Tomado de:
Norway and our forests
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/editorial/11/16/norway-and-our-forests/
By Stabroek staff November 16, 2009 in Editorial
It must have gladdened the hearts of all Guyanese here and in the diaspora to absorb the news of the munificent Norwegian decision to support this country’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) to the tune of US$250M over a five-year period.
Norway continues to live up to its reputation in the company of its Scandinavian neighbours as exemplars in development aid and in this instance in combating climate change through protection of large swathes of Third World forests in areas such as the Congo and Brazil. It is also well-equipped to undertake this enterprise on behalf of struggling countries like Guyana considering its wealth fund of 2.55 billion crowns (US$446 billion) much of it derived from carbon-emitting oil and gas. It is now giving more than one percent of its gross domestic product in aid to developing nations, the highest by any industrialised country.
The credit for spearheading this initiative and for achieving this first tangible support to the LCDS must go comprehensively to President Jagdeo. His exertions in the climate campaign over the last three years extending to the meeting of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting in Georgetown in 2007 have been unremitting. Together with the Berbice Bridge, his efforts towards monetizing the climate value in Guyana’s forests will go down as his lasting presidential legacy.
The Norwegian deal will also assist in attracting other donors who would be encouraged by Oslo’s stamp of approval and no matter how dim the prospects there is continuing hope that Copenhagen in December will yield tangible mechanisms and overarching agreements for further assistance to the LCDS. But first, there is a lot of work to be done. Even a cursory perusal of the Joint Concept Note on REDD+ cooperation between Guyana and Norway which fleshes out the Memorandum of Understanding that was sealed between the two countries makes it clear that there are lofty benchmarks to attain and stringent scrutiny to bear.
Given the well established erosions of our bureaucratic abilities and pool of skilled human resources the requirements will pose stern challenges but we must not be found wanting. Though the combined public and private sectors may be able to fulfil the mandate there is a strong case for the government to also tap the diaspora and to continue to try to engage with this significant other so to speak.
The commencement of the programme and the disbursement of funds depend on seven parameters each with their own internal dynamics. The first is the strategic framework for synthesizing reduced deforestation and enhanced forest carbon stocks. It is mandated that all contributions to this be “administered in a transparent manner. Information concerning all expenditures, both planned and implemented, will be publicly available”.
Second, the LCDS and REDD-plus activities will be subject to continuous monitoring under the gaze of a transparent multi stakeholder consultation process. The concept note vitally pointed out that particular attention will be accorded to the full and effective involvement of the indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities so that there could be informed opting in. This consultation process will be reviewed by an expert team which will provide advice to all stakeholders and also report on it.
Third, there will be continued sampling of the extant forest governance and logging practices as currently performed by the Center for International Forestry Research and the Food and Agricultural Organisation in addition to the germane local legislation and policies. An outline of REDD-plus is due by the end of this year followed by a more detailed plan by October 2010 with clear requirements and timelines for implementation and the entire scheme is subject to review by an independent institution.
Fourth, the Guyana REDD-plus Investment Fund which will be the repository of all the Norwegian aid plus funds from other donors will be managed by a reputable international organization and must be operational before any funds are disbursed. In addition to the usual safeguards, the fund manager may also have to ensure that environmental impact assessments of LCDS initiatives encompass greenhouse gas emissions impact. The concept note said that Guyana and Norway “believe that the fund administrator will need to apply innovative and modern capabilities to ensuring that safeguard compliance is done in an efficient and expeditious manner”.
Fifth, the all-important monitoring, reporting and verification system for emissions or carbon removals has to be developed. This system has to be in concordance with the IPCC’s good practice guidelines. There also has to be evidence of Guyana engaging in a formal dialogue with the European Union with the intention of joining its Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade processes. There also has to be evidence of formal dialogue with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative or an alternative mechanism.
Sixth, the concept note recognizes the seminal rights of the indigenous peoples and other Guyanese to participate in the decision-making and there is a pledge that these rights will be respected throughout the process and there shall be a mechanism for effective participation.
Annual assessment and verification, the seventh area, will see one or more neutral expert organizations being appointed by the participants in conjunction with the institution managing the GRIF to determine whether or not the REDD-plus enablers have been achieved “and what results Guyana has delivered according to the established indicators”. The neutrals will craft an annual status report for the two governments and make recommendations.
