Henry...are we going to get less panpazetting and more crime fighting in Guy? Where is the forensic lab? Are you going to Celina's this evening?

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
Is AFC responsible for Guyana not getting the money?

quote:

The group that is calling on Norway to hold up the funding is not a civil society group as reported in the Stabbroek News, but more of a Political clique because there are known Politicians that make up this group who are vying for political Office.They want the LCDS to fail just to get cheap political popularity for the elections this year.It is time Norway ignore these Guyanese who are not patriotic to their own country and who want our country to remain poor while some of them live in the rich countries hiding behind their computers just to destroy our beautiful land.

Mary you hit the nail directly on its head, there no way that these cliques will ever attain political power in Guyana.

We know who were the signatories to the letter to Norway's Minister ERIK Solheim, which was ignored.”

.

The letter recommends that Norway should not release any funds to Guyana on the grounds that Guyana has “substantially failed to implement the MoU, either in spirit or in practice.”

Open letter to Minister Erik Solheim, Minister of the Environment & International Development, Norway, 24 March 2011

Norway-Guyana Memorandum of Understanding, November 2009

Dear Minister Solheim,

In advance of your imminent visit to Guyana, we respectfully draw your attention to eight key problems with the operation of the Memorandum of Understanding between the governments of Guyana and Norway. The signatories of this letter include members of civil society with diverse backgrounds and two Members of Parliament who have followed developments in Guyana closely since signature of the agreement, and who are particularly familiar with some of the detailed local issues which are raised.

1. Delays in preparation of projects. Norway transferred US$30 million to the Guyana REDD-plus Investment Fund (GRIF) before Guyana had developed any ‘Low Carbon Development Strategy’-related proposals and before any attempt at independent verification of the claims from Guyana about progress in reducing forest carbon emissions. Months later, and in spite of criticism of donors by the President of Guyana, there is still only a single (draft) proposal on the table, a technically inadequate project for titling and demarcation of Amerindian lands forwarded by Partner Entity United Nations Development Programme, apparently without quality control and without significant participation by indigenous Amerindians themselves (see below, section 5). The Norwegian US$30 million now languishing in the GRIF and listed in the national budget of Guyana since mid-January 2011, together with an anticipated further US$ 40 million from Norway, comprises nine per cent of the Guyanese government’s budget for 2011. We believe that transferring the original US$30 million in advance of verified progress on the agreement with Norway sent quite the wrong signals to a country with daily allegations in the independent Press of corruption and malfeasance in government procurement and other expenditure.

2. Deforestation appears to have increased, not decreased. In an undated technical note on the Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative website – “Norway and Guyana – a partnership for reduced forest carbon emissions”[1] – it is stated that Guyana will be paid for its ‘performance’ in keeping deforestation below an agreed reference level, as well as avoiding any measurable increase in forest degradation. Guyana has made no explicit commitment to reducing or even stabilising its emissions of forest carbon. On the contrary, all construction schemes announced by the President involve extra emissions. Production and export of timber increased sharply in 2010, as proudly announced recently by the Minister of Agriculture.[2]

Because of technical deficiencies in the work of Poyry New Zealand and the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC), it is not possible to make any definitive conclusions about the absolute rates of historical or current deforestation. However, even allowing for those technical deficiencies, the relative rate of deforestation in 2009-2010 appears to have increased three-fold, not decreased in comparison with the reference period.

3. Need for strong and consistent safeguards. The Memorandum of Understanding between Norway and Guyana originally stated that the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund, through which pass Norwegian payments for Guyana’s progress, would be subject to the World Bank’s ‘fiduciary and operational policies’. This requirement was subsequently dropped. No reason was given for this potentially serious weakening of ‘safeguards’. President Jagdeo has objected to the delays from the due diligence procedures of the World Bank. The President prefers to work with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), as shown by the transfer of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility ‘delivery partner’ to that agency from the World Bank. We suggest that Norway should be concerned by the switch to the IDB, which has provided much of the credit for a large recent increase in the country’s external debt, in spite of providing for a large HIPC-related cancellation of prior debt in 2007.

