FREEDOM of speech is enshrined in the modern democratic society and it is alive and well in Guyana today.

Of course, it was not so long ago that it was extremely hazardous for Guyanese to speak their minds on issues affecting them and some people paid with their lives for speaking out or taking a stand against injustices.

Thankfully, it is no longer so and people freely and frankly air their views on almost any subject on TV talk shows, call-in programmes, in the newspapers, on the Internet and through other avenues.

There can be no argument with fair comment; but when persons criticise merely for the sake of criticism and without adding value to making the principle of freedom of expression meaningful, it can lead to distortions and confusion in society.

The value of freedom of expression and people debating issues in the marketplace of ideas is that it can lead to overall improvement in society and sometimes to really meaningful changes.

And when, for example, countries embark on far-reaching changes, a healthy, constructive, meaningful debate on the issues involved can be invaluable on agreeing on the path forward.

It is in this regard that it is regrettable that the debate by some on Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) seems at times to lose focus.

Despite the views of some diehard skeptics, it is by now almost universally accepted that climate change poses catastrophe for life as we know it on earth and that countries have to adapt to cope with the changes.

To its credit, Guyana is among those nations leading the fight back and its LCDS has been hailed as a national scale model to be followed by other rainforest countries.

It is not a pipe dream as some critics initially claimed, but despite its advances internationally, these pundits persist in their bid to shoot the strategy down.

As Agriculture Minister Robert Persaud noted in a letter to local newspapers this week, much of the criticism is filled with inaccuracies and there’s a total lack of comprehension of Guyana’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Norway, the LCDS and the Guyana Readiness Preparation Proposal (RPP).

“I am now becoming wary of the agenda/motives of these letter writers, given their consistent baseless, obstinate opposition to new, pioneering development ideas emerging from the PPP/C (People’s Progressive Party/Civic)”, he said.

Mr. Persaud reiterated that contrary to claims by these critics, the LCDS will not disrupt the mining and forestry sectors, stating that nowhere in the MOU with Norway is there any mention that forestry and mining activities will cease.

He added that the revenues from Norway and other potential partners are really additional to what the forestry and mining sectors will continue to bring in.

“The only difference is that these sectors now have to comply more with best practices, something that was being emphasized long before the LCDS/MOU with Norway”, the minister said.

He added that with respect to the additional sources of financing, the government has already secured financing independent of the MOU to invite most of the top experts in the world to help in designing the Monitoring, Reporting and Verification System (MRVS) framework, and subsequently to assist in designing a road map for implementation of the MRVS.

“The Government of Guyana intends to use the same approach in seeking independent funding to finance the costs of independent forest monitoring and other associated activities. The clear intention…is to use the majority of funds to finance developmental activities”, Mr. Persaud said.

Stressing a strong point, he said, “If this government was interested only in money, then it would have issued out all available state lands as forest concessions for unregulated and unsustainable forestry. There is a great demand for our forest resources which can bag huge income for our nation, but at the expense of our people’s resolve for sound environmental stewardship of our natural resources.

“The fact that this is not occurring, even though there are numerous requests from local and overseas forest companies to access additional lands, clearly indicates that this government is committed to good governance and accountability.”
It is to be hoped that the critics will eventually shed their blinkers and help add to the debate through meaningful contributions.