The REDD-plus Governance plan also mandates that Guyana develops an inter-sectoral, land use planning system with specific emphasis on managing the impacts of infrastructure development and agricultural expansion on forests. One could see immediate repercussions from this on projects such as the proposed road to link the Guianas and the paved road to Brazil.
This plan also requires a focusing on all significant drivers of deforestation and degradation including logging, mining and agriculture. “Monitoring and control activities must be intensified in areas identified as or assumed to be (at) high risk of deforestation and forest degradation, for example in border areas or adjacent to infrastructure developments”. This and the requirement for criteria for concession holders in REDD-plus relevant areas signals that miners could face the rigorous type of inspections and benchmarks that have not been previously applied. A medium resolution satellite is to be employed for detecting small scale mining and other activities and there will also be targeted sampling of a high resolution satellite for selected sites and so not much can be hidden from the eyes of the monitors. This is the real thing.
All of this entails clinical efficiency in meeting standards and rigorous scrutiny of Guyana’s forests. This is all to the good of the country and there may also be significant collateral benefits from this generous Norwegian project.
Infused throughout the MOU and the Joint Concept Note are many of the attributes of good governance such as accountability, transparency, openness and inclusiveness. Can this government in these circumstances continue to stall on the main driver of transparency in any functioning democracy – the access to information legislation?
The MOU itself the importance of political dialogue between the two governments. But what about political dialogue in the country itself? That has atrophied and died off as the government has conveniently sought it only when it was to its benefit.
There is to be the greatest transparency possible in the manner in which the money accruing under GRIF is spent. What about transparency in the manner the large sums of money raked in from the lotto games is spent and accounted for. This has been an issue for many years now. Can the government afford blatant double standards in the way in which these funds are administered compared to GRIF’s?
Can inclusiveness in important decision-making become a hallmark of this government? Certainly in the assigning of forests in the fight against climate change, the only person who was initially in the loop was President Jagdeo. The rest of the country was taken by surprise and was consulted many months after. Will each vital section of society be given a chance to weigh in on how the GRIF funds are applied?
While the government made much of sovereignty in rejecting an important UK security plan, it has yielded much ground in this MOU to the Kingdom of Norway without a whimper. Is there a possibility therefore that it can see a way past its unconvincing objections to this important British project?
There will likely be enhanced environmental benefits to the country from this deal through focus on Carbon accrual as evidenced by President Jagdeo’s surprise announcement of a major mangrove nurturing project. This is a development that had been urged for several years and addressed in lengthy features in this newspaper. Surely, the time has also come for the reduction of the polluting of rivers from careless mining. Will increased focus on biodiversity conservation also harness and address concerns about the wildlife trade?
The Norwegian deal is not an opportunity to be lost and in its execution it may hold even more beneficial impacts for this land of ours.
Related Articles
Stringent conditions to be met before Norway $$ released - Transparency and accountability are key issues in the forest preservation deal between Guyana and No
Norway has fulfilled its commitment - Dear Editor, I am very pleased to read (in SN reports over the last several days) that Norway has fu
Norway offers up to US$250M under new forests pact with Guyana - Guyana and Norway yesterday signed an agreement that will see Oslo paying US$30 million ($6.2 billio
Norway sets basis for forest protection aid to Guyana - Norway is prepared to provide performance-based, “substantial and sustained” compensation for the pr.
Nota del editor del blog: Al referenciarse a la República Cooperativa de Guyana se deben de tener en cuenta los 159.500Km2, de territorios ubicados al oeste del río Esequibo conocidos con el nombre de Guayana Esequiba o Zona en Reclamación sujetos al Acuerdo de Ginebra del 17 de febrero de 1966.
Territorios estos sobre los cuales el gobierno Venezolano en representación de la Nación venezolana se reservo sus derechos sobre los territorios de la Guayana Esequiba en su nota del 26 de mayo de 1966 al reconocerse al nuevo Estado de Guyana .
“...por lo tanto, Venezuela reconoce como territorio del nuevo Estado, el que se sitúa al este de la margen derecha del río Esequibo y reitera ante la comunidad internacional, que se reserva expresamente sus derechos de soberanía territorial sobre la zona que se encuentra en la margen izquierda del precitado río; en consecuencia, el territorio de la Guayana Esequiba sobre el cual Venezuela se reserva expresamente sus derechos soberanos, limita al Este con el nuevo Estado de Guyana, a través de la línea del río Esequibo, tomando éste desde su nacimiento hasta su desembocadura en el Océano Atlántico...”
