Guyana Caribbean Network Community Forum
News:

N. John Blue Real Estate
4708 Church Ave
Brooklyn, NY. 11203
718-462-2020
Click here for apartment listings.
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. October 21, 2014, 11:43:27 PM


Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: McKinsey's fraud re: REDD has been exposed, exposing Fagdeo in the process  (Read 4100 times)
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« on: October 07, 2010, 09:47:20 AM »

This was the same company that Fagdeo 'bribed' to prepare the LCDS that was also presented at Copenhagen and the Norwegians. Let's see how the dominos are falling soon

*****************

McKinsey’s REDD plans in Papua New Guinea: Nice work if you can get it
By Chris Lang, REDD Monitor
7th October 2010

A June 2009 confidential memorandum from the consulting firm McKinsey to the PNG government has been posted on the PNGExposed Blog. In the memo, McKinsey was asking the PNG government for US$2.2 million for four months work to produce a a draft “National REDD and Climate Change Plan” before the Copenhagen meeting. The confidential memorandum from McKinsey provides a fascinating insight into the world of REDD consulting. The Draft Project Proposal, which is dated 5 June 2009 and titled, “Supporting the Development of PNG’s National REDD and Climate Change Plans,”.

McKinsey has also been hired by Brazil, Guyana, Indonesia, DR Congo and Mexico to produce “REDD and Climate Compatible Development Plans”. In case anyone thinks US$2.2 million is a lot of money for a report, McKinsey is offering its services cheap, “We would bill you at our Social Sector rates, which are 50% below our usual fees. At these rates, our professional fees and expenses for phase one as outlined above would amount to USD 2,200,000.” McKinsey’s consultants helpfully suggest where the money might come from - “The budget for this project should be covered out of third-party funds available to PNG from external sources. In particular, UN-REDD could provide the financing for the REDD plan.” On 7 March 2010, Freddy Austli of UNDP in Papua New Guinea told REDD-Monitor that “As UNREDD is not operational, none of this [UN-REDD] money has yet been disbursed.”

McKinsey’s report on REDD in PNG is not, at least as far as I’m aware, available to the public. Unlike McKinsey’s report on REDD in Brazil, it does not seem to be available on McKinsey’s website. PNGExposed notes that the country’s REDD strategy “has never been debated by PNG’s Parliament or disclosed to the PNG people.” As Economist journalist Natasha Loder pointed out on her blog last year, McKinsey is the climate consulting firm du jour. Loder was enthusiastic about McKinsey. “If Papua [New Guinea] can find a mere $2m, McKinsey will load up its crack team of climate consultants into the Batplane, fill it up with biofuel, and send it swooping down on Port Moresby to help the country prepare itself for Copenhagen by developing the national REDD and climate change plan, deploying cost-abatement curves from their utility belts… and all just in time for Papua’s cabinet meeting in November.”

I’m not suggesting that McKinsey’s experts don’t know what they are talking about. They do. But there are no guarantees that any international consulting firm working on a tight deadline will include indigenous peoples’ rights in its considerations on REDD. Particularly one with a strong focus on economics. McKinsey’s report on Brazil mentions neither the word “indigenous”, nor the word “rights”.

Others are less enthusiastic than Loder about McKinsey, particularly now that the company is working in PNG. In a letter to Wari Iamo, the Acting Executive Director of the Office of Climate Change and Development (OCCD), the Papua New Guinea NGO Eco Forestry Forum (EFF) expresses its dissatisfaction with “stakeholder consultation on climate change and REDD issues”. EFF was invited at short notice to the Office of Climate Change and Development on 21 September 2010 to discuss the UN-REDD National Joint Programme and REDD+ project guidelines. EFF was asked to provide comments on documents distributed at the meeting by 1 October 2010. EFF asks, “How could we do that within a short period of time?”

Regarding McKinsey’s involvement in PNG, EFF commented, “While we have been verbally told of McKinsey’s role in the country as Technical Advisors, they were seen to be acting like OCCD or DEC [Department of Environment and Conservation] staff, answering questions relating to the processes of REDD implementation. We would have loved to see OCCD staff or DEC staff taking a lead in the discussions. This leaves us with the conclusion that OCCD and DEC does have a capacity issue that has not been admitted. It would be interesting to know when the McKinsey contract expires.”

It would also be interesting to see a copy of McKinsey’s terms of reference, just so that we know what they are supposed to be doing in PNG. It would be interesting to know where the money to pay McKinsey’s came from. And it would be interesting to see the reports that McKinsey has produced for the PNG government on REDD and climate change.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2010, 09:48:42 AM »

One of the comment as it relates to Guyana and McKinsey

************

A Witness
October 7th, 2010 at 5:00 pm

McKinsey’s experts “know what they are talking about”. Do they?

Their proposal to the PNG government, evidently successful, refers to the work they have done in supporting other developing countries such as Guyana to prepare their national REDD plans. But what they do not say is that experts regard what McKinsey’s have done in Guyana to be nonsense, as it makes absurd assumptions about how the country might totally clear its forests within 25 years or so, and become a major producer of agricultural produce – none of which is supported by a scrap of evidence, and indeed ignores the rather more prosaic reality that very little of Guyana’s soil is fit to grow anything on whatsoever.

There are reasons why Guyana has not already been deforested, and it has got nothing to do with President Jagdeo’s putative environmental beneficence. In Guyana’s case, McKinsey’s extended work of fiction was generously supported by UK taxpayers, through the Department for International Development.

However, you do have to hand it to McKinsey’s for spotting a golden opportunity, during hard commercial times, to cash in on the REDD phenomenon – constantly re-cycling their conceptually flawed ‘Cost Curve’, adapted to suit the level of ambition/greed/avarice of which ever corrupt regime they happen to be pitching to, and appealing to the base interests of poor governments by encouraging them to think they can buy a formula that will make huge amounts of money fall from the sky.

Snake oil, anyone?

Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2010, 09:57:25 AM »

How much of the norwegian $25M will be recouped by McKinsey?
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2010, 10:01:11 AM »

Fagdeo already paid McKinsey with the money he stole from the Lotto Funds and the money GT&T 'DO-NATE' to his office.
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2010, 10:02:15 AM »

How close is the Norwegian cheque? Has it been signed yet or is the ink running?
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2010, 10:05:46 AM »

I could make a couple of fone calls to find out what's the status, but I'd rather wait to hear when the World Bank will release that information.
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2010, 10:07:54 AM »

Looks like the nowegians are waiting for the ink on the cheque to dry. It's kinda cold at this time of year in norway. Could take a lil while.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2010, 10:08:41 AM »

I just learnt that the Norwegian Ambassador to the UN will be in our office in 20 minutes. Maybe I will request a sidebar meeting with him Laughing Laughing
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2010, 11:27:39 AM »

Ask him if the cheque is in the mail?

That's all you have to do.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2010, 11:56:21 AM »

yes the check is being 'walked' to the bank, but the check has not been cleared because of insufficient funds Laughing Laughing
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2010, 01:20:23 PM »

I have to let Dr. Ishmael know that the company's name is COLONIAL Life Insurance Company (CLICO). These are some of the underhand deals that the PNC and later the PPP was a party to.....while now the PPP is raping the treasury bare

************

Extract taken from one of Dr. Odeen Ishmael's articles ~ The rush towards privatisation (1989-1992)

Controversial deals

1. Demerara Woods Ltd.

There were indeed some controversial privatization deals which took place. The one that received the most publicity was the sale of Demerara Woods Ltd. Lord Beaverbrook, a former treasurer of British Conservative Party, bought the entity in February 1991 for £9.7 million. He also negotiated and obtained a 50-year lease for 1.1 million acres of rain forest. Just two months later, in April 1991, he sold his interests to United Dutch Company for £61 million worth of equity in that firm. The new complex was re-named Demerara Timbers Ltd. Even though Beaverbrook had up to mid-1992 not finished paying the Guyana government for Demerara Woods, he merged the enterprise into the giant United Dutch Company which took control of Demerara Timbers of which he remained a major shareholder.

By 1992, United Dutch valued Demerara Timbers at £74 million! The rainforest concession alone was estimated at between US$160 million to US$206 million.

2. Guyana Timbers Ltd.

The book value of the firm was stated at US$130 million, but it was sold for only US$23.2 million in 1991. Registration fees for its Houston operations amounting to US$178,590 were waived, as were the duty of US$892,900, for the property transfer, and fees of US$555,810 for the firm’s Winiperu operations – a cumulative sum of $1.6 million.

