The context of REDD+ in Guyana: Drivers, agents and institutions

Guyana is a small country with 87.5% of its area covered with forest (GFC 2018b) and lies in the center of the Guiana Shield, one of the four largest remaining standing tropical rainforests in the world. In 2006, Guyana took advantage of the recognition of the value of standing forest to mitigate climate change and became actively engaged in REDD+. Subsequently, in 2009, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed with Norway to support implementation of a Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). This was a national plan to reorient Guyana’s economy and move towards more sustainable extractive industries and forest management. The bilateral agreement with Norway established a framework for performance-related finance of up to USD 250 million from 2010 to 2015 for implementation of the LCDS. Three main pillars of the LCDS, linked to its REDD+ agenda, included maintaining historically low deforestation, endorsing low carbon development and adapting to climate change (Bellfield et al. 2015).More recently, and building on the LCDS, a new Green State Development Strategy: Vision 2040 has been developed for Guyana as a “twenty-year, national development policy that reflects the guiding vision and principles of the ‘green agenda’. The central objective is development that provides a better quality of life for all Guyanese derived from the country’s natural wealth – its diversity of people and abundant natural resources (land, water, forests, mineral and aggregates, biodiversity)” (GoG 2019b, p. 1).Since 2009, CIFOR has conducted the Global Comparative Study (GCS) in 13 countries, with Guyana as the final addition. Among the GCS-REDD+ case studies, Guyana is one of the most advanced REDD+ countries, alongside Brazil (KorhonenKurki et al. 2019), and the Norway–Guyana bilateral agreement is the world’s second largest national-level REDD+ scheme (Bade 2013). Yet, Guyana’s economy still largely depends on extractive resources, with mining remaining the main driver of deforestation and forest degradation. The potential revenue anticipated from offshore oil extraction might change the country’s landscape and outlook, putting the permanence of REDD+ under scrutiny. The Guyana case study, therefore, presents many lessons on how to balance development paths without jeopardizing national forest resources.


List of figures, tables and boxes
6 5 Process of establishing forest areas 6 6 Trends in forest cover change in Guyana (1990Guyana ( -2017 7 7 Deforestation rate in Guyana, produced by different authors 9 8 Main drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in 2017 10 9 Types of forest concessions in Guyana 11 10 Annual deforestation and degradation by driver , in hectares 12 11 Annual rate of forest change by period and driver  13 12 Total forest carbon stocks in Guyana's forest based on average area (2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012) 16 13 Emission factors for deforestation by driver and stratum 16 14 Total emissions by driver and stratum (2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012) 17 15 Managers of natural resources in Guyana 19 16 International agreements 24 17 Estimates of land allocation in Guyana 27 18 Licenses issued (2011) 27 19 Annual average gold prices (USD per ounce at the London Fix) 29 20 Annotated list of climate-related policies, strategies and plans 32 21 Forest carbon sampling strata 37 This Guyana REDD+ country profile provides contextual analysis on conditions which affect the REDD+ policy environment in the country. It is based on reviews of existing literature, national and international data, reviews of legal documents, and selected expert interviews. The country profile examines and discusses five areas: (1) drivers of deforestation; (2) the institutional environment; (3) the political economy of deforestation and forest degradation; (4) the political environment of REDD+, including actors, events and processes; and (5) implications of the country's current REDD+ design for effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

Drivers of deforestation
Systematic reporting on forest degradation started in 2010-2011. Total forest degradation for 2010-2016 was 27,903 hectares (ha) while deforestation since 1990 was estimated to be 151,822 ha. A major driver of deforestation and forest degradation is mineral mining, particularly gold mining. Forestry and agriculture are also drivers, but with less impact on the forest compared with mining. Many of Guyana's national policies, strategies, plans and actions do not aggravate deforestation and forest degradation and are likely to have a positive impact on REDD+.
Conflicting claims of forestry with mining, whereby regulatory infrastructure places mining rights above other land uses, is the main underlying cause for deforestation and forest degradation. Lack of clear tenure is another. While forested land is largely owned by the state, the legal basis of land ownership and titling for indigenous peoples in Guyana is the Amerindian Act of 2006, and Amerindian communities have traditional privileges to mine, along with the right to veto any small or medium-scale mining activity on their titled land. However, they do not have the right to veto any large-scale mining operations if the vii However, slow progress in addressing land titling issues and recognition of indigenous tenure rights, weak governance undermined by corruption, rent-seeking behavior, and unclear tenure are key government challenges that impede effective implementation of both REDD+ and other forestry policies in Guyana.

Political economy of deforestation and forest degradation
Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Guyana derive mainly from the mining sector, which plays a significant role in national Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Harmonizing environmental and economic development goals is challenging and requires strong political commitment to remove economic incentives that can accelerate drivers of deforestation and degradation.

REDD+ progress in Guyana
Norway agreed to support Guyana to maintain its low levels of deforestation, providing up to USD 250 million over a five-year period ending in 2015 to implement the LCDS and REDD+. Funding for implementation of Guyana's REDD+ program relies on the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF), which is supported through Norway's investment as well as the national budget. GRIF was set up to manage the payments provided by its contributors and to arrange the flow of funds. This REDD+ funding has allowed for regular monitoring, reporting and verification of forest area changes. With financial support, Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) has developed a new monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) system that has allowed for comprehensive, consistent, transparent and verifiable assessments and reporting of forest area change. Funding has also created incentives and changes in the legal framework, such as strengthening law enforcement in forestry and mining sectors. The national REDD+ strategy is currently being drafted, but key elements such as a transparent and equitable benefit sharing mechanism, an inclusive decision-making process and comprehensive safeguards system were highlighted by key informants interviewed as being in need of revision based on consultations with stakeholders in Guyana. At the same time, national commitment towards REDD+ can only be enhanced through clear performance criteria mutually agreed between donors and government, and payments being made with low transactional costs, on the basis of promoting national ownership over its fund.

