SYNOPSIS
OF FEATURE ADDRESS MADE BY HIS EXCELLENCY BHARRAT
JAGDEO, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA AT THE OPENING
CEREMONY OF THE THIRD REGIONAL MEETING OF THE ACP-EU JOINT
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY (CARIBBEAN), ON FEBRUARY 25, 2009,
AT THE GUYANA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTRE.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
His Excellency President Bharrat Jagdeo welcomed the delegates to
Guyana and underscored the delight of his Government and people to be
hosting such an important meeting. President Jagdeo:
Recognised the fact that the Meeting provided a rare opportunity for
meaningful interaction among Parliamentarians from a diverse group of
countries.
Thanked the Parliamentarians for their support over the years in the
region’s quest for a better relationship with the European Union.
Noted that the productive interaction that takes place at the level of the
Joint Parliamentary Assembly is exemplary in terms of achieving the
kind of cooperation that is desired between the ACP and the EU. 2
Said that Guyana and the other ACP States are particularly mindful of
the remarkable advocacy on their behalf by Co-President of the ACP-
EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, Mrs Glenys Kinnock, even at times
when other European bodies may not be sympathetic to the ACP
cause.
ISSUES OF CONCERN TO THE REGION:
In his address, President Jagdeo raised issues pertaining to the Global
Financial meltdown, climate change, human trafficking in persons, money laundering, and narcotics trafficking, among other problems affecting
Caribbean countries.
The President mentioned some challenges that had a disproportionate impact on small economies, such as Guyana, and other parts of the Caribbean highlighting crime, the energy crisis, food prices, reciprocity and trade, the cost of borrowing and deferred investments.
In the current international financial meltdown, the cost of borrowing is so high that it is already adversely impacting the Caribbean region. He also stated that Caribbean countries are very vulnerable to natural disasters, and a disaster like a hurricane can destroy an entire economy; these natural 3 disasters generally induce long-term disruptions because of the region’s limited financial and technical coping mechanisms.
The many problems facing the region are magnified because of the
size of the region and the concomitant limited financial and technical
resources.
Issues such as crime, the energy crisis, food prices, reciprocity in
trade, cost of borrowing, and deferred investment all have a
disproportionate impact on small economies. For example, consider
the case where a developed country like the USA spends about five
percent of its GDP on the importation of fuel while developing countries
like Guyana spend between 25-40 percent of their GDP on importing
fuel for energy consumption.
Apart from being vulnerable to natural disasters, these economies are
also affected by structural problems, narrow economic bases, the
burden of debt, large fiscal deficits and being dependent on a single
sector for an income. In addition, these economies are very open and
are therefore exposed to the volatility of the market.
The region does not have the capability to diversify its economies and
even if we did, we are challenged by others from outside the region
that can do it much better, cheaper and more efficiently. The region
also lacks the institutional capacity to diversify. 4
The creation of wealth and new institutions takes time and these
factors too affect the success rate of diversification.
Real development cooperation will only be evident when there is
greater understanding on the part of the developed countries of the
challenges and peculiarities facing the ACP, and Caribbean countries
in particular. That greater understanding must include an appreciation
of the fact that developing countries must be able to address problems
based on peculiarity of these small states, rather than act merely in
accordance with how developed countries address similar problems.
THE ECONOMIC CRISIS:
Many of the solutions that are being proffered today are not original but
have been opined before. The neo-liberal model is not working for
developing countries, even for those that followed faithfully the
prescriptions of the International Financial Institutions, as has been the
experience of some Latin American countries.
What is evident and pervasive in response to the economic crisis is a
doctrinaire approach on the part of the developed world.
These prescriptions have not worked, and so the need for a new
financial architecture becomes compelling. Hence, the solutions lie in
market and regulations, and while we cannot stifle the power of the 5
market, its inherent instability calls for appropriate regulations. This
new model of MFI’s must include regional representation and a change
in mandate. The new architecture must also bring about a change of
the ownership structure while political decision must be removed from
these institutions.
The instruments of these institutions must also be re-examined. The
new architecture must cater for the needs of the small countries as
well, including easy and timely access to funds in times of disaster.
The institutions must have a better reward system for staff. If the staff
are rewarded and compensated for successes in the various countries,
such a system would allow for a more sympathetic and country specific
solutions to the problems of developing countries.
ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS:
Guyana’s arguments are well known as to why the EPAs are not the
best agreements.
Some of the developed world’s strongest advocates of reciprocity in the
EPA and of Free trade have moved to protectionism at the first sign of
trouble, as with their current experience with the international financial 6
meltdown. And even if their legislature removes protectionism, they will
practice it at the sectoral level.
It begs the question therefore that if these developed countries breach
open trade with their social safety nets and large per capita GDP, how
then can the small developing countries countenance reciprocity in the
EPA?
Perhaps a call for a moratorium on the EPAs, until the world financial
meltdown is resolved, is in order.
