I READ an article in the Sunday Staborek News of September 23, 2012 under the caption ‘Cash in GRIF must be spent before replenishment – says former Norway Environment Minister Solheim.’

I am of the view that the former Norwegian Minister is being provocative and a betrayal of the spirit of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Guyana and Norway signed on November 9, 2009 in Fairview Amerindian Village.
When Guyana signed on to the agreement it was the common understanding that it is a payment for services. The services have been delivered. The former minister himself acknowledged that Guyana’s Forest Monitoring System has improved significantly for the last three assessment periods.
Guyana’s rate of deforestation is well below the International average and well below the rate agreed to in the MOU. So Guyana has delivered its services and now is the time for the Norwegians to pay for it, but instead, they have been increasingly adding more requirements via the joint concept note. This is a stark deviation from the intention of the MOU and a betrayal of the trust of the Agreement which must be rejected by all Guyanese.
Imagine, Guyana has delivered its services and Norway is saying you have to justify what you want this money for before releasing it?
This is not the end of the puzzle. Norway is saying hold up; I cannot give you this money directly, it has to go through the World Bank (WB) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).
The former minister quite correctly acknowledges that the mechanism for disbursement to Guyana is not working, but that is a lie, the Norwegians want it that way so that we must beg for everything.
What is happening is that the World Bank  and IDB are applying their rules and procedures similar to a Grant/Loan type funding and this clearly is unacceptable, since the money has been fairly and honestly earned by Guyana and it is not a grant or loan, so why the dilly-dallying?

It is like a poor man being employed by a king to clean his yard. The man finishes his work and goes for payment. The king says no; you have to tell me what you want this money for. The man says he wants to buy a pound of beef. The king says not only beef but you need to buy the cow tail, face and heel. The man says ok. The king says no, I cannot give you; I have to give my accountant to disburse the money to you. The accountant says ‘man before you get this money, wear a shirt and tie, lay out the red carpet’. This is how Norway is treating Guyana for the payment of services provided by its Forest Protection Scheme, which is absolutely anti-developmental and bad in principle.
Guyana’s Forest performance is very good and is right on target with the MOU and JCN signed with Norway and it is unfair for Guyana to climb Mount Everest before accessing its payments honestly earned. Further, the cost far outweighs the benefits to government and my advice is for government to revisit the agreement with Norway to determine its relevance for Guyana in the area of payments for climate services.