Implications of the country's current REDD+ design for effectiveness, efficiency and equity
Guyana has demonstrated REDD+ progress, particularly in terms of its MRV system. However, most of this progress was made early on and has since slowed, mainly due to delays in financing caused by the administrative hurdles of channeling funds earned from the Guyana-Norway Agreement. Increased mining activities and a big oil find have diverted attention away from forest protection and REDD+, with minimal actual spending on REDD+.
Yet it is too early to see any impact on the rates of deforestation, particularly when Guyana's economy still largely depends on extractive resources, with mining remaining the main driver of deforestation.
One significant aspect of REDD+ in Guyana is the opt-in mechanism, presented as an opportunity for indigenous communities to voluntarily participate in REDD+. Unfortunately, engagement with indigenous communities is perceived by those indigenous communities interviewed as inadequate. Proper processes for Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) have not been fully implemented; rather, some communities were only passively informed and involved without proper consultation. However, more REDD+ funding has been allocated for this activity aimed at promoting behaviour change. While indigenous rights need to be strengthened, overlapping and conflicting land uses, especially between forestry and mining, need to be resolved.

Introduction
Many questions remain on how to effectively, efficiently and equitably formulate and implement REDD+ for countries participating in REDD+ programs. Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation are often highly complex, and can form part of dense networks of economic and political interests. Reducing emissions by limiting forest degradation and deforestation can be seen as a controversial approach in the context of national development paradigms and existing policy frameworks or objectives. What are the political implications of a REDD+ mechanism? How can it be implemented successfully on the ground? Understanding the complex relationships between drivers, agents and institutions within the national context is vital to ensuring effective implementation of REDD+.
The Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS REDD+), together with its country partners, is compiling profiles of 17 countries to better understand the socio-economic context in which REDD+ policies and processes emerge. Guyana is one of these 17 countries studied.
Guyana is a small country with about 87% of its area covered with forest (GFC 2018b) that forms an important part of the Amazon biome and one of the four largest remaining standing tropical rainforests in the world. Guyana's population of approximately 779,004 people (World Bank 2019) is low density (4 people per km), with its inhabitants living primarily along the coast.
Guyana is a lower middle-income country, ranking medium in terms of human development (UNDP 2018). The forestland is home to the country's indigenous peoples, who comprise over 9% of the population and hold ownership rights to more than 14% of the land mass.
Since 2006, Guyana has actively engaged in REDD+ and in 2009 signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Kingdom of Norway for support to implement its Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). This is a national plan to reorient Guyana's economy and move towards more sustainable extractive industries and forest management. This bilateral agreement established a framework for performance-related finance of up to USD 250 million from 2010 to 2015 for implementation of the LCDS. Three main pillars of the LCDS, linked to its REDD+ agenda, include preventing deforestation, endorsing low carbon development and adapting to climate change (Bellfield et al. 2015). Among the GCS-REDD+ case studies, Guyana is one of the most advanced REDD+ countries, alongside Brazil (Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2019), and the Norway-Guyana bilateral agreement is the world's second largest national-level REDD+ scheme (Bade 2013).
This Guyana REDD+ country profile provides contextual analysis on conditions affecting the REDD+ policy environment in the country. It is based on reviews of existing literature, national and international data, reviews of legal documents and selected expert interviews. This Guyana country profile examines and discusses five areas: (1) drivers of deforestation; (2) the institutional environment; (3) the political economy of deforestation and forest degradation; (4) the political environment of REDD+, including actors, events and processes; and (5) implications of the country's current REDD+ design for effectiveness, efficiency and equity.
The aim of this country profile is to inform decision makers, practitioners and donors of the opportunities and challenges regarding implementing a REDD+ mechanism, and to support evidence-based REDD+ decision-making processes.

Methods
This country profile follows the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ guidelines (Brockhaus et al. 2012) for assessing REDD+ at the country level. Both secondary and primary data collection were conducted as part of research and information gathering.
Secondary data collection included reviews of government reports and policies, donor and NGO reports, and media reports. Primary data collection involved interviews with seven experts on sustainable forest management and indigenous rights. Three workshops were also held with key stakeholders during June and December 2017, and in April 2019, to obtain stakeholder feedback and verify research findings. A total of 97 people participated in the workshops, including representatives of forestry, mining, lands and protected areas commissions, other government agencies, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, international environmental institutions, donor agencies and academia.
This chapter provides an overview of Guyana's forest cover, including forest types and area changes over time. It examines the cause and impact of these changes, and looks at the actions being undertaken to counteract the negative results of these changes on the country's forest resources.

Historical overview of forest cover change
Guyana owns 0.4% of global forest cover, and forest covers 87.5% of country total area (Laing 2014;GFC 2018b). The country also had the lowest deforestation rate in the world during 2000-2005 (FAO 2005). Before 2010, different reports show differing figures on forest cover in Guyana, mainly due to the lack of systematic data collection. For example, while FAO reported 15.2 million ha of forest cover in 2010, the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) reported the forested area being up to 18.398 million ha (± 0.4130 million ha) (FAO 2015). Guyana has also moved from using the broad definition of forest provided by Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) 2005 and 2010 to an adoption of the Marrakech Accords definition (UNFCCC 2001) as reflected in FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment (FAO 2015), resulting in revised updated reporting ( Table 1). The reclassification section (Section 1.3.3) of the FRA 2015 report indicates Guyana's adoption of the Marrakech Accords definition of forests (FAO 2014).
The definition for land classified as forest, according to the Marrakech Accords, identifies a "minimum area of land of 0.05-1.0 ha, with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10-30%, and trees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2-5 meters at maturity in situ." Guyana has elected to classify land as forest if it meets the following criteria: "Tree cover of a minimum of 30%, at a minimum height of 5 m, over a minimum area of 1 ha." This definition is used by the Government of Guyana (GoG) as the basis for classification of national land uses, which have been placed into six broad categories in accordance with the reporting guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ( Table 2).

