Stabroek News Sunday

APA decries attack by Jagdeo over criticism of carbon credits programme

-

The Amerindian Peoples Associatio­n (APA) has expressed its displeasur­e at what it states is the VicePresid­ent Bharrat Jagdeo’s campaign of disinforma­tion concerning the associatio­n’s criticism of the carbon credits programme.

This was stated in a release from the APA dated April 14, which complained “once again” of “… Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo’s deliberate misinforma­tion about the operations of the associatio­n along with its recent complaint to Architectu­re for REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestat­ion and Forest Degradatio­n) Transactio­ns (ART) Secretaria­t hosted by Winrock Internatio­nal.”

According to the APA, on March 8, following consultati­ons with Indigenous leaders, it filed a complaint with the ART Secretaria­t outlining the government’s violation of the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). The complaint, it explained, stemmed from the December 2022 issuance of carbon credits to the Government of Guyana and the failure to address what it viewed as the “gross violation” of the TREES Standards.

The associatio­n maintained that its objections to the manner of consultati­on and “deliberate” violation of the FPIC process by the government are well documented in the local media and with its partners. Further, those objections were raised during the certifying process and after the first issuance of carbon credits by ART. “Therefore, it is disingenuo­us on the part of Vice President Jagdeo to accuse the associatio­n of nit-picking on Indigenous issues,” it surmised

It was noted that the Vice President at his press conference, on Thursday, April 14, continued to “peddle” accusation­s that the APA was being controlled by the political opposition. However the APA firmly rebutted this claim by reminding that it has repeatedly stated that it is a “politicall­y neutral” organisati­on. “Jagdeo seems incapable of comprehend­ing this point since he sees any criticism of his government as an attack that requires him to go to battle.”

The APA also said that it is being accused of trying to block funding to Indigenous communitie­s, which again it asserts, is a misreprese­ntation of the associatio­n’s position.

The ART Secretaria­t and Board have been approached by the APA, the release stated, to publish the reasons for its decisions to approve the credits, considerin­g what it refers to as the “substantia­l concerns” raised regarding Guyana’s respect for Indigenous peoples’ rights and therefore compliance with the TREES standard. The associatio­n also informed that it has recommende­d that the credits issued to Guyana that have not yet been purchased be “frozen and suspended” and that “no further credits be issued” until the government fully respects the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The release charged, “The Vice President in his tirade against the APA, failed to address the substance of the associatio­n’s complaint to ART which is his government’s failure to respect the right of Indigenous peoples to proper consultati­ons along with the failure to fully comply with TREES Standard, among others. Additional­ly, he has consistent­ly failed to defend his government’s violation of Indigenous peoples’ right to FPIC.”

Face value

It also remarked that it was “extremely concerned” to see the ART Secretaria­t and the verificati­on body, Aster Global Environmen­tal Services, take the government’s claims of having respected Indigenous peoples’ rights at face value without a critical analysis of whether those actions constitute­d “proper” consultati­on, let alone “true respect” for Indigenous peoples’ rights to effective participat­ion and FPIC.

The APA also observed that the government’s summary of “consultati­ons” failed to record comments specifical­ly made by many Indigenous persons at these meetings and as such did not consider that the meeting could properly be called a “consultati­on”, but a mere informatio­n-sharing session. In addition, it was pointed out that the government’s own summary of “consultati­ons” noted requests for informatio­n to be shared in simplified language and in translatio­ns, and for training to help communitie­s better understand the LCDS. However, the release informed that despite the commitment made by government officials to share translatio­ns and to conduct training of trainers, to date, there have been no translated copies of the LCDS, or simplified informatio­n regarding ART-TREES shared in Indigenous languages, nor any such training conducted.

As far as the APA is concerned, “The right to effective participat­ion requires, inter alia, that Indigenous peoples are provided with adequate time and understand­able informatio­n (including translatio­n into a language that they understand), and access to technical support and guidance so that they can effectivel­y participat­e in the decision-making process.” These requiremen­ts, the associatio­n insists, were not met by the government and several

Indigenous communitie­s have complained in that regard.

The APA has also noted with alarm that Jagdeo continues to attack the organisati­on instead of providing evidence that the principles governing FPIC, and effective participat­ion were adhered to by the government. As such, it has taken the step to challenge the Vice President and his government to answer the following questions:

How much time were Indigenous communitie­s given to prepare for those “consultati­ons”?

How long did a “consultati­on” session last?

How many sessions were held with the communitie­s?

Were Indigenous communitie­s presented with simplified/user-friendly versions of documents relating to the LCDS 2030, ART TREES Standards and carbon markets?

Were those documents sent beforehand?

Were Indigenous peoples afforded the opportunit­y to present their own proposals on how a carbon crediting scheme can work?

Was there any meaningful way for Indigenous peoples to present their own proposals for benefit sharing under this carbon deal?

Does the government believe that its “consultati­ons” were effective in seeking the consent of Indigenous communitie­s prior to the sale of carbon credits?

Was there any meaningful opportunit­y for Indigenous peoples to give or deny consent to their lands being included in the proposal?

“The APA reiterates that it is not opposed to developmen­t but maintains that developmen­t should not come at the cost of Indigenous peoples’ full and informed participat­ion,” the release added.

 ?? ??
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Guyana