The new firm, styled Caribbean Resources Ltd., continued operations under its new owner, the Caribbean Life Insurance Company (CLICO) of Trinidad and Tobago.


full text http://www.guyana.org/features/postindependence/chapter25.html
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2010, 10:01:58 AM »

For the retards at GINA/OP/CHRONICLE and Freedumb House, if you idiots can read and understand what is clearly stated in this article

************

REDD rubber hits the road in Guyana: skid-marks a-plenty
By REDD-Monitor, 13th October 2010

Last week, the Government of Norway signed an agreement at the headquarters of the World Bank in Washington setting up the “Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund” (GRIF). Like much else in the brave new world of REDD, the deal raises more questions than answers.

REDD-Monitor received the following anonymous commentary on the Norway-Guyana deal. It is posted here unedited.

REDD-Monitor would like to suggest some background music for this post. Roger Waters clearly wasn’t thinking of the president of a small Latin American state when he wrote the song in the early 1970s, but it seems strangely appropriate to President Bharrat Jagdeo’s political philosophy: “Money, it’s a hit. Don’t give me that do goody good bullshit.”

On October 9th, the governments of Guyana and Norway, and the World Bank, announced that they had concluded negotiations on the establishment of the ‘Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund’ – through which Norway’s promised REDD funding for Guyana will flow, a potential US$250 million by 2015. The announcement stated that the first payment of $30 million from Norway was now “being processed”.

Whilst this development will no doubt come as a massive relief to President Jagdeo – who has staked much political capital on Norwegian funding for his so-called national Low Carbon Development Strategy – anyone interested in seeing REDD succeed as a credible concept should be deeply troubled by almost every aspect of what has recently transpired in Guyana. As some observers have been predicting, Norway’s largesse looks set to result in increased deforestation and forest degradation, and a worsening of the corruption which tarnishes almost every aspect of government in Guyana.

The Norwegian government itself looks to be particularly culpable. Its November 2009 Memorandum of Understanding with Guyana was quickly criticised, because of the artificially high interim ‘base-line’ rate of deforestation, which was set at possibly 50 per cent greater than the actual rate, opening the possibility that deforestation could rise, but the country still receive REDD payments, as the President readily acknowledged. Nevertheless, the agreement held out the promise that the government of Bharrat Jagdeo could be brought into a transparent and progressive process resulting in the country embarking on a lower carbon emissions development path.

Central to the Norway-Guyana MoU was the establishment of the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF). Under the MoU, the expenditure of all money entering the Fund from Norway would be subject to the “safeguards as well as fiduciary and operational policies” of the organisation appointed to run the GRIF – which, it was later agreed, would be the World Bank. But this arrangement has proven uncomfortable for President Jagdeo, who has repeatedly and publicly castigated the Bank for delays and complications in releasing any funding. Quietly caving in to pressure from Jagdeo, and contravening the terms of the MoU, the Norwegians agreed a new approach for the GRIF, such that the “safeguards and operational policies” of other international funding partners for Guyana’s ‘low carbon development’ projects could be applied, rather than just the more onerous requirements of the World Bank – even if such safeguards were substantially weaker or even non-existent.


The Government of Norway's contribution towards forest protection in Guyana:

Synergy’s bulldozers and road-building equipment shortly after it arrived in Guyana in August

This might not be so problematic, were the policies of those other institutions actually applied. But the very first project to be funded under Norway’s funding through the GRIF – an access road to the site of a proposed hydroelectric dam at the Amaila Falls on the River Kuribong river, deep in Guyana’s rainforest – appears to have circumvented any safeguards altogether.

The Amaila Falls project, and particularly the necessary 110km new access road to it, has been mired in controversy from the outset. The proposed dam is a pet project of President Jagdeo, and long predates the country’s ‘Low Carbon Development Strategy’. Experts in the country have questioned the economic rationale for the scheme, warning that it could saddle the nation with more international debt and tie it into buying expensive electricity from the dam’s operators, through weaknesses in both the construction project and the power purchase agreements. However, despite the potential for the dam to cause the flooding of a substantial area of forest, Norway’s promised REDD funding has provided the perfect platform to get the project off the ground.

Immediate concerns have focused on the construction of the new access road to Amaila Falls, the US $15.4 million contract for which was inexplicably awarded to a Florida-based real estate dealer, Makeshwar Fip Motilall, whose company, Synergy Holdings Inc, has no previous experience of building either roads or hydro-electric schemes. Synergy has never operated at such a scale in difficult terrain such as Guyana’s interior. Local observers and experts detect the whiff of corruption; the Government’s National Industrial and Commercial Investment agency, NICIL, has been unable to explain how Synergy was awarded the contract against four other competitors, even though it appears to fail every eligibility test. A US$3 million ‘security bond’ for the construction of the road has been issued to Synergy by the ‘Hand-in-Hand Insurance’ company – which relies heavily on government business – also under unclear circumstances. Synergy has subsequently received a US$1.5 million loan from Government and exemption from import duty on apparently second-hand road-building equipment, which has already been imported and has been standing ready for several weeks.

Approval for construction of the road to proceed – which will involve the clearing of an estimated 6,000 hectares of rainforest – was granted by the Ministry of Public Works on October 5th, though the government announced only on 11th October (two days after announcing the establishment of the REDD+ Investment Fund) that works would proceed this week. The government-owned propaganda sheet, the Guyana Chronicle, today claimed that the road works had received a “positive review by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) of key environmental and social aspects and the contractor’s Environmental & Social Management Plan (ESMP)” – though the IDB has so far declined to confirm that it is even funding the dam or the road, or whether either have complied with the Bank’s project safeguard policies; all that the IDB has agreed so far is co-funding of the environmental and social impact studies.

The President of Guyana has reiterated that all REDD+ projects and his LCDS schemes will be subject to the free, prior and informed consent of affected indigenous Amerindians – but there is no evidence that the Amerindian rights over the Amaila Falls access road route or the dam reservoir area have even been mapped, let alone subject to a FPIC process, although they are guaranteed by Guyana’s Amerindian Act 2006.

Although the World Bank manages the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund, and will be passing on the Norwegian REDD money to the government of Guyana to start the clearing of the rainforest road, it has disavowed any responsibility for application of its safeguard policies, even though it was required to apply them under the Guyana-Norway MoU. Subsequent to the November 2009 MoU, the financial safeguards have been slackened by putting the Norwegian funds into a new arrangement, a Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF), similar to the World Bank’s Haiti post-earthquake reconstruction fund. The World Bank then simply acts as a cash box for the yet-to-be-appointed ‘Partner Entity’, which will come to a mutually acceptable arrangement with the Government of Guyana about environmental and social safeguards and fiduciary due diligence. It is thus unclear how Norwegian money can be passed to Guyana this week, without the formal appointment of a Partner Entity, a role which the World Bank has also explicitly disavowed.

The starting-up of any projects under the Norway GRIF also contravenes the MoU in two other important respects. According to the agreement, and the stated intentions of the Norwegian government at the time, any payments to Guyana would be “results-based” – the terms of which were set out clearly in the agreement. As yet, however, not even basic mechanisms have been established to determine whether Guyana is reducing its forest-based carbon emissions (or, more likely, increasing them within the limit of the artificially high base-line rate). In fact, only in August, the Guyanese government announced the awarding of a new 167,000 hectare ‘pre-harvest’ logging concession (a ‘State Forest Exploratory Permit’) in unexploited forest to a new company, Sherwood Forrest Incorporated, which will further require the construction of an access road variously stated as 120 or 250 km in length. Norway’s ‘International Forests and Climate Initiative’ has not stated how the likely substantial carbon emissions from this operation will be monitored and assessed and any financial penalty for the Guyanese government calculated.

Worse still is that the release of funds through the GRIF also by-passes an important safeguard that was ordered by the MoU. Under the agreement, “commencement and annual continuity of result-based financial support from Norway will depend on agreed progress” regarding seven “factors”, which were defined in the agreement. The task of assessing whether Guyana had complied with these seven factors was to be delegated to a “neutral expert organization” which will “provide an annual status report for the Governments of Norway and Guyana”. In this status report, the ‘neutral organization’ will “outline its independent assessment of all Participants in the REDD+ process, and make recommendations for process and capability improvements. This will include an assessment of whoever is selected as the administrator of GRIF.”

By means which are not clear, this independent auditor task has been handed to the New York-based ‘not for profit’, the Rainforest Alliance. On October 6th – a mere three days before the Government of Guyana and the World Bank proclaimed the start-up of the GRIF – the Rainforest Alliance announced that it was “implementing this review as of October 4. The review will include information gathering in Guyana during the period from Sunday, October 10 to Saturday October 16” – i.e. after the start of the GRIF had already been approved and the first project given the go-ahead.