There has been an erosion of the trust that was rooted and
characteristic in the initial cooperation agreements between the ACP
and the EU. Even in the Cotonou Agreement where it speaks about
good faith negotiations, consultations and WTO compatibility, these
issues were somewhat ignored in relation to the new EPAs. Hence, the
need for us to study the issues before we seek to change them is
instructive.
The negotiations for the EPAs were affected by the fact that these
good faith and consultation clauses in the Cotonou Agreement were
ignored to a large measure and the ACP was hardly construed as an
equal partner, as was evidenced by the threats for us to sign the new
agreements by certain dates or face sanctions. The fact of the matter is
that real partnerships do not begin with threats. 7
In the future, we have to ensure that we are a little less trusting in the
ACP as we pursue agreements. The Joint Assembly is a good point
for the two sides to start rebuilding the broken trust.
Guyana’s opposition to certain aspects of the EPA is principled and
only seeks to safeguard its and the region’s interest, in accordance
with the action of other nations who seek to protect their trade and
other interests.
Mrs. Kinnock and many other ACP-EU parliamentarians must be
commended for their support in ensuring that inclusion of clauses on
the comprehensive review of the EPA shall be undertaken not later
than five (5) years after the date of signature and at subsequent five
yearly intervals, in order to determine the impact of the Agreement and
the implementation of the EPA will pay due regard to the integration
processes in CARIFORUM, including the aims an objectives of the
CARICOM Single Market and Economy as outlined in the Revised
Treaty of Chaguaramas.
Implementation of the EPA is still a challenge in Guyana’s case.
There is a whole range of supply side problems to address, for which
there is no money. The institutional capacity is not available to add to
the competiveness of our products. The banking system is shallow, the
infrastructure is limited and these factors add to the cost of doing
business. We therefore cannot produce more and take advantage of 8
the markets. These are all supply side issues that mitigate against us
being able to take advantage of larger markets.
We can also argue that the investments we need in our economy now
are not coming because there is no money; and so, investment has
dried up in our region.
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Climate change is a bigger problem than that the world financial crisis
which threatens livelihoods. Climate change threatens life itself over
time.
Many countries are unwilling to make the deep cuts of about 25-40
percent on 1990 level by 2020, that would take us on to the path to limit
the increase in global temperature to 2 degrees.
The economics of climate change favours action now and the statistics,
including those in the Stern Report, vindicates this fact. To address the
problems of climate change, we need to spend the equivalent of one
percent of global GDP per annum. If not, inaction will see us losing up
to seven percent of global GDP in the outer years. The cost benefit
analysis has been done and is in favour of spending the money to
address climate change now. 9
ACP countries do not participate enough in the debate on climate
change. Today, climate change is not merely an environmental issue,
but an economic and developmental one too. Developing countries
simply would not be able to spend large sums of money for adaptation
and mitigation in the future from their limited budgets. While there is
some debate in Europe on climate change, the issue must be taken
more seriously at the levels of ACP and Caricom.
We have to reverse the deficiencies of the Kyoto Protocol and ensure
that the Copenhagen Agreement is signed. There is adequate money
for adaptation and mitigation and that there is adequate money to get
India and China to adopt cleaner technology in their legitimate need for
more energy. These two countries are key to achieving a new
agreement, and so they would require assistance, as their per capita
emissions are way below that of the developed world.
Guyana can make a contribution, and in this regard, we have offered to
preserve our entire rainforests for compensation. We have done a
study for Regions 4 and 5 for adaptation purposes, working with
McKinsey and Company, which shows that we can earn between
$430M and $2 billion per year; with an 80 percent confidence of
reaching $580 million per year, from alternative use of our forests,
including agriculture, ranching, and mining. And we need $400M to
protect ourselves from the sea and excessive rainfall. 10
We need to find enough funds to outcompete alternative uses for the
forests. That is the only way we will preserve forests. It is still a low-
cost abatement solution. Our approach must be a fact –based one and
Members of Parliament can sponsor motions on climate change in their
respective countries. We must try to create a perspective that looks at
safeguarding our interests where we must act as a bloc of countries, if
we are to have a new satisfactory agreement.
NARCO TRADE AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING:
It is important that the Meeting is discussing these two issues, for what
is of concern to Guyana is the basis on which assessments and
indexing are done with respect to these two matters. For while 100
documented cases are required to position a country on the third tier,
Guyana has been placed on the highest Human Trafficking index, even
though there are only two confirmed cases. Guyana has requested that
evidence be provided as a matter of transparency. This has not been
done. So while Guyana faces sanctions, there still is no evidence to
show that it is widespread. 11
Hence, the question of who does these indices must be addressed.
The President intends to raise this matter with President Obama at the
Upcoming Summit of the Americas Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago.
The capricious manner in which developing countries are ranked in
these indices is of grave concern and we are desirous of having
independent and transparent ways of measuring these issues.
In respect of drug trafficking, Guyana probably spends more on a per
capita basis fighting drugs than does the United States of America, but
it is still a small sum. We get lectures. We do not get the money.
The USA needs to execute a coherent and comprehensive policy to
fight drug trafficking in terms of its cooperation with the region, and this
includes a more proportionate system of assistance to countries like
Guyana.