Reducing ambition in turbulent times
Last week Minister of State Joseph Harmon announced that the government will no longer be proceeding with the construction of the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project (AFHP). According to him, the project is too technically and financially challenging and the government does not have the resources to fund it themselves or to acquire an investor. Instead, it will now focus on ‘an energy mix with natural gas as a prime component’ to provide electricity. The devastation this hurricane season has brought to the region reinforces the point that there should be limits to the notion of national sovereignty when it comes to environmental policy and thus the Minister’s announcement appears to me an important development.
When it was in opposition, APNU+AFC expressed many concerns about the process and cost associated with the AFHP, and when it took office in 2015, its skepticism became oppositionist. The Guyana/Norway forest partnership agreement had allocated US$80 million to support the project and this was an important element in Guyana’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), which was later endorsed as a part of the global climate agreement reached at the UN Conference of the Parties held in Paris in December 2015. To help the partners determine the way forward Norconsult, a Norwegian consulting firm, was contracted to make an ‘objective and facts-based’ assessment of the AFHP.
Specifically, in its INDC, the government committed itself to eliminating at least 92% of Guyana’s energyrelated greenhouse gas emissions by switching from its near total dependence on fossil fuel based electricity generation to about 100% reliance on clean renewable energy of which the AFHP was the central feature. The consultants reported that the only realistic path for Guyana to arrive at an emission-free electricity sector in keeping with its commitments is for it to develop its hydropower potential and that Amaila is its best option. Notwithstanding this recommendation, as soon as the report was published, the administration began to throw cold water on the project.
The government wanted the US$80 million to be reallocated and given its international commitments as soon as its opposition became obvious I stated that ‘for the government of Guyana to stymie the project as it appears to want to do, it will have to devise another approach that will be as, if not more, effective, certain and timely. It is very likely that the US$80 million, which by agreement Guyana and Norway tied to the Amaila project, was conceived with this kind of scenario in mind’(Litigating Amaila (SN: 11/01/2017). Subsequently, on more than one occasion, the Director of the Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative, Special Envoy Mr. Fredrik Pharo, when asked about the release of the US$80 million, which is at present in the possession of the IDB, has made similar points. ‘This is not about any particular project, but about a realistic and politically anchored plan to deliver on the Government’s own stated ambition.’ Thus ‘the government of Norway awaits a “concrete, realistic and cost effective transition” plan in line with Guyana’s Intended National Determined Contributions (INDC) and the spirit of the partnership’ (SN:05/04/2017).
The Caribbean has recently been battered by some of the worst hurricanes the region has ever witnessed. Billions of dollars and many lives have been lost to these weather formations, the unusual force of which is attributable to climate change caused by human activities. The Caribbean knows well the dangers of climate change and so has ‘vigorously encouraged the international community to reach an agreement at COP21 to keep global warming below 2 degrees C. This is a crucial goal for Caribbean island nations that are particularly vulnerable to climate change.’ Speaking at that pre– Paris meeting of Caribbean leaders in Martinique on 9 May 2015, Dominica’s Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit asserted that climate change was having a huge impact on his country’s eco-system and agriculture … and that ‘if action is not taken by the international community to halt greenhouse gas emissions we’re going to have a serious challenge.’ Little could he have known that just over two years later, hurricane Maria would have flattened his country, leaving even him without shelter!
According to Carbon Action Tracker, the unconditional pledges made by countries immediately before the Paris climate conference would limit warming to about 2.8°C to 3.1°C above pre-industrial levels. ‘There remains a substantial gap between what governments have promised to do and the actions they have undertaken to date. Furthermore, both the current policy and pledge trajectories lie well above emissions pathways consistent with the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal.’ These are turbulent times and the Caribbean community should become more focused and aggressive in demanding climate justice; e.g. an equitable global increase in ambition and fair compensation from those historically responsible for the current condition. It is certainly not the time for any partner, particularly any in the Caribbean, to be lowering its ambition and the Guyana Government’s intention to now use natural gas suggests just that.
Natural gas is fossil fuel best utilised in transition to clean renewable energy; not the other way round. It is mainly composed of methane, which is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years, and whether it has lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on how much methane is leaked during production and transportation. ‘One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer’ (Union of Concerned Scientists website).
Small countries that depend upon a rule-based international system to survive sensibly, should show deep respect for international law. However, Guyana remains the third poorest country in the Western hemisphere and once it is made patent that it is the absence of adequate resources and not political competition that is preventing it from pursuing a more compliant course, then other amenable options must be considered.
Therefore, rather than taking what appears to be a unilateral decision to utilise natural gas: possibly lowering its climate commitments and creating or supporting a dangerous precedent, Guyana should seek to take its agreement with Norway to another level and co-operatively find additional financing to keep it on its more progressive course. Late last year, the developed countries provided a roadmap of how they will raise the $100 billion per annum they promised at Paris to help developing countries build low carbon and climate resilient economies. In partnership with Norway and a Caribbean that will also now be looking for climate funding, leverages at various points in the international system should be utilised to try to improve our climate ambitions in these turbulent times.