The appointment of the Rainforest Alliance to monitor Guyana’s progress in preparing for Norway’s REDD funding raises yet further questions. The organisation has a dismal record in forest sector auditing, and numerous of its certificates under the Forest Stewardship Council have been challenged or proven highly controversial. It has a disturbing track record of certifying operations as ‘environmentally acceptable, socially beneficial and economically sustainable’ that later prove not only unsustainable but also illegal. Quite how ‘neutral’ the Rainforest Alliance would prove is also open to question: it has as recently as 2008 been seeking business in Guyana for its logging certification subsidiary, SmartWood, and would also no doubt very much like to open new markets for its REDD ‘verification’ services. Worse still, one of Rainforest Alliance’s Guyana assessment team, Dr Gary Clarke, is also a director of the new logging operation, Sherwood Forrest Incorporated. The Norwegian government has not yet stated whether it considers that the Rainforest Alliance team is sufficiently ‘neutral’, but the conflicts of interest look very clear to most outsiders.

Altogether, even before the first dollar of Norway’s money has been disbursed, REDD in Guyana has descended into a morass of broken agreements, dodgy backroom deals, conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, failure to uphold basic safeguards and due process, and strong grounds to suspect corruption. Rather than Norway’s REDD funding raising the quality and transparency of decision-making in Guyana, what seems to have happened is that the government of Norway and the other international ‘partners’ have sunk to the dismal level of Guyana’s governance. Norway used to have a reputation for upholding indigenous rights, but even that seems to have been abandoned along with other principles.

Quite why the Norwegian government is willing to tolerate the inevitable consequences of all this is hard to fathom. It has been aware of every aspect of this slide into abuse of REDD, yet it has done nothing. The pressure to disburse its overall $2.6 billion REDD funding pot is clearly huge – even at the expense of damaging the credibility of REDD, wasting its taxpayers’ money, and potentially fuelling corruption and graft in Guyana. Bharrat Jagdeo, meanwhile, will no doubt be relishing the prospect of a comfortable retirement when he steps down as president in 2011, and anticipating that his party in power will benefit from the no-questions-asked money now flowing from Oslo.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2010, 10:10:10 AM by BK » Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2010, 10:05:31 AM »

REDD-Monitor would like to suggest some background music for this post. Roger Waters clearly wasn’t thinking of the president of a small Latin American state when he wrote the song in the early 1970s, but it seems strangely appropriate to President Bharrat Jagdeo’s political philosophy: “Money, it’s a hit. Don’t give me that do goody good bullshit.”

Pink Floyd - Money

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_anbEJsr6s
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2010, 10:17:53 AM »

Pink Floyd was my favourite R*& band in high school. John B will vouch for that back in 1976. The spirit of 76. 200 years of independence in the great USofA.

Is the ink running on that cheque? Get some blotter. Better yet get a fan and dry it quickly.

This sounds like a speed bump to me ... or .. as Jamaicans better put it ... a sleeping policeman.
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2010, 10:24:11 AM »

It seems like REDD Monitor is getting some inside information about/from Guyana.

This is week 2. The cheque's in the mail, it should be here any minute now! Laughing
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2010, 10:54:06 AM »

I think its someone from the World Bank who has provided some of the information for the article.  You have to admit that that is a very explosive article which only confirm what many of us have been saying for the longest while - Fagdeo only wants his grubby hands on the money and the Norwegians are accommodating him. Wait till this hit the fans in Norway and the taxpayers there are informed about what their own government involved in Fagdeo LCDS scam.
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2010, 11:15:05 AM »

I think this article is mean't to throw up a speed bump with the $25M.

Just my opinion. I'd be surprised if the money makes it to Guyana within the 2 week window which expires this weekend.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2010, 10:00:14 AM »

exactly, read some of the response to the article here where "author" also made the point that we knew all along regarding Guyana rate of deforestation and Drugdeo has absolutely no interest in 80% of the country he is only interested in getting his hands on the [free] money.

I am sure now the Norwegians have something up their sleeve with this scam since we know that EVERYTHING comes with a price tag.

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2010/10/13/redd-rubber-hits-the-road-in-guyana-skid-marks-a-plenty/#more-6043
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2010, 09:34:21 AM »

Roberto Dumbo Persaud has now shown the world what a real dumbo he truly is. One has to read the entire article together with the responses to get the bigger picture.

**********
Part 1

A response from Guyana’s Minister of Agriculture, Robert M. Persaud
By Chris Lang, 20th October 2010

Occasionally, REDD-Monitor posts anonymous contributions. So far, in two years of regular posting on this website, there have been four anonymous contributions (out of a total of 340 posts). Two have been about Guyana. The most recent, “REDD rubber hits the road in Guyana: skid-marks a-plenty,” seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers.

So far, Richard Donovan, head of Rainforest Alliance, Ashton Simon, of the National Amerindian Development Foundation, and Per Fredrik Pharo, of the Government of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative, (among others) have commented on the post.

On 18 October 2010, REDD-Monitor received an email from Lynnette Rambarran, Secretary to the Commissioner, Guyana Forestry Commission. Rambarran wrote:

On behalf of the REDD Secretariat Guyana, I hereby submit an article to be posted on the main page of the REDD Monitor website…. If you are objective and credible, one would expect that you post the attached article, as is being requested, from the Minister of Agriculture with responsibility for Forestry, Hon. Robert M. Persaud. As Rambarran was using a yahoo.com email address, REDD-Monitor requested confirmation that the article was genuinely from the Minister of Agriculture. On 19 October 2010, Pradeepa Bholanath of the Guyana Forestry Commission sent the following email:

From: Pradeepa Bholanath project.coordinator@forestry.gov.gy
To: Lynette Rambarran lyn.rambarran@yahoo.com, Chris Lang reddmonitor@googlemail.com
Date: 19 October 2010 20:32
Subject: RE: Re: REDD Monitor Response

Dear Mr. Lang,

I would like to confirm that this is an official submission from the Minister of Agriculture, Guyana – Hon. Robert M. Persaud.

Regards
————————————————————————————
Pradeepa Bholanath
Head – Planning and Development Division
Guyana Forestry Commission
1 Water Street, Kingston, Georgetown, Guyana, South America
Tel: + (592) 226-7271/4, Fax: + (592) 226-8956
Email: project.coordinator@forestry.gov.gy
Website: www.forestry.gov.gy

In the meantime, Persaud also posted his reaction to the “REDD rubber hits the road” post as a series of comments on REDD-Monitor, starting here.
Persaud’s “official submission” is posted below in full:

From Honourable Minister of Agriculture with responsibility for Forestry, Mr. Robert M. Persaud:

On 13th October, Mr Chris Lang said: “Roger Waters clearly wasn’t thinking of the president of a small Latin American state ….. but [the words of his song] seem appropriate to President Bharrat Jagdeo’s political philosophy:….’Don’t give me all that goody-good bullshit’”.

He followed this up with a statement that said: “…it can’t get much worse. Breaching the MOU [between Guyana and Norway on REDD+], throwing safeguards out the window, funding projects that increase forest destruction, and allowing the Director of a logging company to verify that everything is above board [is] the wrong place to start”.

Fantastic headline-grabbing stuff, but as almost always with Mr. Lang, his statements are totally untrue. The caricature of capricious third world governments colluding with illegal loggers provides great cover for Mr. Lang and his fellow travelers to peddle right-wing prejudices.

His oft-repeated view, that no portion of payment for ecosystem services should flow to governments to invest in their citizens’ services, aligns him with economic neo-conservatives around the world. The United States Tea Party would certainly welcome him as a member. But he is entitled to his economic view-points.

What is unacceptable is his other dominant prejudice – that most people who enter public service in Africa, Asia and South America must be corrupt, stupid, inarticulate or some combination of all three. These regularly repeated viewpoints place Mr. Lang at a particularly rancid place on the spectrum of extremism. I have no illusions that Mr. Lang will shed himself of these prejudices. The internet is riddled with others of his ilk, and they tend not to be moved by facts or reasoned argument.

However, the access to information provided by the internet means that good people may read his reports. His writings – with “anonymous” briefings that bolster his prejudices – may make good people pessimistic that addressing deforestation at the same time as guaranteeing the rights of all the citizens of forest countries is possible. This is not fair.

The many, many decent activists on REDD+ around the world need to be optimistic if we are to play our part in stopping the loss of 150,000 lives from climate change every year. They need to have practical examples of peoples trying with deep sincerity to solve the many complex issues that REDD+ entails. And they deserve to know where they should go for fact-based information.

