Permit me to state the following:
1. Guyana is currently pursuing the European Union Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (EU FLEGT) process to arrive at a voluntary partnership agreement (VPA) with the European Union (EU) by September 2015. This will be known as Guyana’s EU FLEGT VPA.
2. The EU FLEGT is an enabling activity of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Norway and Guyana “To build better Mechanisms to ensure high national and international standards for trade in forestry products.” The EU FLEGT initiative also seeks to confront illegal logging and to provide for sustainable forest management which will enable our stakeholders to have open access to the European markets for legally produced timber, among other benefits.
3. Guyana’s EU FLEGT process is currently on the move with the on-going and active participation of stakeholders in workshops, group discussions and meetings. A multi-stake holder steering group known as the National Technical Working Group (NTWG) was established to oversee the EU FLEGT activities in Guyana. Negotiations and technical meetings on the EU FLEGT initiative are continuing between Guyana and the European Union to move the process forward.
4. But already there are the usual objections on the EU FLEGT process in Guyana by the Amerindian People’s Association (APA), a group which is totally against Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). The APA even wrote to Norway complaining that the LCDS consultations process in 2009 was rushed and the free and informed consent (FPIC) principle was not applied and as a result Norway must withhold its funding to Guyana’s LCDS until ‘their’ (APA) conditions are met.
5. But Norway rejected the claims made by the APA on the basis of a report on the 2009 LCDS consultations by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) which stated that “The LCDS consultative process can be considered credible, transparent and inclusive.” Further, an indigenous lawyer formerly attached to the APA specialising in Indigenous Rights stated in the said report. “The LCDS, to date, has made significant efforts to ensure that the requirements of FPIC have been complied with.” It must be noted here as well that Norway engaged the IIED to track the2009 LCDS consultations upon request by Former President Mr. Bharat Jagdeo for independent monitoring on the said consultations.
6. The fact of the matter is that the APA is simply disgruntled because it is not on board the NTWG, the body that oversees the EU FLEGT activities in Guyana. But the NTWG already has a high level of indigenous peoples representation where the National Toshaos Council (NTC) and the Indigenous Peoples Commission (IPC), a constitutional body, are included in the NTWG. The NTC is an umbrella body of all the Toshaos (Village Chiefs) who are the elected leaders of their villages with direct connection thereto. The IPC, a constitutional body has the constitutional mandate to ensure that the rights and interests of indigenous peoples in Guyana are protected.
7. Like the 2009 LCDS consultations process, the APA is now complaining and finding faults about Guyana’s current EU FLEGT process of consultations, which to it is not extensive and effective. This as usual is absolutely mischievous and misleading. If the APA is not in favour of Guyana’s LCDS, why the negative claims about the EU FLEGt process and still wants to be in the NTWG? Just as how they wanted to see the failure of Guyana’s LCDS, the same old tricks they are applying to the EU FLEGT process in Guyana- but the APA will not succeed in its mischievous agenda against Guyana’s EU FLEGT process.
8. I am therefore appealing to the national and international experts on Guyana’s EU FLEGT process to apply caution when faced with the barrage of APA’s imaginary concerns under the pretext of “Indigenous People’s Rights.”