4. Weak participatory process. Unlike the process for the National Development Strategy (NDS) in 1995-6, the President’s Low Carbon Development Strategy has been an almost entirely in-house compilation, not linked to the NDS or even the President’s own National Competitiveness Strategy of 2006. The LCDS projects, apart from Amaila Falls, have no specific link to a low-carbon economy, nor have there been any conventional moves to reduce carbon emissions in the non-forested coastland where most of the economy is concentrated.

The MoU calls for the LCDS Multi-Stakeholder Steering Committee (MSSC) ‘to ensure systematic and transparent multi-stakeholder consultations… to enable the participation of all affected and interested stakeholders…’ The MSSC, however, is dominated by the President, and is in no sense a forum for strategic debate about developmental options and determination of priorities. Nor is the LCDS linked to the national Poverty Reduction Strategy, which is supposed to be the guiding economy strategy but is a programme hardly ever mentioned by the Government.

An example of the lack of effective consultation and coordination is the two LCDS projects to install solar panels for low-wattage household electricity and to distribute a netbook/laptop to each family (OLPF). The MSSC did not apparently consider that the IDB is already funding a solar panel project. And the Press is carrying many articles about the chaotic decision-making in the President’s Office about the OLPF. Although the Head of the Presidential Secretariat has claimed (11 March) that there is a proposal submitted to the GRIF for the solar panels, such a document has not been posted to the LCDS/GRIF website. Nor has the Amaila Falls proposal been posted.

5. Indigenous Land Demarcation. Many confused and confusing announcements have been made by the Government of Guyana about land allocation to the indigenous Amerindians.

The titling of indigenous lands in Guyana is to be aided through the first draft project to be presented to GRIF by UNDP Guyana and the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs. However, there are serious concerns about the proposal because it does not address the basic problems. The proposal is based on the Amerindian Act 2006, which is incompatible with both the National Constitution and international standards, including instruments to which Norway is party. Absence of progress towards a national integrated land use planning policy and procedures, field tested in 1997 and then abandoned, also complicates a sustainable solution to Amerindian land claims. You will have heard about the discussions in the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility concerning the equivalence of environmental and social safeguards between those of the World Bank and those of Multiple Delivery Partners such as UNDP. If UNDP’s procedures are not as good as or better than the World Bank’s OP 4.10 safeguards for indigenous peoples, then it must be asked why the UNDP country office in Guyana is thought to be a suitable Partner Entity for delivery of a project concerning indigenous land tenure.

6. Risks of the Amaila Falls Hydro Project. The President of Guyana proposes to invest US$40-60 million of the Norwegian US$250 million ‘REDD’ money in purchasing equity in the Amaila Falls dam, even though the entire justification for the dam remains just 1½ pages in the LCDS version of May 2010. The Guyana Energy Agency national policy, not updated since 1994, does not even mention Amaila Falls. We note that just yesterday, Erik Helland-Hansen, head of the Advisory Expert Panel appointed by the IDB to assess the project’s environmental and social assessment, has reportedly called into question the ‘whole strategic concept’ of the project.[3]

There is no practical possibility of the unqualified, inexperienced and under-capitalised contractor, who was awarded the contract under questionable circumstances, completing the access road to the dam in the specified time period or to the specified road bearing strength, in spite of being loaned US$ 1.5 million from a government ‘off-the-book fund’ to buy second-hand construction equipment. This delay is even admitted by the Government’s own technical adviser.[4]

The access road construction is now less than 25% complete, whereas some 65% should have been completed, according to the original schedule. It is currently unlikely that the two Chinese investment entities, which are reported by the President to have committed to funding the dam, would provide the US$500 million for the bulk of the dam construction while the road is incomplete. Thus there is a large question mark over when, or indeed if, the dam will be fully funded and constructed, and if any Norway-provided equity in the dam would be effectively applied. As we understand it, the Amaila Falls project cannot be presented to the GRIF until such time as the project proposal has been approved by the Board of the IDB, and this cannot happen until such time as the Advisory Expert Panel has completed its work, which we understand will not be for 6 months or so. The project’s developer, Sithe Global Power LLC, has today admitted that there may be delays in securing funding for the project.[5]

There appears to be no ‘Plan B’ for using Norwegian 2009-10 money already in the GRIF, but remaining unspent, let alone any plan for alternative use of any additional funds for 2010-11. We therefore submit that the risk of misuse of these funds is unacceptably high. Under these circumstances, there appears to be little justification for transferring any funding for 2010-11, when the government’s primary intention for use of those funds (the purchase of government equity in the Amaila Falls dam) seems highly unlikely to become a reality in the near future.