Norway and our forests
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/editorial/11/16/norway-and-our-forests/
By Stabroek staff November 16, 2009 in Editorial
It must have gladdened the hearts of all Guyanese here and in the diaspora to absorb the news of the munificent Norwegian decision to support this country’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) to the tune of US$250M over a five-year period.
Norway continues to live up to its reputation in the company of its Scandinavian neighbours as exemplars in development aid and in this instance in combating climate change through protection of large swathes of Third World forests in areas such as the Congo and Brazil. It is also well-equipped to undertake this enterprise on behalf of struggling countries like Guyana considering its wealth fund of 2.55 billion crowns (US$446 billion) much of it derived from carbon-emitting oil and gas. It is now giving more than one percent of its gross domestic product in aid to developing nations, the highest by any industrialised country.
The credit for spearheading this initiative and for achieving this first tangible support to the LCDS must go comprehensively to President Jagdeo. His exertions in the climate campaign over the last three years extending to the meeting of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting in Georgetown in 2007 have been unremitting. Together with the Berbice Bridge, his efforts towards monetizing the climate value in Guyana’s forests will go down as his lasting presidential legacy.
The Norwegian deal will also assist in attracting other donors who would be encouraged by Oslo’s stamp of approval and no matter how dim the prospects there is continuing hope that Copenhagen in December will yield tangible mechanisms and overarching agreements for further assistance to the LCDS. But first, there is a lot of work to be done. Even a cursory perusal of the Joint Concept Note on REDD+ cooperation between Guyana and Norway which fleshes out the Memorandum of Understanding that was sealed between the two countries makes it clear that there are lofty benchmarks to attain and stringent scrutiny to bear.
Given the well established erosions of our bureaucratic abilities and pool of skilled human resources the requirements will pose stern challenges but we must not be found wanting. Though the combined public and private sectors may be able to fulfil the mandate there is a strong case for the government to also tap the diaspora and to continue to try to engage with this significant other so to speak.
The commencement of the programme and the disbursement of funds depend on seven parameters each with their own internal dynamics. The first is the strategic framework for synthesizing reduced deforestation and enhanced forest carbon stocks. It is mandated that all contributions to this be “administered in a transparent manner. Information concerning all expenditures, both planned and implemented, will be publicly available”.
Second, the LCDS and REDD-plus activities will be subject to continuous monitoring under the gaze of a transparent multi stakeholder consultation process. The concept note vitally pointed out that particular attention will be accorded to the full and effective involvement of the indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities so that there could be informed opting in. This consultation process will be reviewed by an expert team which will provide advice to all stakeholders and also report on it.
Third, there will be continued sampling of the extant forest governance and logging practices as currently performed by the Center for International Forestry Research and the Food and Agricultural Organisation in addition to the germane local legislation and policies. An outline of REDD-plus is due by the end of this year followed by a more detailed plan by October 2010 with clear requirements and timelines for implementation and the entire scheme is subject to review by an independent institution.
Fourth, the Guyana REDD-plus Investment Fund which will be the repository of all the Norwegian aid plus funds from other donors will be managed by a reputable international organization and must be operational before any funds are disbursed. In addition to the usual safeguards, the fund manager may also have to ensure that environmental impact assessments of LCDS initiatives encompass greenhouse gas emissions impact. The concept note said that Guyana and Norway “believe that the fund administrator will need to apply innovative and modern capabilities to ensuring that safeguard compliance is done in an efficient and expeditious manner”.
Fifth, the all-important monitoring, reporting and verification system for emissions or carbon removals has to be developed. This system has to be in concordance with the IPCC’s good practice guidelines. There also has to be evidence of Guyana engaging in a formal dialogue with the European Union with the intention of joining its Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade processes. There also has to be evidence of formal dialogue with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative or an alternative mechanism.
Sixth, the concept note recognizes the seminal rights of the indigenous peoples and other Guyanese to participate in the decision-making and there is a pledge that these rights will be respected throughout the process and there shall be a mechanism for effective participation.
Annual assessment and verification, the seventh area, will see one or more neutral expert organizations being appointed by the participants in conjunction with the institution managing the GRIF to determine whether or not the REDD-plus enablers have been achieved “and what results Guyana has delivered according to the established indicators”. The neutrals will craft an annual status report for the two governments and make recommendations.
