I wish to refer to a letter under the caption “The OCC is missing a great opportunity in not reviving the National Development Strategy” in the issue of Stabroek News (5-4-2010) and written by Janette Bulkan. Kindly allow me to raise the following points in the letter:
(1) The said letter which Ms Bulkan has responded to was written solely by Peter Persaud and not ‘and his colleagues’.
(2) The sub-national consultations of the LCDS were not ‘rushed’ or ‘hurried’ . I was on the ground where I witnessed the consultations. The key presentation was very lengthy, as well as the question and answer session. If at Annai, according to Ms Bulkan, the number of questions raised at the consultations were 86 and nails the lie by the APA that the consultations were ‘hurried’. If the consultations were not held in accordance with Amerindian traditions, then the consultations team would have been speaking to literally empty benches. But this did not happen at all the consultations. The venues were packed to capacity. Numerous questions were asked and comments made on the LCDS, including the ‘opting in’ of the strategy. Some questions were not answered as these depended on the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference held last December. Can Ms Bulkan say if the ‘APA conference of the Indigenous leaders’ held in March 2010 in Georgetown was in accordance with Indigenous Peoples traditions? The UN declaration on the rights of the Indigenous peoples, a product of years of meetings and deliberations by the working group of Indigenous populations and indigenous leaders in Geneva, continues to be a legally non-binding convention. Any Indigenous person would gladly support Government’s ratification of the ILO convention 169.
(3) Strong efforts are underway to have the LCDS literature in some indigenous languages. However, it must be recognised that some of the languages cannot be read and written by the respective indigenous peoples. This is a living reality and it needs to be understood. Both mining and logging practices will have to be consistent with the obligations of the LCDS, or more over, these activities will have to strictly comply with the forestry and mining regulations. It continues to be mind-boggling why Ms Bulkan is unwilling to call or visit the office of Climate Change (OCC) and the Guyana Forestry Commission for information she is unable to identify on the LCDS website. The OCC technical officers would be willing to assist her so as to dispel the many doubts and misconceptions she has for Guyana’s LCDS.
(4) The Upper Mazaruni communities need to remove themselves from the claws of the APA and search for workable solutions for the conclusion of their land claims problem. So far they have refused the government’s land demarcation process on the advice of the APA and as a result they are unable to obtain land extensions to their already titled lands. They took the government to court on the advice of the APA for the settlement for their land claims problem. The matter is still in court. It is the government that grants state lands to Amerindian communities for their eternal occupancy and it is the government they have to engage with, through the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, for the effective settlement of their land issues, not the APA. The government does not interfere with the judicial system and cannot do so with respect to the land matter of the Upper Mazaruni communities. Ms Bulkan, who was a member of the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) of the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), said she raised the issue of the rights of Suriname’s indigenous peoples with her superior at the World Bank when she revised Suriname’s Readiness Preparation Proposal (RPP) which had to be returned to the drawing table for corrective action. Similarly, Ms Bulkan should have raised the issue of a portion of Guyana’s territory appearing on Suriname’s RPP maps with her superiors. At the October 2009 meeting in Washington, Guyana’s delegate was quick to point this out to the head table and raised its objection to the further use of Suriname’s RPP maps. However the said maps are still in use and Guyana continues to raise its objections. It was then that the World Bank issued its disclaimer about maps and boundaries. But Ms Bulkan refused to make interventions on the defects of Suriname’s RPP maps, and merely said,  “it is the task of Guyana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to comment on the national boundaries”. I think these words smacks of unpatriotism on Ms Bulkan’s part and she still has to clear the air on this matter with the Guyanese people. Until she does so she can be considered an unpatriotic Guyanese.
(5) The LCDS consultations both on the coast land and in the hinterland Amerindian communities are evidences that Guyana is an inclusive democracy, since the consultations enabled the Guyanese people to own and shape the national strategy by their inputs and recommendations. But Ms Bulkan’s doesn’t want to be an owner of the strategy because it belittles her status and she prefers to keep ‘burying her head in the sand’, refusing to accept the LCDS and the credibility, transparency and inclusivity of its consultations.
(6) At the Annai consultations, all the questions were answered. There were also comments and recommendations which were also positively responded to by the key presenter. However, there were duplicated questions as well. At each consultation, members of the consultation team said brief remarks. Ms Bulkan said that the APA refused to serve on the LCDS multi-stakeholder steering committee (MSCC) because it was against best practice for the primary advocate of a proposal to chair a multi-stakeholder process on the proposal. Since it was President Jagdeo who proposed the LCDS, his right place is being the chairman of the multi-stakeholder steering committee to defend his proposal, both national and internationally. So far I am comfortable with his chairmanship and to the best of my knowledge no member of the MSCC has ever expressed discomfort with his handling of the meetings. So the President’s chairmanship of the MSCC meetings is a soundly justifiable one. But the APA is not telling the truth and is hell bent on deceiving the public. The APA’s excuse for not participating in the MSCC was that it had a busy schedule and will not have the time to attend the MSCC meetings Further IIED’s report on the consultation process and its mentioning about best practice came out long after the formation of the MSCC. Further, what connection does the APA have with the best practice principles? First of all, their “organised conference of indigenous leaders” was shrouded in secrecy without the prior knowledge of the national Toshao Council and the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs. I doubt whether the Deputy Toshaos and the residents of the village knew that their Toshao were leaving their village to attend a week-long meeting in Georgetown. The decision- making process of an Amerindian village is through the village general meeting and not a secret meeting organised by the APA. This has caused the Toshaos to violate
section 34(2) of the Amerindian Act 2006. The APA also stated that their reason for not serving on the MSCC was that the best practice principles were not practiced at the MCSS level and more over President Jagdeo should not be chairing the MSCC meetings. President Jagdeo first advanced the LCDS to contribute to the fight against global climate change, while at the same time receiving incentives for avoided deforestation, and to embark on a Low Carbon Development pathway for Guyana. His Chairmanship
of the MSCC is therefore pivotal, because at the MSCC meetings, he is the one that has to defend his proposal and its forward movement. But what connection does the APA have with best practice principles? Does the APA’s interpretation of best practice  mean (1) encouraging village Toshoas to violate the Amerindian Act 2006 to support its anti-LCDS agenda? (2) Holding a conference of eight village Toshaos in shrouded secrecy to deliberate on a national strategy in Georgetown, while excluding 89 others? (3) Failure to give notice to the NTC and the MOAA about their conference of eight village Toshaos to deliberate on a national strategy at a conference of the APA, instead of at a village General Meeting? (5) Providing misleading information to hinterland communities about Guyana’s LCDS? and (6) giving different excuses for not serving on the MSCC.
Ms Bulkan knows fully well that the National Competitiveness Strategy updates the National Development Strategy. Both strategies were subjected to intensive consultations by the government, the private sector and civil society.