THE newspapers make for interesting reading these days, especially with persons just being mischievous and taking sides to offer support for issues just so they can offer some amount of criticisms. Having read Janette Bulkan’s letter published in the Kaieteur News of March 17, I agree that perhaps some people were not sufficiently informed about the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) and its implications. My contention is that there were numerous consultations across the country which were fully publicised so persons knew where the meetings were to be held and at what date and time. However, if persons refused to show up for the consultations then how can this same principle be applied?
They all knew that the consultations were going to be held and they were all asked to turn up for these consultations so that their opinions and views can be addressed and counted but some refused outright to attend, since they were following other ideas.
Is it that people like Janette Bulkan and others who are now speaking out, expect that Government would have one-on-one discussions with every household in the country to ensure that everyone is aware of what the LCDS is?
I noted that the Stabroek News of this same date published a letter from Jocelyn Dow who was an independent monitor appointed by Norway for the consultation process. Ms. Dow, in her letter, stated that the consultations engaged council representatives and leaders of 222 communities since the launch of the first draft of the LCDS. She pointed out that at the consultations the document was distributed to everyone who attended and interpreters were present to assist in ensuring that natives of the different tribes understood what was being said.
Separate meetings were also arranged to facilitate specialists from the World Bank, USAID and DFID among others. Issues were raised by residents and were addressed at the consultations. Ms. Dow stated that she does not share the view that the LCDS process was a farce or that it failed to take account of the FPIC.
Once again we see someone criticising for the sake of criticising.