Forest definition
Land spanning more than 0.5 ha with trees higher than 5 m and a canopy cover of more than 10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ (FAO 2012).
A minimum area of land of 0.05-1.0 ha, with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10-30%, and trees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2-5 meters at maturity in situ.
Forest area 18.398 million ha (± 0.4130 million ha) in 2009 in Guyana with 97.1% accuracy verified by University of Durham (GFC 2018b).
18.39 million ha with a 91% indicative accuracy (GFC 2018b). The context of REDD+ in Guyana | 5 The simplified national vegetation map (Figure 1) also gives an overview on the distribution of these existing land uses and demonstrates that tropical high forests in 2017 comprised over 98% of total forest area, or approximately 87.5% of total land area.
Although the assessment periods were not always confined to calendar years or 12-month periods, changes in forest area over the period assessed were  evaluated in comparison to the previous one, and reported as Years 1 to 6 ( Table 6).
The forest area change data garnered over seven years (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017), along with the estimated forest loss during almost 20 years of the benchmark period, validate Guyana as a country with historically low annual deforestation rates, estimated way below one-tenth of one percentage (0.1%) point. Although 2012 was found to have the 'highest' level of annual deforestation, estimated at 18,452 ha or 0.079% as compared with all the years assessed, this was not a significant increase in the trend.
A graphic representation of the areas that have been deforested during the benchmark period (historical) | 7   and by the end of 2016 is presented in Figure 2, which illustrates forest changes in the sixth year of Guyana's MRVS assessment. The areas where these changes have occurred were noted to be close to road and river networks, in the mixed forest areas ( Figure 3) and mineral-rich zones of the country.

| 9
Guyana is a country with high forest cover and low deforestation, with forest cover of approximately 87.5% or 18.5 million ha (GFC 2018b). There are different figures available on deforestation rates in Guyana produced by different authors for different periods, which indicates inconsistency among available data sources (Table 7). GFC has increased the verifiable accuracy of deforestation data for Guyana through methodological improvements. Despite these differences, there is a common conclusion among stakeholders interviewed and participating in the national consultation workshops that Guyana has a low rate of deforestation, even though this deforestation has slightly increased over time.
Although Guyana's reporting is more advanced compared with other countries, as it also assesses forest degradation, some scholars have expressed reservation on the reports and data on deforestation in Guyana, stating that they should be used cautiously because of technical issues related to satellite imaging and extensive cloud cover, along with differences in methodologies. Historically, lack of data has been an issue for measuring forest cover and deforestation (due to more than half of Guyana's forests being inaccessible by roads and rivers and therefore, ground data collection becomes challenging); however, annual deforestation estimates are extremely low (Cedergren 2009).  Bellfield et al. (2015) suggested that the MRVS may be overstating the rate of deforestation, due to a small-scale 'ground truthing' exercise (though that exercise was not nationally representative), while Laing (2018) contended that deforestation data was imprecise and annual comparisons, in particular, should not be over interpreted. However, interviews with the GFC and literature reviews indicate that Guyana has implemented an independent accuracy assessment process to accompany the national reporting system, in order to mitigate against these risks. Further, the system is built upon the principle of conservativeness, whereby decreases in emissions will not be overstated. 2 According to GFC (2017), independent third-party verification has verified interim indicators for REDD+ performance in Guyana related to emissions resulting from i) forest management (i.e. selective logging) activities in natural or semi-natural forests, and ii) illegal logging activities (GFA Consulting Group 2014).
In the framework of the UNFCCC discussions on REDD+ countries, the development of appropriate methods for measuring changes in forest carbon stocks at the national level with an acceptable degree of certainty is one major requirement. Berger et al. (2009) outlined that one possible approach was to evaluate the map's precision, and modify the area estimates accordingly. The accuracy assessment process used by Guyana follows recognized design considerations with three distinctive and integral phases: "response design, sampling design, and analysis and estimation" (Stehman and Czaplewski 1998). The change reference estimate dataset for the accuracy assessment conducted by an independent team (University of Durham), uses an independent and separate dataset from that used in national mapping, and is captured using GeoVantage's (Aeroptic) aerial imaging camera system mounted externally to a light aircraft. The camera uses a multi-spectral sensor, capturing red, green, blue and near infrared spectral bands, while the spatial resolution of the imagery depends on the altitude at which the data is captured. Operating at altitudes ranging from 609 to 1,524 m, the resultant imagery ranged from 25 to 60 cm pixel size, further validated by ground truthing. The process produces the main outcome of establishing error bars as shown in Figure 4.
The GFC stated that execution of this MRVS process had revealed that the nationally reported results for forest cover, forest change and forest degradation were closely similar to independent assessments done to ensure their accuracy.

Direct drivers
Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Guyana are mining, road infrastructure, agricultural conversion and fire, timber extractions and associated industries (Bellfield et al. 2015). However, the major driver is mineral mining, in particular gold mining (Laing 2014), 3,4 accounting for 94% of deforestation in 2012 and 84% in 2017, while 81% of forest degradation in 2017 resulted from mining sites and associated roads.
The next section discusses in detail each driver of deforestation and degradation mentioned in Table 8.