7. Inadequate Independent Verification Report. The concept of independent verification of government declarations about progress is an innovation in Guyana, introduced by the MoU. Historically, donors have not found that reports by the Government of Guyana are sufficiently accurate. The MoU contains an unprecedented (and welcome) list of enablers (progress indicators). It is not surprising that the Government of Guyana has focused much more on getting hold of the money with a minimum of conditions than on delivering progress on the conditions.

Unfortunately it appears that the Norway International Climate and Forests Initiative did not specify how or by what criteria the evidence supplied by the Government should be evaluated. The verifier Rainforest Alliance appears, in its long-delayed report, to have ticked even the creation of non-functioning and government-dominated committees as evidence of ‘progress’, and confused government’s one-way outreach with ‘consultation’. Rainforest Alliance noted that activities submitted as progress were not necessarily related to the MoU conditions, and that evidence was not in the public domain and so not available to civil society. Such evidence could not therefore match the MoU requirement for transparency. The majority of interviewees reported by Rainforest Alliance were government staff, government-employed consultants, or government-co-opted civil society. Other interviewees, labelled by government without evidence as political opponents, unsurprisingly sheltered under anonymity from Guyana’s notoriously vindictive and threatening government. Rainforest Alliance applied a descriptive framework and used a set of observations which failed to assess the scale to which the enablers have been attained. We believe that the report thus failed the key objective of the verification exercise, i.e., ‘to verify the content of Guyana’s reports stating its performance according to the enabling activities under the Guyana-Norway partnership on REDD+, hereunder an assessment of whether the enabling activities have been conducted as described in the Joint Concept Note (JCN)’ (our emphasis). We believe that the Rainforest Alliance report represents an inaccurate and overly optimistic reflection of the progress of the Government of Guyana in complying with the terms of the MoU.

8. Restricted access to government information. Likewise, reports such as those of Cedergren on carbon and biomass assessment and Trevin & Nasi on legislation and compliance, both in 2009, and Poyry in 2011, show that Guyana government agencies are still highly resistant to independent assessments and have not opened documents, databases, maps and imagery for check assessments. Although this secrecy is entirely in accordance with the Government of Guyana approach to information disclosure – it has stubbornly refused to pass Freedom of Information legislation – it is not compatible with the MoU. In a country with an Executive President, it is absolutely the responsibility of that President to give effect to the independent monitoring which is mentioned in the LCDS several times, and thus to allow independent access to all relevant information.

In summary, we believe there is no present justification for the release of the Norwegian funds already in the GRIF, nor for transfer of a second tranche for 2010-11. The Government of Guyana has substantially failed to implement the MoU, either in spirit or in practice. However, it has not completely failed. Norway needs to have a more realistic appreciation of the real progress which has been made, even though small, and build on that. In particular, Norway should –

support civil society to reduce the disabling secrecy and corruption which this relatively huge amount of money inevitably attracts.

insist on and support a transparent and participative revision of the enablers, including independent advisers and civil society, in a process not dominated by the President or government agencies.

insist that all material which is not commercially confidential but which is relevant to the operation of this MoU should be in the public domain with minimal redaction and no tampering.

open the GRIF steering committee to representatives of the supposedly beneficiary populations.
Sincerely (in alphabetical order)

Diana Abraham
Malcolm Alli
Seelochan Beharry
Janette Bulkan
Tanya Chung Tiam Fook
Anand Daljeet
Everall Franklin, MP
Malcolm Harripaul
Christina Jardim
Tarron Khemraj
Allison Lindner
Colette McDermott
Alissa Trotz
Karen Jardim
Edward Meertins-George
Sharon Ousman-Arjoon
Christopher Ram
Khemraj Ramjattan, MP
Oma Sewhdat
Charlene Wilkinson
Fitzgerald Yaw
David Yhann

.

Norway’s Minister says that they will listen to the cries of the opposition party but government has kept its end of bargain

Norway Thursday night stressed the need for anti-corruption mechanisms before compensating Guyana and other countries to preserve their forests.

