand the objectives of such groups.

They do not want to see financial flows to the developing countries, and are pushing the agenda under which countries with forests should be the lungs and carbon sinks of the world, while the developed world continues without drastically cutting the rates of their greenhouse gas emissions.

They are the major culprits in global warming, but are persistently seeking to dodge culpability.

Instead of giving lectures to Guyana and other rainforest countries on how to manage their forests, outfits like Rainforest Foundation UK would do better in pressing the developed countries to make the required emissions’ cuts to contain climate change.

It is unfair to try to saddle the developing world with the burden without adequately paying them for their services to help to contain climate change. 

Sincerely, 

Terrance Greaves