Forestry
The GFC administers and manages the state forest through two types of forest concessions for harvesting under Guyana's regulations (Table 9). These concessions are elaborated in the 2018 Forest Sector Information Report (GFC 2018a) with the impact of institutional conditions on REDD+ discussed by Laing (2014).
3 Large-scale mining operations are required by law to reclaim and rehabilitate areas post-mining, inclusive of revegetation. 4 Forest degradation for 2015-2016 was not disaggregated by driver.
In addition to these harvesting permits, there is the option of a State Forest Exploratory Permit (SFEP) that is valid for three years, during which the environmental permitting process and other requirements must be completed. If all of the requirements, including the conduct and approval of an environmental and social impact assessment, and the submission of a business plan, are successfully completed at the end of the three-year period, the SFEP can be upgraded to a State Forest Authorization for large concessions, formerly called a Timber Sales Agreement (TSA) or Wood Cutting Lease (WCL) as applicable. In 2017, six of these permits (SFEPs) were given, covering 7.3% of state forest (GFC 2017a).
The GFC stated in interviews with the authors that forest management concessions, based on MRVS results, do not lead to deforestation; the impact and scale of timber harvesting was low. The commission's enforcement of sustainable forest management practices, including reduced impact logging, is considered contributory to this position. However, forest degradation impacts are detected and reported by the GFC as a REDD+ interim indicator with emission impacts.  The context of REDD+ in Guyana | 13

Mining
Mining accounted for more than 93% of deforestation in Guyana in 2015(Bellfield et al. 2015, while mining sites and associated roads resulted in 81% forest degradation in 2017 (GFC 2018b). The global price for gold reached its highest in 2012 and corresponded with the highest total deforestation recorded for a single year. The highest rate was recorded during 2011-2012, with 12,179 ha deforested by mining activity, and an additional 1,499 ha degraded by mining sites and associated roads (GFC 2017a; see also Table 10 and Table 11).  (GFC 2018c). The main geographical areas where deforestation and degradation are pronounced as a result of gold mining, and where the greatest threats for increased land use changes (LUCs) are anticipated, are within State Forest Area ( Figure 5).
Guyana's mining areas overlap forest areas, with conflicting uses by miners and loggers respectively. Within the administrative and regulatory spheres, the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) is geared to "unlock the mineral and petroleum wealth of Guyana" (GGMC n.d.) while the GFC is mandated to ensure sustainable forestry (GFC n.d.). Their respective legislative instruments, although complementary in some areas, have superseding rights to mining (below ground) over logging (above ground). This scenario remains a problem to the regulatory agencies with conflicting responsibility, as well as for multiple resource users. Sustained calls and efforts are being made to resolve issues and improve collaboration between loggers and miners in particular. The LCDS, introduced in 2009, did not immediately alter the regulatory framework for mining in Guyana. However, due to the nature of mining, and being the largest driver of deforestation in the country, the LCDS did include explicit mention of reform for the mining industry (Office of the President 2010; Laing 2015).
Mining areas and their impacts (and threats) also affect some indigenous communities. Community representatives are active in voicing concerns and taking legal action where necessary to protect their lands, their people and environments from the adverse effects of mining, which include pollution of waterways and fish used by the communities, and incursions on their titled lands. 5 The Ministry of Indigenous Peoples Affairs (MOIPA) along with the GGMC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the key government agencies addressing these issues. Communities benefit from the support of indigenous and environmental NGOs, along with their own representative groups. It is also recognized that some indigenous communities are involved in mining as a source of income.
Concessions for rights to mine on state-owned land are granted by the GGMC, while in order to mine on Amerindian Lands, permission is required from two-thirds of the community, in attendance at a general community meeting. However, large-scale mining operations must comply with environmental and other permitting processes before approval is granted by government. Environmental permits are issued by the EPA on approval of environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs) that include environment management and closure plans, and stakeholder consultation among other requirements (see EIA Guidelines -Mining) (EPA 2000).
However, since 2014, there has been a marked decrease in mining-related deforestation in Guyana, dropping from 13,664 ha in 2012 to 7,442 ha in 2017 (GFC 2018b). This was attributed in part to the fall in price of gold, in addition to improvements in the management of mining permits, including re-examination of the operations of reconnaissance permits, and increased monitoring by mining officers.

Shifting cultivation and fire
Fires accounted for 47% of deforestation between 1990 and 2000, and 6% in 2017, but none of the deforestation in 2014 (GFC 2018b).
Measuring and monitoring of settlements and shifting cultivation as drivers of deforestation and forest degradation started in 2013, but the impact was very low (GFC 2017a). Shifting cultivation entails clearing forests for temporary cropping and then either abandoning the crop fields or | 15 revisiting them after a period, with the latter being the common practice in Guyana in a rotational manner. Although forest clearings are often small, they can be detected using multi-temporal, coregistered optical high resolution imagery. Work on monitoring this activity will be undertaken using post-2010 imagery by GFC (Brown et al. 2014).
The annual measurements of forest cover change included in GFC's monitoring plan are expected to effectively detect the dynamics of shifting cultivation areas based on use of higher resolution imagery from 2012. In 2013, the Indufor/GFC team initiated a process for monitoring shifting cultivation using RapidEye remote sensing imagery. Shifting cultivation (SC) was divided into two classes: i) pioneer SC (new areas cleared from mature forests), and ii) rotational SC (existing land under SC). The areas of rotational SC could be identified in the imagery as mosaics of cleared land and fallow lands at different states of fallow. Pioneer SC is identified when new areas of forest are cleared from the surrounding forests. With RapidEye and the subsequent use of Sentinel imagery, the dynamics of the clearing and later abandonment could be tracked through time (Brown et al. 2014).
Estimating the emissions from SC activities requires collection of data such as: i) determination of the areas where rotational SC occurs and delineation of the polygons that capture the mosaic of the forestfallow cycle; ii) stratification by practice (burn, fallow length, cultivation length, etc.); iii) development of a chrono sequence of sites that allows measurement of carbon stocks in forests of different ages to determine carbon removals by year and to estimate the longterm average carbon stock; and iv) identification of the areas of pioneer SC and overlaying with the forest carbon stratification map to assign the appropriate emission factor to the area. Use of this method made it possible to track deforestation (pioneer SC), clearing patterns, and periods of fallow or regrowth as indicators of shifting cultivation.
Results from the estimation of carbon stocks for a chrono sequence of sites enabled a model of carbon accumulation over time to be developed, so that net emissions from the shifting cultivation cycle could be estimated. Emission factors from such an analysis could then be estimated using the stockdifference method. Such a system was expected to be implemented post-2013 when improved data from remote sensing imagery became available and a time series to inform the needed chrono sequence of at least 10 years was available; at the time of writing of this report this was being collated.