So, some facts:

- Mr Lang’s blog has repeatedly stated variations on the theme that Guyana will be paid by Norway even if Guyana increases its deforestation rate. Totally untrue.

- Mr. Lang repeatedly says that the Government of Guyana has thrown out safeguards. Totally untrue.

- Mr. Lang says that Norway and the World Bank are “caving into pressure from Jagdeo” concerning safeguards. Totally untrue.

- Mr. Lang says that GRIF money is being used to build the access road to the Amaila Falls Hydro-electricity access road. Totally untrue.

- Mr Lang’s blog states that Rainforest Alliance was awarded a contract for independent auditing “by means which are unclear”. Totally untrue

Let me take this occasion to comprehensively explain to readers why these statements are totally untrue. Let me also remind them that Mr. Lang is fully aware of, but chooses to ignore, the many Guyanese and Norwegian public sources that set out accurate information.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2010, 09:40:01 AM »

Part 2

1. The accusation that Guyana will be paid if it increases its deforestation rate.

This accusation has its genesis at an event hosted by Global Witness in London in November 2009. According to Mr. Lang, “during…President Jagdeo’s long, rambling answers…when asked whether Guyana will be allowed to increase deforestation, Jagdeo said…. ‘basically, yes’”

The first thing to point out is that the event was President Jagdeo’s idea, who asked Global Witness to set it up. It would be expected that genuine REDD+ activists would be delighted that the President of a forest country volunteered his time to talk openly and frankly with NGOs about the challenges in turning REDD+ into reality. If these events are used by spin-doctors masquerading as REDD+ activists, then it will not be very surprising if other global leaders refuse to subject themselves to similar open questioning.

This would be a tragedy: the REDD+ agenda badly needs transparent, open, informed conversation between governments who are accountable for REDD+ decisions and those who rightly seek to scrutinize them. But the second and arguably more important point is to address Mr. Lang’s assertion (repeated many times on his blog over months) that Guyana will be paid for increased deforestation. While a great sound-bite, Mr. Lang knows well that this is not the case.

As Mr. Lang is aware, the President’s answer was within the context of a broader discussion on the methodological approach to REDD+. He is also aware that the MOU between Guyana and Norway explicitly states “Norwegian support is also dependent on no national-level increase in deforestation over an agreed level that should be as close to historical levels as is reasonable.” See: http://www.lcds.gov.gy/guyana-norway-agreement.html

Mr. Lang is also aware that in the days after the event, press coverage was deliberately generated by the questioner at the event: Simon Counsell, of the Rainforest Foundation UK . Mr. Counsell briefed Reuters, the Guardian and the Times that Guyana would be paid for increased deforestation – and they all duly carried the story. This is despite Mr. Counsell having been briefed about the MOU days before it was announced, where he was aware of its clear statements that Guyana would not be paid for increased deforestation. At the time of his prior briefing, Mr. Counsell raised no concerns about the MOU.

As a consequence of the inaccurate, negative press coverage deliberately generated, the Governments of Guyana and Norway immediately issued a press release setting things out clearly, available for example at: www.regjeringen.no/guyana. Yet despite these repeated clarifications, all of which Mr. Lang is aware, he continues to repeat the untruth. I expect this will continue.

2. The accusation that Guyana has “thrown out safeguards”.

The Government of Guyana has been one of the most forward-leaning on the topic of safeguards within the UNFCCC and elsewhere. President Jagdeo in particular has repeatedly spoken publicly – at Poznan , Copenhagen , and elsewhere – about the need for safeguards.

Mr. Lang is aware of the many public statements that the Government has made on safeguards. To quote just one example, in the Minister of Finance’s July address to the National Assembly on the GRIF, he said: “We needed to ensure Guyanese sovereignty over LCDS decisions… At the same time, we wanted to create a global model for ensuring that climate finance adheres to internationally accepted financial, social and environmental safeguards…

The Government believes that the UNFCCC should establish the standards for safeguards, but this issue remains un-solved in UNFCCC negotiations. To develop a globally replicable model and therefore help to advance the negotiations, the Governments of Guyana and Norway will invite a series of internationally reputable institutions to act as GRIF partner entities– starting with the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank, Conservation International, the World Wildlife Fund, and all members of the United Nations family. Others will be determined over time. Pending the creation of a UNFCCC set of safeguards for climate finance, the internationally accepted safeguards of any one of these organizations will be deemed acceptable.”

3. The accusation that the World Bank is “washing its hands”

Again, this is pure fiction. As was made clear for many months, including in the July statement by the Minister of Finance quoted above, the Governments of Guyana and Norway have sought to find a practical way of promoting safeguards in the absence of UNFCCC guidance. The GRIF announcement of last week (see, for example, http://www.lcds.gov.gy/guyana-redd-investment-fund-grif.html) stated that the first three partner entities (whose safeguards will be recognized) are the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the members of the UN family.

I am aware that there are some commentators who say that the safeguards of one or other of these organizations are better than others. That is a legitimate point of view. However, the Governments of Guyana and Norway are satisfied that the quality of all of these organizations is of a sufficient level to feel comfortable that the appropriate standards will be met, pending guidance from the UNFCCC.

4. The accusation that GRIF money is being used to build the Amaila Falls access road

Mr. Lang needs to distinguish between the work to build the access road to the Amaila Falls hydro-electricity project site, and the construction of the plant itself. As has been said repeatedly, the former is not being funded from GRIF resources, while the latter is. However, despite not being funded from the GRIF, the Government is voluntarily working with the IDB to ensure that the access road is constructed to the necessary social and environmental standards.

When it comes to the major project, work continues with the IDB to look at the  hydro-electricity plant and related infrastructure, including a full review of the social and environmental impact assessments. As of today, there are still several months of work left. Once this work is completed satisfactorily, the Amaila Falls hydro-electricity plant will be the first investment to proceed with GRIF funds. Again, this has been stated publicly on many occasions, including two weeks ago, when the statement selectively quoted by Mr. Lang’s blog actually said: “Concurrently with access road construction, the IDB is completing their review of the revised Environmental & Social Impact Assessment Report (ESIA) which includes the Amaila hydropower facilities, the transmission line as well as the access road works. The ESIA was completed by Exponent & JGP, a consortium of American and Brazilian environmental and social experts on hydroelectric project development hired by Amaila Falls Hydro Inc. (AFHI)…”

5. Accusations of impropriety at Rainforest Alliance

Mr. Lang supports accusations about the Rainforest Alliance being awarded a contract to independently audit Guyana’s progress against a set of REDD+ indicators, based on an anonymous entry stating : “By means which are not clear, this independent auditor task has been handed to the New York-based ‘not for profit’, the Rainforest Alliance.”

I have noted that Rainforest Alliance has already responded, and I will not seek to speak for them. However, I would point out that Rainforest Alliance was selected by the Government of Norway through an open, international tender process carried out in accordance with Norwegian government regulations. The tender notice was carried on both Norwegian and Guyanese websites. For example, see: http://www.lcds.gov.gy/images/stories/Documents/Independent%20Verifiier%202010.pdf
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2010, 09:40:32 AM »

Part 3

Conclusion

The Government of Guyana has worked with all stakeholders in our society for two years to arrive at a point where we are ready to start investing in our Low Carbon Development Strategy.
http://www.lcds.gov.gy/images/stories/Documents/Low%20Carbon%20Development%20Strategy%20-%20May%202010.pdf

The strategy has gone through four iterations, each informed by broad-based, national stakeholder consultation (Mr. Lang’s anonymous contributors usually refer to the second draft, now over a year and a half out of date.). The initial consultation was overseen by an international NGO: the International Institute for Environment and Development.
http://www.lcds.gov.gy/images/stories/Documents/Review%20of%20Guyana%20LCDS%20Consultation%20Process.pdf

The strategy is overseen by a Multi-Stakeholder Steering Committee, which meets once a week. The steering committee is open to a broad representation of Guyanese civil society and its minutes are publicly available.
http://www.lcds.gov.gy/multi-stakeholder-steering-committee.html

The Government of Guyana fully supports the rights of indigenous peoples, including the right to free, prior and informed consent. Our indigenous peoples – who are 9% of our population – now own 14% of the national territory, up from 6% just over a decade ago. We will continue to support the titling of land for villages that request this, and expect that the amount of land owned by Amerindians will significantly increase in the years ahead.
http://www.lcds.gov.gy/images/stories/Documents/Low%20Carbon%20Development%20Strategy%20-%20May%202010.pdf

In the coming two years, the following investments will be funded from the GRIF, in a way that balances national sovereignty with adherence to international safeguards as outlined above. Again, quoting from the July statement by the Minister of Finance to the National Assembly:
“Now that the GRIF is being established, investments can be made in the priority LCDS investments for the period 2010 to 2015, as set out in Chapter 9 of the LCDS. I will quickly mention six key highlights for 2010 and 2011 here.

