Part 1 – Reducing Green House Gases and Guyana’s Constitutional Provisions

In this five part series we will look, reflectively, at the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of Guyana (GoG) and the Kingdom of Norway (KoN), referred to in

Rear Admiral (Rtd.) Gary A. R. Best

this essay as ‘the MOU’. In this first part, I will examine who is responsible for reducing greenhouse gases and Guyana’s Constitutional Provisions. A key question to keep in mind throughout is to what extent the Preamble to the MOU has been reflected in the activities of the GoG and the KoN.

A brief note on reflectivity is appropriate before I move on. According to Bloomberg and Volpe, being critically reflective allows us to challenge assumptions and perspectives. Reflecting on the thing done creates opportunities to view it in new ways. In the context of this essay I am cognizant that the document that I am reviewing is not one that I prepared. However, some principles of reflective analysis do apply.

What did the GoG and the KoN acknowledge?
The MOU (in November, 2009) was built on three components: the fight against climate change; the protection of biodiversity; and the enhancement of sustainable development. The two nations acknowledged that climate change is among the greatest challenges facing the world today.

Who is responsible for reducing greenhouse gases?
The MOU recognizes that “cooperation on climate change issues can be instrumental in reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally and has a positive impact on the socio-economic development of developing countries and their communities.” We will return to the meaning of the word ‘communities’ a bit later in the series. However, Guyana’s decision to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally was not a requirement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The UNFCCC, in its preamble, clearly articulated that the largest share of GHG emissions originated from developed countries. This category also includes some developing countries like Brazil, China and India, but not Guyana. However, Guyana is categorized as a ‘net carbon sink’, which means we store more carbon that we release into the atmosphere.

Therefore, why would the GoG enter into an agreement to reduce GHG when it is not a contributor to the global GHG emissions problem? My suggested answer is the offer of financial payments for preserving Guyana’s forests within a wider UNFCCC payment for ecosystem services mechanism, later to be known as REDD+.

Assuming this answer to be factual, it opens up another consideration. Was it deliberate on the part of the developed countries, a la Norway, to frame the issue of GHG emissions reduction within a partnership structure rather than the obligatory nature of their financial commitment under Article 4 of the UNFCCC? In summary, Article 4 states that developed countries shall “…provide new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing country Parties to meet their obligations under Article 12…” Article 12 refers to the costs relating to communication of information related to implementation.

But that’s not all! The UNFCCC covers other costs. Article 4 also mandates developed country Parties to provide financial resources, including financing the transfer of environmentally sound technologies. In particular, Article 4 of the UNFCCC provides for developed country Parties to “…assist the developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs of adaptation to those adverse effects.” Finally, Article 4 specifies that developing countries with low lying coastal areas fall into the special category of vulnerable states as a result of the adverse effects of climate change.

On reflection, it is clear that financing the adaptation costs of Guyana, as a country affected by the adverse nature of climate change, was and continues to be the obligation of developed countries under the UNFCCC. By sequestering its forests in exchange for ‘financial support’, Guyana is in fact paying for the financial support provided by the KoN as opposed to the MOU meeting Guyana’s adaptation costs as new and additional finance. It is perhaps ironic that in this modern age one can sell a product in return for financial support as opposed to payment.

What we need to do is to categorize and quantify the adverse effects climate change has had and continue to have on Guyana and, in accordance with the UNFCCC, submit the costs of those climate change effects along with projects for their correction and alleviation to the UNFCCC for consideration.

Was there not a role for Guyana’s Constitutional Provisions?
The MOU also recalls that “…Guyana and Norway are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Convention on Biological Diversity; and are signatories to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).” The roll out of the LCDS had it success and challenges, which we will address later in the series. However, at this juncture, we wish to point out a particular challenge- a majority of Guyanese viewed the MOU and the LCDS as a plan for our Indigenous Peoples. This is perhaps not surprising given that the only human related convention mentioned in the MOU relates to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Its important to also note that Guyana is a signatory to other important human related conventions including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. We believe it is difficult to not agree that these conventions bear significance in the context of Guyana’s international commitments and should have been referred to in the preamble of the MOU.

However, a more significant omission in our opinion is the non-reference within the preamble to key Guyana Constitutional provisions. In this regard, the MOU could have benefited from a direct reference to Art 29, which speaks to women’s participation in public decision-making and Art 36, which relates to land and the environment. Arts 29 and 36 would no doubt remind the signatories to the MOU that women are equal under the laws of Guyana and that the well being of our nation depends upon preserving all lands in Guyana. In particular, the MOU could have benefited from a direct reference to Art 13 which provides for an “… inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organizations in the management and decision making processes of the state…”

We also believe that a direct reference to Art 13 would have resulted in greater participation of the nation’s citizens in the decision processes leading up to the MOU and subsequent LCDS. Other important Guyana Constitutional Commissions to which a direct reference would have enriched the MOU include, The Ethnic Relations Commission; The Human Rights Commissions; The Women and Gender Equality Commission; and The Indigenous Peoples’ Commission.

At this juncture we can say that one of the pillars of a green economy is reducing inequalities and promoting equity. As we reflect on the MOU so far, it appears that this particular pillar is not best represented by the contents of the MOU.

In Part 2 we will continue to examine the provisions of the MOU.

Mr Gary A R Best is a retired Rear Admiral and former Chief of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force. He is an Attorney at Law and the Presidential Advisor on the Environment. He is a PhD candidate at the University of the West Indies. He holds a BSc in Nautical Science (Brazil) and Masters Degrees from the University of the West Indies and the University of London. He is also an alumnus of the National Defence University, Harvard Kennedy School and Frankfurt School of Finance and Management. His research areas include, climate change governance, climate change finance, international relations and environmental law.  

Comments can be sent to towardsagoodlife@gmail.com

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.