Permanent agricultural conversion
Guyana's economy is heavily dependent on agricultural commodities (EPA 2000). Historically, land use was primarily agriculture based; fertile lands on the coast were converted first to sugar plantations during the colonial period, and then to rice farming and other crops (mainly by farm families) after slavery and indentureship ended. Due to expanded market integration and trade with neighboring countries, especially Brazil, the agricultural sector is currently under a lot of pressure (Bellfield et al. 2015).
Permanent agricultural development occurs primarily on the low-lying, fertile coast lands. However, the Ministry of Agriculture has been promoting expansion of large-scale agriculture into the mainly intermediate savannahs. This has not materialized in any significant way.

Infrastructure (primarily road building)
The majority of deforestation was observed in the State Forest Area along existing road infrastructure and navigable rivers (GFC 2015(GFC , 2018b. Between 1990 and 2016, deforestation was mainly related to road construction and other actions related to the Amaila Falls hydropower project (368 ha deforested, 40 ha degraded). Infrastructure expansion to support mining and timber harvesting accounted for 85% of deforestation in 2014 (GFC 2015), and 84% in 2017 (GFC 2018b). Forest degradation has occurred both through mining and forestry activity, with 16,000 ha degraded between 2010 and 2014 -predominantly through mining (GFC 2015) -while 81% of forest degradation in 2017 was driven by mining sites and associated road infrastructure (GFC 2018b).

Indirect drivers of deforestation and degradation
According to stakeholders interviewed and workshop participants, weak coordination among government agencies, unclear land tenure and an unclear benefit sharing mechanism are major indirect drivers for deforestation and degradation. Land tenure is controversial, particularly in mining areas where Amerindian communities have traditional privileges to mine, along with the right to veto any small or medium-scale mining activity on their titled land. However, they do not have the right to veto any large-scale mining operations if the government and the regulatory process approve that project in the national interest. During the course of this study, the authors did not encounter any case of a community having such veto situations/concerns regarding a large mining operation on their titled land.

Mitigation potential, assessment of carbon stocks and emission factors
Guyana's national forest monitoring system -referred to within Guyana as the Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification System (MRVS) -comprises the Forest Area Assessment System and the Forest Carbon Monitoring System (FCMS). The combination of activity data and emission factors generated from the  MRVS for key categories is used to approximate total carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions by source or driver under Guyana's REDD+ program.
In August 2017, the GFC announced that a National Forest Inventory would be conducted as a series of complementary actions to support the MRVS (GFC 2017a). A 100% forest inventory was proposed, anticipated to better inform forest concessionaires to enable better planning and management of forest operations. A sum of GYD 120 million was reported to have been set aside for the National Forest Inventory (Guyana Chronicle 2018a), which commenced in October 2018 and is expected to last 3-4 years.
Guyana's forest carbon stock assessment included a stratified two-stage list sampling design 6 with clustered plots. Using this approach, the country was divided into 10×10 km blocks (primary sampling units -PSUs). The PSUs within each stratum were selected using a stratified two-stage list sampling design for carbon measurementreferred to as Stage 1. Secondary sampling units (SSUs) designed as an L-shaped cluster of four sub-plots were established within each PSU and carbon measurements were obtained. Stage 2 of the stock assessment comprised the random selection of SSUs within the PSUs.
The total carbon (C) stock in Guyana's forests (aboveground and belowground biomass) was estimated based on the average area for each stratum (average for 2001-2012) and carbon stocks. The total C stock of Guyana forests was quantified as 5.22 billion tons of carbon (5.22 billion tC) (Table 12). Carbon stock in forests was found to be relatively uniformly distributed among the three Potential for future Change (PfC) strata. The strata give rise to ecological considerations that affect how much carbon is contained within a given area of land, as well as human pressure considerations, related to how the land is being used and how it could be used in the future (accessibility).
Activity data and emission factors for deforestation were combined to provide estimates of the historical emissions for the period 2001-2012 (Table 13 and 14). Total emissions from deforestation during 2001-2012 were 69.47 million tCO 2 . The average annual CO 2 emissions from deforestation over the whole period were 5.79 m tCO 2 yr -1 . About 88% of the total emissions were from deforestation in the High Potential for future Change (HPfC) stratum, with 10% occurring in the Medium Potential for Change (MPfC) and about 2% in the Low Potential for Change (LPfC) strata. Emissions from medium and large-scale mining and mining infrastructure accounted for 79.7% of total emissions, followed by agriculture (11.8%), forestry infrastructure (5.8%), and infrastructure (2.6%).
Guyana's forest reference emission level (FREL) was premised on emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and calculated as the combined average of the national (0.049%) and global (0.435%) reference emissions, 0.242%; and the total forest carbon stock over a 12-year (2001-2012) period estimated at 19,134,623,287 tCO 2 . 7 As a result, the national proposal for reference levels to the UNFCCC (GFC 2015) estimated Guyana's carbon emissions at 46,301,251 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (tCO 2 eq/yr). The UNFCCC's report on its technical assessment of the proposed forest reference emission level of Guyana submitted in 2014 noted that the national FREL only accounted for carbon dioxide emissions. However, the assessment team acknowledged that the data and information used by Guyana were "transparent and complete" and "in overall accordance with the guidelines" (UNFCCC 2015, p. 1).