“We do not want to interfere in how Guyana use money…But there must be strict standards for anti-corruption and also strict international standards for environmental and social concerns that will be applied,” said Norway’s Environment and International Development Minister, Erik Solheim
He also identified the need for a consultative process with interest groups and others.

“As long as these basic standards are applied, it is up to Guyana to decide how it will use its money,” he told a news conference that he shared with President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Solheim confirmed that an additional US$40 million would be paid to Guyana because the country has kept within the limits of deforestation, a sign that a call by the Group of 22 civil society activists and politicians’ call for monies to be withheld has been rejected. US$30 million have been already deposited into a special fund and is awaiting disbursement after projects would have been approved.

The Norwegian minister pointed out that the issue of corruption was not specific to Guyana but it was also being raised in Brazil and Indonesia where similar compensation schemes are being developed.

Scientists believe that standing forests would absorb greenhouse gases and reduce the impact of climate change such as rising temperatures, violent storms, rising sea-levels, droughts and floods.

Against the background of the ‘Group of 22’ civil society activists and politicians calling for greater transparency and accountability, Solheim said he would be going into Friday’s talks with civil society actors and opposition politicians with an open mind.

“We should listen to the concern from everyone. If opposition parties raise concerns, let’s listen to them and see whether they are fair.
Recalling that the Norwegian funds have been included in Guyana’s budget as revenue, President Bharrat Jagdeo said there would be parliamentary oversight. He also said there would be a public tender process, locally and internationally for certain projects.

“It was not the opposition’s concerns that I was worried about because they have a legitimate right to question; it’s this small group of people. There is nothing that the government could do, even God were to come, that they would find favour with,” said Jagdeo in reference to the Group of 22.
The money would be used for the Guyana government to buy equity in the much touted Amaila Hydropower plant, titling of Amerindian lands, buying of solar panels for Amerindian villages and allocating a US$25,000 grant to each Amerindian village to fund projects for their community development.

The funds are to be managed through the Guyana REDD Investment Fund with assistance from the World Bank and the Inter American Development Bank (IDB).

.

So now why the hold up of the funds???????

.

quote:

Diana Abraham, Malcolm Alli, Seelochan Beharry, Janette Bulkan, Tanya Chung Tiam Fook, Anand Daljeet, Everall Franklin, MP, Malcolm Harripaul, Christina Jardim, Tarron Khemraj, Allison Lindner, Colette McDermott, Alissa Trotz, Karen Jardim, Edward Meertins-George, Sharon Ousman-Arjoon, Christopher Ram, Khemraj Ramjattan, MP, Oma Sewhdat, Charlene Wilkinson, Fitzgerald Yaw, David Yhann


Norway-Guyana Memorandum of Understanding, November 2009
Open letter to Minister Erik Solheim, Minister of the Environment & International Development, Norway, 24 March 2011

As mentioned during the discussions here on GNI, -- an interesting group of individuals.

How sad if the Guyanese people lose the money. Politicians just want power at any cost.

The issues are related to the specific conditions of the agreement(s).

One needs to carefully observe the developments.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
How sad if the Guyanese people lose the money. Politicians just want power at any cost.

Mary, would you say expenditure by the Gov't in recent times has been optimum for the people of Guyana, most especially the working people?

Gerhard, losing the money is the biggest expenditure loss for Guyana.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
Gerhard, losing the money is the biggest expenditure loss for Guyana.

Please Mary. Answer the question. Thank you.

Secondly, I am not aware that a mere letter from the opposition could lead to the cancellation of these kinds of deals anywhere in the world. These cancellations however, occur, after the opposition claims have been verified. Do you know of any case outside of this framework, Mary?

To boot, I do not recognise any of the signatures to be from the PNC, which from the results of the last elections still holds the position as the main opposition. I do not recognise either that all the signatories are politicians. I therefore, am at a loss where you are going with this Mary...weren't you the other day asking about why there were so little prosecutions of white collar criminals in Guyana, yes?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.T:

quote:

Originally posted by asj:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.T:
Those Norwegians just had a massive terrorist incident. But what does Guyana care that Norway is in mourning? Nah, Guyana wants money that can be mismanaged before the next election.

Your assertion of 'mismanaged' has no relevance as to how the funds will be spent, your input are just speculations, without any bite. Come again!!! with something that we can discuss about.

.

The PPP track record with foreign funds is not one to be proud of. Or are you suggesting that just this once the PPP won' be misappropriating the money?

By just saying that the PPP track record with foreign funds is not one to be proud of does not tells me anything, throw out some examples so that we know what you are talking about.

There will be so much of eyes on the Norway Funds that no one would dare to misappropiate or even think of it.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
How does Guyanese benefit from not getting the loan, pointblank?

The people the money is intended for will not as has been in the past benefit

The PPP cronies will find a way to thief teh money

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
Gerhard, losing the money is the biggest expenditure loss for Guyana.

The people of Guyana cannot lose what they did'nt have, how can one say they lose millions when they never had it in the first place. Unless of course the PPPinc rack up credit card bills in anticipation of the big payday....

quote:

Originally posted by sachin_05:

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
Gerhard, losing the money is the biggest expenditure loss for Guyana.

The people of Guyana cannot lose what they did'nt have, how can one say they lose millions when they never had it in the first place. Unless of course the PPPinc rack up credit card bills in anticipation of the big payday....

Precisely, a Beggar cannot say he/she lost alms which were not placed in his/her begging bowl.

If Norway put checks and balances in place to assure the money will not be stolen under the PPP, why is the AFC insisting that the money be released only when AFC gets into office?

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
If Norway put checks and balances in place to assure the money will not get stolen under the PPP, why is the AFC insisting that the money be released only when they get into office?

That is precisely what the AFC is NOT indicating. Where did you obtain such erroneous information?

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
Gerhard, losing the money is the biggest expenditure loss for Guyana.

The funds were withheld by the WB. What does the AFC have to do with that? It's for the GoG to meet it's obligations and allay any concerns of the donor.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
If Norway put checks and balances in place to assure the money will not be stolen under the PPP, why is the AFC insisting that the money be released only when AFC gets into office?

Are the Norwiegans and WB AFC's poodles? I doubt that, so please focus your questions to the parties involved.

Mary Gurl,

The money is fungible. That means if it is released NOW it frees up OTHER funds for electioneering and vote buying. Norway and WB seem to understand the concept of fungibility. Meanwhile, mek sure you guys at OP document how the funds will be sent so that the funds will be released immediately after the election regardless of which government is in power...even a Ramotar government. But given what is going on in Berbice we expect an AFC government.

How sad. The election is interefering
in the country's affairs. ... history repeats itself.

Gurl Mary,

If OP/PPP had a track record of transparency and good governance these funds would have been released long ago.

Mary's learning something new everyday, aren't ya Mary?

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
How sad. The election is interefering
in the country's affairs. ... history repeats itself.

How sad we have a Govt who touts and pouts at the rule of law, transparncy, who openly practices cronyism and nepotism, now the goose com home to roost. You see Mary gurl, as they say in Guyana "moon does run till day kech am". What's sad is the arrogance of the PPP and in not seeing it would one day bomerang on them, to the detriment of Guyana as a whole. But what's new, the story of the PPP, the story of the PNC, the story of Guyana.

If the govt of Norway set forth criterias for auditing the funds, why is AFC slowing down progress in Guyana?

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
If the govt of Norway set forth criterias for auditing the funds, why is AFC slowing down progress in Guyana?

How did you arrive at this conclusion Mary Gobbels?

quote:

Originally posted by cain:
Mary's learning something new everyday, aren't ya Mary?

Mary ah only pretend she stupid in order to spread propaganda and waste intelligent people's time.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
Very true baseman. If the govt of Norway set forth criterias for auditing the funds, why is AFC slowing down progress in Guyana?

Please tell us what the AFC did and how they influenced the WB in particular with regards to this? And the PPP has been there for 19 years, what a few months on this one item means in the grand scheme of things? This is specific funds for a specific purpose, not general development.

The biggest single delay to progress at this time would possible be the Amelia falls project fiasco. And while we are at it, what about the Skeldon factory debacle?

quote:

Originally posted by TK_REDUX:
Mary Gurl,

The money is fungible. That means if it is released NOW it frees up OTHER funds for electioneering and vote buying.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
If the govt of Norway set forth criterias for auditing the funds, why is AFC slowing down progress in Guyana?

