Dear Editor,
Please permit me to make a few comments about the debate about our forest/carbon credits that is raging in the op-ed sections of the Guyanese press. I am not a tree hugging environmentalist; I believe in the responsible development of our resources. I have read Dr. Janette Bulkan’s Stabroek New letter of 3 July 2023 and Dr. Joel Bhagwandin’s response of 4 July 2023.
At the risk of stating the obvious: Dr. Bulkan asserted that the 01 December 2022 sale of carbon credits and 2.299 hectares of forest lands were void from its inception because it was not approved as required by certain sections of Amerindian Act. In response, Dr. Bhagwandin contended that Dr. Bulkan failed to demonstrate “how the Amerindian Act was breached” and merely citing relevant sections was not a legally sufficient argument.
I am led to believe that Dr. Bhagwandin is an economist; his letter sounds learned because he mentions “the marketplace” and “monetise.” While, debatable, Dr. Bulkan’s argument may be legally insufficient. On the other hand, Dr. Bhagwandin’s is downright specious!
He did exactly the thing he accused Dr. Bulkan of doing-that is citing statute without any rigorous legal analysis. In fact, he did worse; he cited statute that directly contradicted his argument. He argument belies a total ignorance of property rights. He fallaciously concluded the sale of carbon credits “does not translate into a transfer of ownership or rights of the natural resource to another party.”
The sale of carbon credits affects the strategic direction of Amerindian villages and impacts development. By way of an example, an Amerindian village discovers it is sitting on a huge deposit of gold, bauxite, diamond, uranium or lithium. And mining requires clearing the overburden which will result in the destruction huge tracts of the forest. The sale of the carbon credits covering that section of forest will prevent them from cutting down the trees to get to the resource. That in essence, is a transfer of a property rights-the village’s right to cut the trees for their benefits.
While the learned economist waxes lyrically about monetisation and the marketplace; he fails to explain the fundamentals. Monetisation is essentially a sale of tangible assets [the greenheart or purple heart] or an intangible [the right to cut the greenheart or purple heart trees]. My understanding is that the sale of carbon credits is a sale of the intangible right to cut the trees down. Maybe the goodly Dr. Bhagwandin can explain to us: What is a carbon credit? What is the pricing mechanism covering 2.299 million hectares of pristine tropical forest? And where is this marketplace for carbon credits?
The sale of carbon credits is the biggest con job the developed countries have perpetrated on the Third World. For mere pittance they have locked up the forests of places like Guyana. Environmentalism is the new gospel. As Desmond Tutu observed when our eyes are opened, we would have lost the land.
Yours truly,
Roger Ally