Governance of forest and land
In the context of natural resources management, several institutions are involved in land use and forest management in Guyana (Table 15).

Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC)
The GGMC is responsible for monitoring all activities in the mineral sector on behalf of the government, as well as for providing basic prospecting information and advisory services on the available economic mineral prospects. The commission acts as a national repository for all information relating to geology and mineral resources which will facilitate an understanding of the resource base of the country, and provides advice to the government on appropriate mineral policy matters so that Guyana's mineral resources can be rationally developed and utilized.

Ministry of Indigenous Peoples Affairs (MOIPA)
This ministry works to enhance the social, economic and environmental well-being of indigenous peoples and their lands, through collaboration, sustainable development and appropriate legislation. Its mission is also to ensure the preservation of indigenous culture and traditional knowledge.
Since there is land ownership by indigenous peoples in Guyana, this ministry collaborates with other agencies, such as the Lands and Surveys Commission, regarding new land titles and also expansion of titles.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Established under the Environmental Protection Act (1996) the EPA is a regulatory agency mandated to implement measures for effective protection and management of the natural environment, coordination of conservation programmes and sustainable use of resources, and assessment and management of the impacts of development activities on the environment through the integration appropriate environmental provisions, planning and monitoring.
The GFC has refined its legal framework to curb illegal logging through the establishment and implementation of: 1. A log tracking system that tracks wood produce back to stump, verified using real time technology 2. 53 monitoring stations across the country to track movement of lumber from logging sites to sale points, primarily located on the coast 3. Log export policy, monitoring log export permits granted by GFC following certified timber grading, assurance of legality, second-

The Forest Act
In 2009, the 1953 Forest Act was revised in alignment with changes to the National Forest Policy Statement (1997) and the National Forest Plan (2001), both revised in 2011 through a stakeholder consultation process. In 2018, a review of the National Forest Policy Statement and the associated Plan was undertaken, to reflect Guyana's movement away from valuing forests simply for timber, but as a cornerstone of the country's national patrimony which provides a wide range of products and services (GoG 2018). The overall objective of the National Forest Policy is the conservation, protection, management and utilization of the nation's forest resources, while ensuring that the productive capacity of the forests for both goods and services is maintained or enhanced (GoG 2018 However, some of these projects were questioned, as is the case of a large hydroelectric power plant project at Amaila Falls, which had concerns of causing deforestation, with alternatives not sufficiently examined (Norconsult 2016).

The Green State Development Strategy
With the change in Government in May 2015, President David Granger's coalition government signaled a shift to a green state development trajectory, thereby broadening sustainable development beyond standing forests and low carbon economy. The recent discovery of oil and gas in significant quantities in Guyana's territorial waters has the potential to transform Guyana to a high-income state. The framework Green State Development Strategy (GSDS), which succeeds the LCDS, has seven central themes (MoFin 2019): 1. Green and inclusive structural transformation -diversifying the economic base, accessing new markets and creating decent jobs for all 2. Sustainable management of natural resources and expansion of environmental services 3. Energy -transitioning to renewable energy and greater energy independence 4. Resilient infrastructure and spatial development 5. Human development and well-being 6. Governance and institutional pillars 7. International cooperation, trade and investment.

The National Strategy for Agriculture in Guyana 2013-2020
This strategy (MoA 2013) aims to support agriculture sector development in Guyana with the aim of moving Guyana to a high middleincome developing country by 2025, providing entrepreneurs with investment opportunities, promoting employment, helping to eliminate inequity and poverty, building Guyana's export portfolio and developing a Brand Guyana that is globally recognized. The Ministry of Agriculture estimates that 1.74 million ha are used for agriculture, including: 318,000 ha for crops (GLSC 2013); 48,000 to 50,000 ha for sugar (Thomas 2016); 130,000 to 140,000 ha for nontraditional crops; and 158,473 ha for livestock.

The Guyana Investment Guide 2007
This guide offers investors a number of investment opportunities, including agriculture and agroprocessing, forest products and mining. The Guyana Office for Investment (GO-Invest) has been tasked by the Government of Guyana as the primary contact for investors to facilitate the investment process and expedite applications for investment concessions and government support; and as Guyana's main export promotion agency. According to Go-Invest, "with few exceptions (e.g. small and medium scale mining), foreign and domestic investors receive equitable treatment and both have the right to establish, own and operate business enterprises, and to engage in all forms of economic activity" (GO-Invest 2007, p. 1).