The REDD-plus Governance plan also mandates that Guyana develops an inter-sectoral, land use planning system with specific emphasis on managing the impacts of infrastructure development and agricultural expansion on forests. One could see immediate repercussions from this on projects such as the proposed road to link the Guianas and the paved road to Brazil.
This plan also requires a focusing on all significant drivers of deforestation and degradation including logging, mining and agriculture. “Monitoring and control activities must be intensified in areas identified as or assumed to be (at) high risk of deforestation and forest degradation, for example in border areas or adjacent to infrastructure developments”. This and the requirement for criteria for concession holders in REDD-plus relevant areas signals that miners could face the rigorous type of inspections and benchmarks that have not been previously applied. A medium resolution satellite is to be employed for detecting small scale mining and other activities and there will also be targeted sampling of a high resolution satellite for selected sites and so not much can be hidden from the eyes of the monitors. This is the real thing.
All of this entails clinical efficiency in meeting standards and rigorous scrutiny of Guyana’s forests. This is all to the good of the country and there may also be significant collateral benefits from this generous Norwegian project.
Infused throughout the MOU and the Joint Concept Note are many of the attributes of good governance such as accountability, transparency, openness and inclusiveness. Can this government in these circumstances continue to stall on the main driver of transparency in any functioning democracy – the access to information legislation?
The MOU itself the importance of political dialogue between the two governments. But what about political dialogue in the country itself? That has atrophied and died off as the government has conveniently sought it only when it was to its benefit.
There is to be the greatest transparency possible in the manner in which the money accruing under GRIF is spent. What about transparency in the manner the large sums of money raked in from the lotto games is spent and accounted for. This has been an issue for many years now. Can the government afford blatant double standards in the way in which these funds are administered compared to GRIF’s?
Can inclusiveness in important decision-making become a hallmark of this government? Certainly in the assigning of forests in the fight against climate change, the only person who was initially in the loop was President Jagdeo. The rest of the country was taken by surprise and was consulted many months after. Will each vital section of society be given a chance to weigh in on how the GRIF funds are applied?
While the government made much of sovereignty in rejecting an important UK security plan, it has yielded much ground in this MOU to the Kingdom of Norway without a whimper. Is there a possibility therefore that it can see a way past its unconvincing objections to this important British project?
There will likely be enhanced environmental benefits to the country from this deal through focus on Carbon accrual as evidenced by President Jagdeo’s surprise announcement of a major mangrove nurturing project. This is a development that had been urged for several years and addressed in lengthy features in this newspaper. Surely, the time has also come for the reduction of the polluting of rivers from careless mining. Will increased focus on biodiversity conservation also harness and address concerns about the wildlife trade?
The Norwegian deal is not an opportunity to be lost and in its execution it may hold even more beneficial impacts for this land of ours.
Related Articles
Stringent conditions to be met before Norway $$ released - Transparency and accountability are key issues in the forest preservation deal between Guyana and No
Norway has fulfilled its commitment - Dear Editor, I am very pleased to read (in SN reports over the last several days) that Norway has fu
Norway offers up to US$250M under new forests pact with Guyana - Guyana and Norway yesterday signed an agreement that will see Oslo paying US$30 million ($6.2 billio
Norway sets basis for forest protection aid to Guyana - Norway is prepared to provide performance-based, “substantial and sustained” compensation for the pr.
Nota del editor del blog: Al referenciarse a la República Cooperativa de Guyana se deben de tener en cuenta los 159.500Km2, de territorios ubicados al oeste del río Esequibo conocidos con el nombre de Guayana Esequiba o Zona en Reclamación sujetos al Acuerdo de Ginebra del 17 de febrero de 1966.
Territorios estos sobre los cuales el gobierno Venezolano en representación de la Nación venezolana se reservo sus derechos sobre los territorios de la Guayana Esequiba en su nota del 26 de mayo de 1966 al reconocerse al nuevo Estado de Guyana .
“...por lo tanto, Venezuela reconoce como territorio del nuevo Estado, el que se sitúa al este de la margen derecha del río Esequibo y reitera ante la comunidad internacional, que se reserva expresamente sus derechos de soberanía territorial sobre la zona que se encuentra en la margen izquierda del precitado río; en consecuencia, el territorio de la Guayana Esequiba sobre el cual Venezuela se reserva expresamente sus derechos soberanos, limita al Este con el nuevo Estado de Guyana, a través de la línea del río Esequibo, tomando éste desde su nacimiento hasta su desembocadura en el Océano Atlántico...”
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario