The Guyana government has said it is disappointed with international environmental advocate Greenpeace for publishing several inaccuracies regarding Guyana’s efforts against deforestation and forest degradation. These inaccuracies are allegedly contained in a Greenpeace April 7 report titled ‘Bad Influence: How McKinsey plans lead to rainforest destruction”, wherein it is contended that McKinsey drew up strategies that could help rainforested nations such as Guyana continue with logging practices while still gaining access to millions of dollars from the United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) and REDD+ schemes. The report raised questions about a programme that aims to allow developing nations to tap at least US$4.6 billion of forest protection aid from donors, including Norway and Britain.
However, Guyanese authorities are adamant that virtually none of Greenpeace statements is true. Agriculture Minister Robert Persaud, who holds responsibility for the local forestry sector, has since written to Greenpeace UK’s Director John Sauven to clarify the inaccuracies mentioned in the report.
Noting Greenpeace comments about Guyana’s maximum allowable annual deforestation rate being 4.3 per cent, Persaud argued that as a missing point, since the McKinsey study does not seek to propose a projected rate of deforestation for Guyana, but to provide an estimate of the economic value of Guyana’s forest to the nation and to the world. “This is completely different from historic and current rates of deforestation, and reference level setting,” the minister made clear.
Persaud also bluntly refuted the report’s claim that Guyana does not support an overall target for deforestation, since the country has clearly stated its target as maintaining 99.5 per cent forest cover. He also denied claims that there are no measures in Guyana’s REDD+ strategy to address the deforestation drivers. “This is not true. There is a comprehensive body of work setting out what Guyana is doing to maintain its high forest cover, based on scientific data produced by Poyry and in dependently verified by Det Norske Veritas,” Persaud pointed out.
While admitting that Guyana intends to use REDD+ money to build the Amaila Falls hydro plant, the minister said none of the supporting materials used by Greenpeace to explain its justification refers to the actual project being planned. “The government does intend to build the Amaila Falls hydro plant,” Persaud updated, adding that, “contrary to what is stated by Greenpeace, in total, this will involve the use of about 48sq km of rainforest, out of 180,000 sq km.”
Persaud also protested the ” use of hearsay to justify false positions” in the report, quoting: “McKinsey uses contacts in one country as sales reps to help it get work in another, while boasting to potential developing country clients of its capacity to connect them with donors, and taking full credit for funding deals concluded (in Guyana).”
To this, the minister argued that, “it is irresponsible for this kind of hearsay to be used as a formal position of Greenpeace without any attempt to verify this alleged finding.”