The National Competitiveness Strategy
The National Competitiveness Strategy (NCS) was designed in 2006 as a practical expression of partnership between the government and private sector, to deliver enhanced national competitiveness and greater economic growth. The NCS has three essential components: (i) core policies to improve competitiveness are economy-wide measures which consist of: incentive (demand-side) policies, including macroeconomic policy, competition policy, taxation policy, and trade policy; and supply-side policies, including policy measures with respect to education and training, business development services, finance, investment promotion, infrastructure, export promotion, red tape, and aspects of the legal system; (ii) sector policies to address particular obstacles and opportunities facing enterprises on a sector-specific basis; and (iii) strategic sub-sector policies, aiming to target centers of dynamism which provide the greatest opportunities for growth and diversification, so as to avoid spreading effort and resources too thinly. Under the NCS, the forestry sector is recognized to be made up of numerous enterprises involved in log production, plywood, timber, round wood, non-timber forest products, fuelwood, manicole palm, and production of value-added forest products. The sector currently contributes around 5% to the GDP and earned the economy USD 40.5 million in 2016. The NCS identified several constraints including a lack of policy definition in the past, deteriorating infrastructure, lack of business reinvestments, evolving unfavorable market conditions, and little apparent interest in generating value-added jobs in timber processing. These constraints are seen as having contributed to the diminishing importance of traditional forestry products over the past two decades. • Diversify away from imported fossil fuels in the national economy with the deployment of indigenous renewable energy resources • Enhance environmental sustainability by minimizing the local and global negative environmental impact of the energy sector • Attain universal access and equitable geographical distribution of green energy services at the least cost to consumers • Establish a regional export trade of green energy services and commodities • Develop the oil and gas sector for export.
Guyana became an oil producing country in December 2019 when ExxonMobil and its partners announced that the first commercial crude had been produced from the Liza field, located in Guyana's offshore Stabroek Block (Blackmon 2019). This offshore block is one of the largest oil discoveries of the past decade, with resources estimated at 2.25 to 2.75 billion oil-equivalent barrels (ExxonMobil 2019). In 2017, Exxon Mobil announced investment of over USD 4.4 billion to develop it in 2017 (ExxonMobil 2017).
Stakeholders interviewed and workshop participants expressed their concern that the new discovery of oil and gas, coupled with political interest to reduce dependence on imported petrol supply, have potential to accelerate the rate of deforestation in the country.
These concerns were premised on assumptions that the government might pay less attention to the mining and forestry sectors as focus would shift to the oil and gas sector.

Global governance and international agreements
Guyana has ratified numerous international agreements, such as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Convention to Combat Desertification, Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Guyana also participates in the United Nations Forum for Forests, and has made numerous international agreements (Table 16).
After signing the Paris Agreement, the Government of Guyana also promised to add 2 million ha to its national Protected Areas system. Strengthen and mainstream Guyana' s stakeholder consultation and engagement process to enhance forest governance, improve legal compliance and build in-country capacity for community engagement in forest policy development and implementation.
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) Guyana became an EITI candidate country in October 2017 (GYEITI 2019). The EITI aims to: • improve openness and accountable management of revenues from natural resources • promote better governance in countries rich in oil, gas and mineral resources, and seek to reduce the risk of diversion or misappropriation of funds generated by the development of a country's extractive industries.

Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility Project (FCPF) The FCPF aims to: • provide financial and technical assistance to support efforts of the government to establish an enabling framework and build their capacity for REDD+ • assist the government with (i) improvements in the organization of the country for REDD+ Readiness, including stakeholder consultations; and (ii) the preparation of the Guyana REDD+ Strategy and Policy to facilitate Guyana's access to additional funding under performance-based incentives.
Another project under the FCPF that impacts indigenous groups is the 'Grievance and Redress Mechanism (GRM) for REDD+ Implementation in Guyana' . This project aims to develop a national coordinating structure and procedures to receive, process and investigate complaints from affected parties/communities under the REDD+ implementation in Guyana. This mechanism will be based on engagement and dialogue, must be accessible, transparent, rights compatible, fair, accepted and benefit from continuous learning (FCPF 2019).
Guyana's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) (2016) Guyana's NDCs comprise conditional and unconditional policies, measures and actions to reduce the normative business-as-usual growth in emissions. The forestry and energy sectors are the key focuses. Unconditional policies • Forestry: Improve sustainable forest management and legal compliance; increase monitoring; finalize and implement EU FLEGT VPA; add value to timber; strengthen the MRVS (and CMRV); and implement the opt-in mechanism. • Energy: Renewable energy (solar, wind, water and biomass for national grid and hinterland communities). Conditional contributions • Contribute to avoided deforestation and achieve an effective REDD+ program.
• Avoid 48.7 MtCO 2 e emissions through an emissions reduction program in mining and logging. • Eliminate near-complete dependence on fossil fuels and develop 100% renewable energy supply by 2025.

Decentralization and benefit sharing
In Guyana, decision making in natural resource management sectors is centralized. The Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC) is mandated with public land administration (regional and national planning), together with other relevant natural resource government agencies. GLSC functions also include overseeing rivers and creeks in Guyana, carrying out surveys of land and water resources in Guyana, maintaining a national survey control system, evaluating offers for public land, and issuing grants or leases. Local government falls under the Ministry of Communities, with local government arms being mainly administrative and focused on urban planning.
Currently there are no direct legislative provisions for benefit sharing from land use and land use revenues between levels of government and between governmental and non-governmental entities. However, enshrined in Guyana's Constitution, Article 149 J(2), is the framework for use of natural resources and promotion of economic and social benefits: "The State shall protect the environment, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures designed to prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure social development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development" (GoG 1980, p. 103).
As per the bilateral REDD+ agreement with Norway, the OCC is developing an opt-in mechanism to tap into REDD+ project funds, for indigenous communities with titled ownership of forested lands who choose to opt-in; this will be performance based. Through the Norway agreement, many indigenous communities have also benefited from funds to develop community projects, most of which aimed at economic development. However, the MoU with Norway currently covers just the State Forest Estate; those communities that have full title to their land lie outside this agreement. Both the LCDS and the MoU with Norway make explicit reference to the fact that titled Amerindian communities will be able to opt-in to the REDD+ agreement, but there has been no deadline for decisions. Should they choose to participate, communities will receive "a pro-rata share of forest compensation payments" (Office of the President 2010, p. 3). There has been no indication made so far of any future stipulation made on communities that choose to participate, beyond having to comply with existing forest regulations and the need to determine any action they might take on the use of traditional rotational farming methods. According to the interviewees, the opt-in mechanism is still being developed and piloted, and stakeholders are uncertain on how this structure will be fully operated on the ground. Communities depend on both subsistence and cash-earning activities, though the mix between the two depends on the type of community and region, with remoteness often being the limiting factor for the latter (Griffiths and Anselmo 2010). Subsistence activity focuses on traditional rotational farming, complemented by hunting, fishing and gathering. Cash-earning activities include full-time governmentfunded jobs such as teaching and healthcare, sale of raw or processed food crops, livestock and fish, forestry products and crafts, occasional work as laborers, drivers, boatmen, tourist guides and NGO project workers, and mining activity either within or outside communities (Griffiths and Anselmo 2010).