“Firstly, in 2010 and 2011, between US$40 million and US$60 million will be invested as equity in the Amaila Falls Hydropower project… The project will involve utilizing less than 0.001% of the State Forest area. The Government is firmly committed to ensuring that the project complies with both national and international social and environmental safeguards.

The second LCDS priority for 2010 and 2011 will be to accelerate the creation of new opportunities for Amerindians. It is aimed to complete the process of titling for all Amerindian villages that request this to be done by 2015. Over the same time, all titled villages will have the option to “opt in” to the forest payments mechanism at any time, in accordance with the principle of free, prior and informed consent. And, funds will be allocated to the Amerindian Development Fund to provide grants for low carbon energy and economic or social investments in Amerindian villages.

[Note: since the Minister’s statement, it has been decided through consultation that the first allocation to the Amerindian Development Fund will be devoted to distributing solar panels to all forest communities that request this to be done.]

The third LCDS priority will be to further the work to enable access to high quality ICT infrastructure in all parts of Guyana.

The fourth priority will be to support the creation of new low carbon opportunities for small and micro enterprise sectors and vulnerable groups, building on the Small Business Development Fund established under the Small Business Act of 2004.

The fifth priority will be to enable a suite of investments in the Education sector, including the creation of an International Centre for Bio-diversity Research and Low Carbon Development; enhancing the school curriculum to include low carbon development; and measures to improve ICT training for school children and prospective employees.

The sixth and final priority in 2010 and 2011 will be supporting the Office of Climate Change, the Low Carbon Project Management Office, the Environmental Protection Agency and the REDD Secretariat at the Guyana Forestry Commission. These agencies are all essential to the effective implementation of the LCDS”.

The above will form the basis for the use of GRIF funds in the coming years. All were identified during the consultation process, and the ongoing consultation will now shift to focus on the implementation of these priorities. As implementation proceeds, the Government will work with the partner entities to ensure the necessary safeguards standards.

Everything I have summarized above is available through public sources of information, accessible to Mr. Lang and his fellow travelers. I doubt that they will change their prejudices, and they will immediately seek to read conspiracy into what I have written. I do not intend to get into a tit-for-tat, as other’s experience with Mr. Lang demonstrates that this would be pointless.

But I have set out a comprehensive response in the hope that genuine REDD+ activists will recognize what we are trying to do in Guyana – to find a way that balances the rights of all, plots a path to a new green economy for Guyana, and in so-doing enables us to play our part in avoiding global climate catastrophe.

We recognize that we are the first to move on this, and that we will not get everything right. But I hope that those who read this will recognize that sustainable solutions for REDD+ can only come about if they are designed by peoples in the developing world.

However, as was shown in countless advocacy campaigns over decades, international activists also have an important part to play in this progressive agenda. I just ask that the many genuine international activists recognize the need for some humility and an acknowledgment that they do not have all the answers.

They need to work alongside the peoples of the developing world in a spirit of honest and open collaboration. They should leave the easy sound-bites and stereotypical attacks on developing countries – about corruption, stupidity, laziness, or worse – to those whose minds are closed by their own prejudices.

Instead, if we see each other as equal partners, and shed the nonsense that peoples in developing countries are somehow inferior, there is much we can achieve together.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2010, 09:42:51 AM »

Now for the best part of Dumbo Persaud letter to REDD Monitor

***********

6 comments to A response from Guyana’s Minister of Agriculture, Robert M. Persaud

Simon Counsell
October 20th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
The Minister claims that I was “briefed about the [Guyana-Norway] MOU days before it was announced” and was “aware of its clear statements that Guyana would not be paid for increased deforestation. At the time of his prior briefing, Mr. Counsell raised no concerns about the MOU.”

I have no idea what the Minister is referring to, and I was certainly not “briefed” before the event. (As far as I know, even my colleagues in the Rainforest Foundation Norway, which had been part of the Norwegian negotiating team that had visited Guyana in October 2009, were unaware of the final details of the MoU.)

Most importantly, though, when a question was raised about increased deforestation (not by myself, but by the Chair, Jo Andrews) at the November 2009 event hosted by Global Witness, to which the Minister refers, President Jagdeo himself confirmed that the agreement does indeed allow for increased deforestation:

See http://www.youtube.com/globalwitness#p/u/2/31m3Ey_ZrB8 – about 5?50?.

Jo Andrews: “But under this agreement, am I right in thinking that you get the right to increase deforestation?”

President Jagdeo: “Basically, yes…If we fall anywhere below 0.45%, we get compensated”

(By the time the President had made this acknowledgement, he had already noted in his response to a question from myself that the actual rate of deforestation is probably between 0.1% and 0.3% – see the video linked to above, from the beginning).

So is the Minister now stating that the President was wrong?

We all no doubt await with interest the work that is now being undertaken to provide a more accurate assessment of historical deforestation rates in Guyana.


Ian Bristow
October 20th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
This has been so interesting.

My wife is a member of Rainforest Foundation UK, and I take a keen interest in REDD, and we both have been disgusted about Guyana being paid by Norway for increasing deforestation. This was based on lots of statements in the press and elsewhere from Simon, and we noted the Minister’s reply on this with real interst.

Simon – you reject the Minister’s statement that you were briefed in advance. I would like to hear from Mr Persaud why he said that if it is not true.

But the more important question is: when you repeated the accusation in the press and elsewhere after you had seen the MOU, why did you do that? Even if you were not briefed in advance, surely you looked at the MOU once it became public. I have just looked and it seems to be very clear about the fact that Guyana will not be paid for increasing deforestation. So after you had read the MOU, why did you continue to say that Guyana will be paid for increased deforestation?

It is really important that we know why you said it after the event, because this will become a really important matter for other countries too. And if my wife’s membership of Rainforest Foundation UK is to mean anything, we need to trust the information you give us.

Thanks a lot – keep up the good work.


Simon Counsell
October 20th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
@Ian Bristow

As Minister Persaud rightly points out, the agreement states that “Norwegian support is also dependent on no national-level increase in deforestation *over an agreed level that should be as close to historical levels as is reasonable*” (my emphasis added). So it’s not that tbhere can be no increase per se, but no increase beyond what is determined as the historic baseline rate of deforestation.

That ‘historical level’ was, in the the first instance, set in the MoU at the somewhat arbitrary level of 0.45% – though no-one at all believes that the actual deforestation rate in Guyana is anything like as high as that, and the official FAO figures have reported zero deforestation for the last two decades. So, as President Jagdeo himself explains in some detail in the video for which I have provided the link above, there is the scope for Guyana to be compensated up to the artificially high deforestation baseline, which could exceed the *actual* rate of deforestation, i.e there could be a real increase in deforestation.

What remains to be seen is whether the promised new and hopefully more accurate ‘historical baseline’ which we are told by the Norwegian government is forthcoming this month, and which should be considerably lower than 0.45%, will then be used for future assessment of REDD payments to Guyana.


Anon
October 20th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
I follow REDD-Monitor and have not read statements from Mr. Lang which would lead me to think that he holds the broad sweeping prejudices stated by Mr. Persaud:

“What is unacceptable is his [Lang´s] other dominant prejudice – that most people who enter public service in Africa, Asia and South America must be corrupt, stupid, inarticulate or some combination of all three. These regularly repeated viewpoints place Mr. Lang at a particularly rancid place on the spectrum of extremism.”

Mr. Lang is relating facts and concerns about the misuse of REDD funds and in highlighting this there is a hope that indigenous and local peoples and rainforests can be better protected by the honest, transparent use of REDD+ money.

Corruption in Guyana is well documented, it has not been created in Lang´s imagination – from the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal:

“Corruption is perceived as widespread. Guyana ranks 126th out of 179 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2008. There is extensive corruption at every level of law enforcement and government.”

Reference: http://www.heritage.org/index/country/Guyana

However, in citing the Heritage Foundation it does not prove Mr. Persaud´s unfounded assertion that Chris Lang is aligned to “economic neo-conservatives around the world”, here are local Guyanese newspapers with example reports on the concerns of Guyanese people about corruption:

“According to an opinion poll conducted by NACTA, crime and corruption are the two main concerns of most voters that are likely to determine the outcome of May 24 elections.” From Kaieteur News April 20th 2010

Ref: http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/04/20/crime-corruption-main-concerns-of-trini-voters/

And an example of the serious concerns about the police: “Corruption and criminality inside the Guyana Police Force are becoming worse” March 25th 2010

Ref: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/guyana-review/03/25/public-safety-the-police-force%E2%80%99s-corruption-problem/

Further information: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/features/05/11/guyana%e2%80%99s-national-report-to-the-united-nations-serious-issues-of-public-policy/

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/guyana-review/05/31/human-rights/

Page 13 of a 2004 UN report on Guyana´s public administration: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan023199.pdf

Guyana is a country of exquisite natural beauty and has a wonderful mix of multi racial people, with a high level of literacy and talent. If REDD funds could be used transparently and without corruption, Guyanese society could fairly prosper, Mr. Lang along with many readers of REDD Monitor would welcome this.

Anon (because of relatives in Guyana)

Ian Bristow
October 20th, 2010 at 6:13 pm

OK, thanks for that, Simon. But it seems to be a lot more nuanced and thought-through than what you told us before, and in the press. I think it would be good if you were a bit less simplistic / sensationalist in future; we look to you for expertise not easy headlines. I have just read the MOU and won’t pretend I understand it all, but I can see why Mr Persaud is sensitive about people jumping to attack when that is unfair. Contrary to what I have thought in the past, it seems that we should give the Guyanan guys a chance to work through the difficult issues, and not take the easy road of running to the press with sensationalist headlines about “Guyana being paid to increase deforestation” when that is obviously not true. But maybe, my wife and I are guilty – it is the sensationalist headlines we respond to and they make us get out our credit cards to “help”. This has been very thought-provoking. Re: less sensationalism in the press, it is just a suggestion, I recognise I am not an expert. Ian.

Simon Counsell
October 20th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
@Ian Bristow

Well, none of us can be responsible for the way that the media tends to sensationalise events, thoguh I don’t think I am saying anything different now than I have been all along. (And one could equally question the somewhat exaggerated claims for the agreement that were made by both Norway and Guyana at the time.)

It should be noted though that, the Norway-Guyana agreement does not require any active DECREASING of forest carbon emissions (and President Jagdeo has repeatedly stated that neither of the two main sources of forest carbon emissions, ie gold mining and industrial logging, will be effected by the agreement), whereas, as reported elsewhere on REDD-Monitor, the Norwegian funding is supporting, amongst other things, a hydro-electric dam development which will inundate a substantial area of forest and in turn require an access road which will also cause the loss of forest (which commenced this week, and in turn could indirectly cause further forest clearance and degradation from farmers, loggers, miners etc using the road to access Guyana’s hinterland).

So there is a real prospect that the agreement will not only allow for increased deforestation, but will positively *encourage* it. Thus it is not obviously untrue that Guyana is being paid to increase deforestation: this eventuality is, unfortunately, looking increasingly likely – whatever view one might take on the merits or otherwise of hydro-electric power development.
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #22 on: October 20, 2010, 10:20:06 AM »

Three part harmony. It appears the PPP is seeing red.

Where's the cheque?
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2010, 08:56:35 AM »

I just check, Fagdeo and his dogs are NOT getting any check any time soon. More and more information are being made public on the shady handling of the entire LDCS Scam. The Guyanese Amerindians case have now taken a global stage.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2010, 09:02:38 AM »

Drugdeo has violated international treaties with regards to Indigenous peoples' terrorial land rights

**********

Forest Peoples Programme concerned about REDD safeguards in Guyana
REDD Monitor
By Chris Lang, 21st October 2010

PART 1

“Forest peoples’ voices are increasingly being heard, and attended to, in debates about the future of the forests,” writes Marcus Colchester, the Director of the Forest Peoples Programme in FPP’s October ENewsletter. He describes how the movement for the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples has made great progress in the past two decades.

However, in an article about REDD: “Unsafeguarded Norwegian money for REDD triggers controversy,” FPP notes that the Norwegian Government’s claims that it would respect indigenous peoples’ rights in its financing of REDD, “are beginning to seem increasingly hollow.” FPP is particularly concerned that Norway will be transferring money to Guyana via the World Bank, with no requirement that the Bank applies its safeguard policies:

The first test of its resolve has come in Guyana, where the Norwegians agreed to a creative way of passing US$250 million of this money through to Guyana via the World Bank but without requiring that the overall funding be assessed using the World Bank’s safeguard policies (see FPP July Enewsletter). No progress has been made resolving the Amerindians’ claims to their lands and forests, beyond the small titles granted for their villages and restricted farmlands which fail to embrace the territories to which they have rights under international treaties ratified by Guyana.

While the issue of Amerindian rights remains unresolved, the Guyanese government then announced that a large part of the Norwegian funds was going to be spent building a controversial dam deep in the forested interior at the Amaila Falls. Just how this will slow deforestation is anybody’s guess. Barely a day passes in Guyana without allegations being published in the local press of skulduggery in how this project was assessed and contracted. The company that secured the road-building contract has no experience with road construction and is now way behind schedule. The announcement about the launch of the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF), includes the following statement on safeguards:

Both Governments believe that the issue of safeguards must be resolved within the UNFCCC negotiations, but this issue is still being discussed as of today. To develop a globally relevant model and therefore help give insights that may advance the negotiations, the Governments of Guyana and Norway will invite internationally reputable institutions to act as GRIF partner entities, starting with the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank and specialized agencies of the UN that are members of the United Nations Development Group.

The safeguards of any one of these organizations, which are internationally accepted, will be used in the implementation of the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund. As on all other aspects of the agreement, adjustments will, if necessary, be made whenever agreement on a REDD+ mechanism is reached under the UNFCCC, to ensure conformity with that agreement. From this, it’s difficult to tell which safeguards will be applied and how. However, the GRIF Administration Agreement makes it clear that the Trustee, which is the International Development Association – the arm of the World Bank that gives loans to the world’s poorest countries, will not apply its safeguards:

The Trustee will have no fiduciary and safeguards responsibility in respect of the use of the funds, once transferred to the Partner Entity or for the activities described in the GRIF Verification Framework. The Trustee will have no liability for the use of the funds, once transferred to the Partner Entity. It is understood that the Association’s operational policies and procedures and corresponding accountability mechanism pertaining to projects, including those relating to environmental and social safeguards, will not apply to the activities of the Association as Trustee;

The money will be transferred from the Trustee to the Partners (the Inter-American Development Bank, the IDA and members of the United Nations Development Group). The partner organisations will be required to ensure “consistency with the Partner Entity’s fiduciary, safeguards, and operational policies and procedures.” So a series of different safeguards will be applied, depending on which partner organisation is involved.

Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2010, 09:02:52 AM »

CHECK AGAIN.



The ink is still drying.
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2010, 09:04:59 AM »

Chris Lang continues "Kicking ass and taking names". Laughing

Has he heard of the PPP phantoms. Laughing
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2010, 09:07:24 AM »

PART 2 of the above article

Guyana: indigenous peoples continue to be left out

In July 2010, FPP produced an article outlining its concerns that the World Bank’s safeguard on indigenous peoples will not be applied to Norway’s money in Guyana:

During May, the Norwegian Government announced that it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Guyana to contribute US$230 million towards the country’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). It only remained to be decided which financial agency would act as the intermediary with the fiduciary responsibility to make sure the monies were handed over with due care. Would this be the World Bank and what standards would the World Bank follow to supply this money?

This question was repeatedly asked of World Bank employees who advised that the World Bank would have to apply its ’safeguards’. These are the standards which Bank staff are obliged to follow to ensure that the Bank’s projects are not damaging, and are part of its normal ‘due diligence’.

The World Bank’s safeguard on indigenous peoples is quite strong, even if not perfect. Indeed, two previous World Bank projects, proposed for Guyana to develop the country’s protected area system, had to be shelved because the Government of Guyana was not prepared to revise its policy towards indigenous peoples to properly recognise their rights. So when, in early discussions, the World Bank staff made clear to the President of Guyana that if he wanted the Norwegian money to flow through the Bank then they would have to apply their ’safeguards’, the President was apparently displeased. There was an impasse.

The Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) wrote a detailed letter to the Norwegian Government pointing out that not only the World Bank, but also the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), had requested the Government of Guyana to change its laws and policies towards indigenous peoples so that they recognised their rights. The APA asked the Norwegian Government to insist on respect for their rights. The reply from the Norwegians was equivocal, spoke only in generalities and avoided direct reference to the legal issues raised.

By early June, the reasons for this reticence had become plain. The Guyana Government was insisting that the World Bank should adopt ‘creative instruments’ for passing through the Norwegian climate funds, which would allow it to avoid applying the Bank’s ’safeguards’ to all its projects. According to the Guyanese press (June 2010), the Norwegian Government had agreed to this ‘creative’ approach, which would suggest that it may be keener to move money than to guarantee rights. Under the new arrangement the World Bank will pass on the Norwegian monies to Guyana once it has reached ‘certain benchmark applications’. The monies will then be released to other ‘partner entities’ once they submit project proposals related to the country’s Low Carbon Development Strategy, but they will then only have to apply the specific safeguards required for that project by the delivery agency.

Just how badly the indigenous peoples of Guyana are being left out became clear in a new report just issued by the Amerindian Peoples Association (Our Land, Our Future). Reviewing the past decade of Amerindian participation in policies and projects on their lands, the report details the rapid expansion of mining in Guyana as mineral prices have soared on global markets. Small- and medium-scale gold mining have intensified and new technologies have expanded operations into new areas. Exploration permits for other minerals, including for uranium, now cover about two-thirds of the country, while new prospects to develop bauxite, with associated hydropower and smelting plants, pose major threats both near the mouth of the Essequibo River and in the heart of the Pakaraima Mountains.

Whereas the impacts of mining on the Amerindians are very severe, the study found no evidence that the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) has been serious about curbing damage. Social and environmental impacts include forest loss, polluted waterways, mercury contamination, criminality, drug abuse, and sexual exploitation and abuse of very young Amerindian girls. Amerindians themselves are also heavily engaged in mining with serious consequences for health, nutrition and their own cultures. Cases from Regions 1, 7 and 9 focused on in the study reveal that, even where efforts are made to help communities raise their concerns with the Government and companies, these agencies ignore community voices. In one case the GGMC has even defied a court ruling calling for mining to be halted on a community’s traditional land. Permits are being granted to miners without due consultation with communities, and their right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is being ignored.

The current disagreements between the Amerindians and the Government of Guyana over its natural resource management plans are only likely to be resolved if legal and policy adjustments are adopted which recognise the Amerindians’ rights in line with Guyana’s obligations under international law. New initiatives are also needed to control mining, mitigate social and environmental impacts and ensure that Amerindians participate in plans for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in fair and transparent ways that respect Amerindian rights to their territories and to give or withhold their free prior and informed consent to measures that will affect them.
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2010, 09:18:24 AM »

How dare Chris Lang challenge the CHAMPION?
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2010, 10:00:09 AM »

Because she has got the GUTS that the Guyanese people lack. Let Fagdeo trying cussing her out like a fishmonger. I understand that she already got the lowdown on his gutter runnings in the habit of buzing out people who call him out  when he embark on his madman rantings
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2010, 12:46:18 PM »

Chris is a woman? OMG ... Varshnie mussee send she. Laughing
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2010, 01:21:39 PM »

sorry my bad Chris is a he.... Laughing Laughing. Its just that sometimes he has a female co-author with whom I mix up the two.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #32 on: October 28, 2010, 04:00:41 PM »

Vidal has taken a swipe at Drugdeo

**********

Massive corruption undermines forest protection plan
John Vidal Wednesday 27 October 2010 13.11 BST
www.guardian.co.uk

Tropical forestry is dominated by big companies close to some of the most corrupt governments on earth, who treat people like dirt after promising them "development" in return for cutting the trees down. Now they are being joined by a new breed of entrepreneur, ranging from carbon cowboys, bogus lawyers and even environment groups all offering riches to people who leave the trees standing.

The lure is the potential billion of dollars to be made from buying and selling the carbon rights to forests. If you hold the rights and can prove that "your" forest is in danger, you can - after you've been through qualifying hoops - sell the carbon not released to rich consumers or companies who cannot offset their own emissions. So far, this nascent carbon capitalism has all been in the voluntary carbon market and is worth a few billion dollars a year to companies and individuals; but if the UN comes up with a global climate change plan in Cancun, Mexico, next month the floodgates will open and over a few years there could be $35bn a year flooding into forestry protection from country to country.

The great green hope is the UN's Redd (Reduced emissions form deforestation and degradation) programme, which is fine in theory but proving a legal nightmare in practice. Redd hasn't even started yet but already we are seeing massive fraud, bribery, backdoor deals, and corruption from Asia to Africa and all points between. Developing countries are hungry for new forestry funds; rich countries want a deal because it will allow them to carry on polluting as before; environment groups can see a way to broker conservation and protect the forests; politicians see influence. Win, win, win?

Perhaps but you can see the legal problems a mile away. A minute Australian company working from what appears to be a shopping mall in an Australian suburb claims to have grabbed the carbon rights to the entire Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC); a three-man Kenyan company reckons it can earn $10m a year from the rights to a stretch of Cameroonian forest; the family of Papua New Guinea's prime minister has been accused of pressuring remote villagers to sign away their land, one of the lead negotiators for Indonesia's climate delegation, and the architect of its Redd programme, has been named as a corruption suspect by the country's anti-corruption agency. The list goes on.

Everyone agrees with Interpol that the potential for criminality with Redd is vast, ranging across ownership of the rights, who collects the money, how it is distributed; how the forests and the money are monitored and how the carbon in them is assessed. Meanwhile, the big companies are confident they can continue logging as normal.  The warnings have come thick and fast in the last few weeks:

Liberian president Ellen Sirleaf Johnson has began extradition proceedings against a British businessman, for allegedly negotiating a closed-doors deal with a group of corrupt Liberian officials to purchase one-fifth of Liberia's rainforest; Greenpeace has declared that Papua New Guinea is not ready to implement Redd and Global Witness has warned that the whole scheme will be undermined by corruption.

There's a common perception among development groups that forestry is best left to environment groups, and need not be tackled by people involved in poverty reduction. The danger here is that a badly thought through Redd deal is shovelled through by eager countries in Cancun and leads not to untold wealth and resource protection, but to more poverty and more corruption. Its effect on development prospects then would be enormous and tragic.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #33 on: December 01, 2010, 10:12:39 AM »

what did I said before about the FRAUD/SCAM of KcKinsey?


http://www.redd-monitor.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/McRedd-English.pdf
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2010, 10:14:42 AM »

what how Drugdeo and Roberto Dumbo Persaud will go ballistic after The Rainforest Foundatin UK for exposing them.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2010, 10:18:21 AM »

One of the extract ~~ Whilst there are valid arguments about how to ensure that global schemes to reduce deforestation are designed to include as many countries as possible, especially the so-called ‘High Forest Cover, Low Deforestation’ countries, the use of inflated baselines in the McKinsey cost-curves raises a serious ‘moral hazard’ for tropical countries. The first McKinsey report for Guyana presented a deforestation scenario of 4.3% per year – which would result in near total destruction of Guyana’s rainforest in 25 years – and is wildly inflated from the actual rate of deforestation, which is estimated to be between 0.1% and 0.3% per year.

Source: Office of the President, Republic of Guyana. (2008.) “Creating Incentives to Avoid Deforestation.” December 2008, p. 11.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2010, 10:54:48 AM »

Excerpt #2 ~~ The McKinsey scenario suggests that Guyana could earn approximately $580 million per year by cutting its forest and replacing it with high value agriculture at this inflated pace.  Although this is implausible due to poor soil quality, the President of Guyana repeated this figure in international meetings as the level of funding Guyana would need to prevent deforestation.

This, however, is based on an unrealistic, projected baseline and has very little relation to how much effective forest protection would cost in Guyana. Furthermore, there is a danger that these high-deforestation scenarios could become self-fulfilling prophecies and encourage tropical governments to pursue destructive practices in order to increase their expected compensation.

Sources:
1) Office of the President, Republic of Guyana. (2008.), p. 16

2) Jagdeo, Bharrat. (2009.) “Synopsis of the address made by President of Guyana at the opening ceremony of the 3rd Regional Meeting of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly”, 25th February, Guyana. Available at: www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/acp/03_regional/pdf/jagdeo_en.pdf

Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #37 on: December 01, 2010, 10:57:17 AM »

hence the Norwegians woke up and are doing their own costing and I am 100% certain that they will NEVER in a million year come up close to the US$580 million that Fagdeo instructed the authors of McKinsey report to use in the final LCDS scam.
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #38 on: December 01, 2010, 02:45:15 PM »

Where's the funds to date?
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #39 on: December 01, 2010, 02:53:33 PM »

at least not in Fagdeo bank account, that's why he is fuming from all his orifices.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2011, 10:26:38 AM »

Big Money, Big Questions for REDD+ Deforestation Aid
Andrew Millar | World Green | May 16, 2011

On May 27th, 2010, the Oslo Climate and Forest Conference concluded with Germany, France, Norway, the US, Britain, Australia and Japan pledging $4 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing countries. Around fifty countries participated in the conference to establish a REDD+ partnership (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), an interim platform for the countries to pool resources to help developing countries.