Mary, why you nix that original "Very true baseman" section, did your boss call you out on it?

quote:

MARY: If the govt of Norway set forth criterias for auditing the funds, why is AFC slowing down progress in Guyana?

Oh Mary, Mary quite contrary...how is your logic so? The progress has been slow even before the Norway. As Baseman said look at the hydro and Skeldon fiasco for some insights for the slow progress.

I'm trying to understand both parties logic? Does calling me names make you feel superior.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
I'm trying to understand both parties logic? Does calling me names make you feel superior.

Why are you positioning it that the AFC slowing progress. Mary, it seems "quite contrary" to just an exploratory position on your side.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
I'm trying to understand both parties logic?

Yes Mary - the Moon is indeed made of blue cheese.

quote:

MARY: I'm trying to understand both parties logic? Does calling me names make you feel superior.

Gurl Mary I am not calling you name nor do I feel superior...I am a humble servant. I apologize if you feel offended by the nursery poem. Having said that, you must look inner to understand why the funds have not been released. The non-transparency and bad governance are what is holding up the funds. AFC don't have those powers. We can mek plenty noise...perhaps Norway is listening. But ultimately you have to search OP to get the crucial factor for the hold up.

quote:

Originally posted by asj:

quote:

IT IS TIME THAT THE PPP/C GIVES NORWAY A TIMELINE TO DELIVER ON THEIR PROMISES OR JUST FORGET ABOUT SAVING GUYANA RAINFORESTS:

.

Norway can kiss our behinds, we have the forest they have nothing. Either they listen to his Excellency or we will go elsewhere.

Many countries are in recession. You have no where to go. Guyana will lose because of politicians fighting for power at any cost.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
Many countries are in recession. You have no where to go. Guyana will lose because of politicians fighting for power at any cost.

Indeed Mary. Some are so arrogant, not only have they stolen prime ocean front state lands for their homes but are also trying to keep their hands in the cookie jar when they vacate office.

quote:

Originally posted by Rahmah bin Jabr:

quote:

Originally posted by Mary:
Many countries are in recession. You have no where to go. Guyana will lose because of politicians fighting for power at any cost.

Indeed Mary. Some are so arrogant, not only have they stolen prime ocean front state lands for their homes but are also trying to keep their hands in the cookie jar when they vacate office.

Nonsense what stealing its our land, we are utilizing it, the land was sitting there for decades no one even wanted the land.

We took our time moved the NCN tower then we had to upgrade the land ensure it had proper water supply, drainage electricity etc. and now we have made this land very valuable, so valuable that the AFC and their goons are very jealous.

We have to spend money and make lives for our executives in the PPP comfortable else they will want to flee Guyana like everyone else and we cannot afford that.

quote:

Originally posted by Horse Man:

quote:

Originally posted by asj:

quote:

IT IS TIME THAT THE PPP/C GIVES NORWAY A TIMELINE TO DELIVER ON THEIR PROMISES OR JUST FORGET ABOUT SAVING GUYANA RAINFORESTS:

.

Norway can kiss our behinds, we have the forest they have nothing. Either they listen to his Excellency or we will go elsewhere.

Guyana Govt can open our Rainforest to Gold Dredging and mining and with the current price at US$1500. per ozs, his Excellency can tell Norway to use their funds to fight terrorism in their country. Just open it up and droves of Brazillians would flock for licences.

.

quote:

Originally posted by asj:

quote:

Originally posted by Horse Man:

quote:

Originally posted by asj:

quote:

IT IS TIME THAT THE PPP/C GIVES NORWAY A TIMELINE TO DELIVER ON THEIR PROMISES OR JUST FORGET ABOUT SAVING GUYANA RAINFORESTS:

.

Norway can kiss our behinds, we have the forest they have nothing. Either they listen to his Excellency or we will go elsewhere.

Guyana Govt can open our Rainforest to Gold Dredging and mining and with the current price at US$1500. per ozs, his Excellency can tell Norway to use their funds to fight terrorism in their country. Just open it up and droves of Brazillians would flock for licences.

.

Exactly ASJ we are already doing that Guyana has never had more mining going on in those lands but we can open it up even more for exploitation and lets see who will lose then Norway!