“Measures to reduce deforestation are the quickest and least expensive way of achieving large emission cuts,” said Norwegian Prime Minister Stoltenberg at the conference. “Forests are worth more dead than alive,” he lamented.  “Today we commit to change that equation.”

REDD+ has supported and contributed to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and has promoted financial transparency in the new and existing international initiatives to reduce deforestation and degradation of tropical forests.  Of the many intended recipients of the money pledged at the Oslo conference, Guyana has received a majority of the attention.  Guyana has released two reports in hopes of satisfying “REDD+ enablers,” or criteria used to ensure the sound use of REDD+ resources.  Norway, the government spearheading the aid to Guyana, contracted US non-profit Rainforest Alliance to verify the accuracy of Guyana’s reports.

In October 2010, Guyana’s Office of Climate Change released a report of its compliance with REDD+ enablers.  In response, John Palmer, independent consultant to the UK government’s global forest research and planning, released an evaluation of Guyana’s self-assessment.  In his response, Palmer takes issue with many of Guyana’s claims, most notable among them being the plan’s Financial Mechanism, the Continuous Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Process, and the Monitoring, Reporting and Verification measures.

Regarding the financial mechanism outlined by the report, Palmer states that both “The high level and high volume of allegations of corruption and financial malpractice in Guyana” are a warning sign to Norway and the other countries that donate. “The President’s opposition to the application of well-established World Bank safeguards and due diligence,” indicate a pattern of noncompliance with international standards.  Palmer also claims that the multi-stakeholder consultation process is bogged down with overlapping committees on climate change, all of which are dominated by the same small group of government agencies.  As a result, he states, this process suffers from partisan interests. And Palmer raises an eyebrow at the refusal of the Guyana Forestry Committee and the President to justify the need for such extensive effort and financial support.  He cites the government’s lack of prosecution for numerous alleged forest offences like illegal logging.

Palmer is not the only one with concerns about how REDD+ money will be handled.  Janette Bulkan, one the most respected voices in the environmental and forest preservation sphere, has been declared an enemy of the state by Guyana’s government for her similar critique of the October 2010 report. In March of 2011, an open letter signed by prominent leaders of the UK was sent to Norway’s current Minister of the Environment and International Development Erik Solheim asking him to reconsider their support.

In the end, Rainforest Alliance found similar concerns. Their report mirrored the critiques of Palmer and Bulkan, stating that Guyana’s reports still leave numerous questions unanswered.  Many of Rainforest Alliance’s categorical evaluations end with statements to the effect of “too little evidence exists to verify that Guyana’s program meets REDD+ standards.”

Since the REDD+ agreement was made in 2009, Guyana’s rate of deforestation has increased threefold.  Money alone, it seems, cannot cure environmental issues.  At the very least, this means delays in the pursuit of reversing deforestation, and a lag in our world’s attempts to curb greenhouse gasses.  At most, it could mean wasted money, effort and time without results in the fight against a growing global problem.

http://www.worldgreen.org/home/wg-feature-articles/6922-big-money-big-questions-for-redd-deforestation-aid.html
Logged
Nuff
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28,957



« Reply #41 on: May 16, 2011, 11:08:51 AM »

[bg] In his response, Palmer takes issue with many of Guyana’s claims, most notable among them being the plan’s Financial Mechanism, the Continuous Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Process, and the Monitoring, Reporting and Verification measures[/b]

In other words Palmer saw Guyana was cooking the books!
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2011, 04:05:09 PM »

BREAKING NEWS: Another fraud exposed by Norway and McKinsey. The company has now been criticised for high billings to REDD project. I have a feeling it was Guyana (will try to get more information from one of my contacts next week).

It don't look like Guyana will get a penny from Norway anything soon!


************

Norway paid McKinsey USD 3 million to give input on rainforest initiative

This week, the global management consultancy firm McKinsey&Co has received extensive coverage in the Norwegian business daily Dagens Næringsliv. First, there was a story on the partners in McKinsey's Oslo branch -  facing an additional tax bill amounting to USD 23 million. One of the partners facing the increased tax bill is Mr Svein Harald Øygard. He was State Secretary in the Ministry of Finance in the 1990s. A former prominent Labour Party politician, he has strong ties to PM Stoltenberg.

The second story on McKinsey reported that the consultancy firm signed a contract with the Norwegian Ministry of Environment on May 7 2009, only weeks after Norway had been tasked with the responsibility of heading a working group mandated to prepare a comprehensive report on rainforests. This report was to be presented at COP15 in December 2009. Norwegian officials wanted assistance in preparing the report.

"The chosen company handed in a tender which showed a clear and immediate understanding of the task", commented the Ministry of Environment. In their tender, McKinsey made clear that nine professionals would work on the assignment. In less than five months, the firm had billed the Ministry of Environment for more than USD 3 million.

"The government's climate and rainforest initiative had a pressing need for analytical support. The ministry and the initiative was not scaled up for this and needed external support", commented the Ministry of Environment. When approached by the newspaper, McKinsey&Co's spokesperson refrained from responding to inquiries about this assignment, and stated only "as in line with the firm's values we have for a long time had a policy of not discussing our clients or details of our assignments".

In another article, the Norwegian Pension Fund is being criticised for investing in companies logging the rainforests and involved in unsustainable palm oil production. The Norwegian state owned fund has invested more than USD 700 million companies with activities negatively affecting rainforests.

"Through the petroleum fund (the Norwegian Pension Fund Foreign Investments), Norway is one of the biggest investors in the palm oil sector. We are concerned that the fund is not taking into consideration the environmental aspects of its investments", says Mr Rasmus Hansson, head of WWF Norway.
Logged
BK
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,953



« Reply #43 on: September 13, 2013, 11:17:40 AM »

BREAKING NEWS: McKinsey exposed once again. Fagdeo got some much shit in his face that he is forced to sit on his throne permanently.  This is why the Dumbo Persaud adopted a FAKE EMBA

**************
Mass Layoffs & Growing Income Gap Are Part of McKinsey Legacy: Duff McDonald
By Bernice Napach | Daily Ticker – Thu, Sep 12, 2013 8:34 AM EDT

It’s one of the most revered consulting firms but “almost nothing is known about it,” writes Duff McDonald, author of “The Firm: The Story of McKinsey and Its Secret Influence on American Business.” McDonald spoke with The Daily Ticker about his new book and the mixed history of the renowned global consulting firm. Among his findings:

1. “McKinsey may be the greatest legitimizer of mass layoffs in history.” McDonald says, “McKinsey is on the vanguard of rationalizing and making companies more efficient [and] one way of doing that is layoffs,” but ultimately corporate executives, not McKinsey consultants, make the decision to cut jobs.

2. McKinsey is a key contributor to the growing gap between CEO pay and average worker pay. It started in the early 1950s when McKinsey consultant Arch Patton studied executive compensation at 37 major companies and found, surprisingly, that worker pay was rising faster than executive pay.  “That study obviously caught the attention of every CEO in the country, who suddenly wanted it,” says McDonald. And so began the widening gap between executive pay and worker pay which has swelled to over 350 to one.

3. The consulting firm is largely responsible for the rise of the MBA. “McKinsey was one of the first firms to start hiring MBAs, and put them on real work as opposed to hiring experienced people to consult with clients,” says McDonald. The company especially favored Harvard MBAs and at one point 75% of its consultants had one.

But not every McKinsey consultant—including its Harvard MBA consultants—turn out to be good corporate citizens. Take Jeff Skilling, a Harvard MBA and star consultant at McKinsey in the 1980s who worked on the firm’s Enron account, eventually joining its board, then becoming president of the company. He helped transform Enron from a gas pipeline operator into a financial powerhouse, but it eventually collapsed from excessive debt and fraudulent accounting. It was the largest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history at the time and Skilling was convicted of securities fraud and insider trading and sentenced to 24 years in jail (recently reduced to 14). And McKinsey was in “all the major financial institutions” before the financial crisis hit using its traditional risk models looking at the past to forecast the future, says McDonald. And we all know how that turned out.

As for the firm’s future, McDonald says McKinsey has the ability to evolve and has -- moving from the corner office to operations, risk management and now, the supply chain. Their biggest challenge, says McDonald, “is maintaining quality and keeping the company from spinning apart…Eighty-five percent of their business is repeat clients. If they keep doing what they’re doing they should stick around for a long time.”
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 :: SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.205 seconds with 19 queries.