Indigenous rights
As the goldmining sector has boomed in recent years there is some anecdotal evidence that Amerindians have been increasingly involved in the sector either in their own titled land, or migrating to work on mine sites across the country.

Tenure rights to carbon, land and trees
Although there is no official land use policy, there is a land use plan (GLSC 2013 Mineral mining is governed by the Mining Act (GoG 1989) and the Mining (Amendment) Regulations (GoG 2005). The Mining Act vests all mineral rights in the State, and allows licenses or permits to be granted by the GGMC. In 2011, licenses were issued for over nine million ha for the purpose of mineral mining in the six mining districts (Table 18). Claims were more concentrated in Mining District 3 (Mazaruni).
In January 2018, the Government of Guyana signed an agreement worth USD 15 million with the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to develop the country's first National Land Policy. The Sustainable Land Development and Management agreement will also cover the strengthening of institutional and human resource capacities.
The fundamental objection to legal structures which allowed for sovereignty of the colonial powers to remove any legal rights indigenous communities had to their lands, reportedly inconsistent with international law (Dooley and Griffiths 2014), resulted in demands for a reform of the Amerindian Act and the land titling process. However, when the Act was passed in 2006, it was met with criticism that it sustained the power of the Minister of Amerindian Affairs to "veto proposed title boundaries and the distinction between titled and untitled communities," although it abolished the power of the government "to extinguish title without consultation or consent" (Laing 2018, p. 13). Comments from the MOIPA indicate that the process of review of the legislation would commence in the near future and would include stakeholder consultations.  The country is an independent and sovereign nation with laws and institutions that promote and support a parliamentary form of democracy.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The three arms of national government (executive, legislature and judiciary) are augmented by local democratic organs that decentralize the administration of the state and allow for citizen participation in decision making. However, power in Guyana lies in the Office of the President.
Guyana's governance regime is reminiscent of many other developing countries, in that it suffers from perceived corruption, issues with government effectiveness and capacity, and rent seeking. Historically, literacy rates have been high compared with the region as a whole; total adult literacy rate between 2008 and 2015 was 85% (UNICEF 2013). However, political instability paired with economic stagnation has resulted in a mass emigration of the skilled workforce (Bade 2013).

Political economy of drivers of deforestation and degradation
The economy is dominated by agriculture, mineral mining and infrastructure services. Approximately 60% of Guyana's gross domestic product (GDP) is derived from the export of sugar, rice, shrimp, gold, bauxite and timber, with recent increases in gold production offsetting declines in the sugar industry (CIA n.d.). The economy is heavily dependent on agricultural commodities and extractive industries. The dependence on mined products, especially gold, has grown in recent years, despite the closure of the only large-scale gold mining operation in 2006 (Laing 2014). This growth in gold exports has resulted from both increased gold prices and increased activity. Indeed, a gold price boom in the mid to late 2000s amplified the country's reliance on gold mining as a source of growth and foreign exchange. Raw gold accounted for 58% of exports by value in the period January to May 2017 (Guyana Bureau of Statistics 2017), and between 2006 and 2016, value-added from the gold industry increased on average 15% per annum, compared with average growth in GDP as a whole (4.2%). Meanwhile, the forestry sector experienced declines due to the low productivity of the forest, high extraction costs and overexploitation of key species, with value-added price in the sector falling by 1% per annum between 2006 and 2016 (Guyana Bureau of Statistics 2017).
A comparison of the price of gold on the world market (London Fix) between 2009 and 2017 and the corresponding deforestation rate during the same period is presented in Table 19. Table 19 highlights that the highest recorded LUC occurred in 2012 when gold prices peaked, and subsided as the price fell.
The contribution of timber to the economy is relatively small, contributing only 3% of exports, while imports are dominated by fuel and lubricants, making up 31% of all imported value (Guyana Bureau of Statistics 2012). This fuel is not just for Guyana's growing transportation sector, but also for the diesel generation that dominates Guyana's electricity generation capacity.
Recent discovery of oil offshore in significant quantities has the potential to transform Guyana's economy. So far, 4 million barrels of oil equivalent have been estimated for production and the first oil is expected to be brought to the surface in 2020.

Mining
The mining sector has increasingly become the driving force of the economy, and representing the major source of exports and foreign currency. Small and medium-scale gold mining industry boomed and, with rising international prices, was helped by a stable legal framework and immigration of Brazilian expertise and technology (Laing 2014). A report in 2007 stated that the economy's dependence on gold was likely to be underestimated since almost a third of sales go through channels other than to the Guyana Gold Board as required by law (International Human Rights Clinic 2007). However, interviews with GGMC officials reported that this has lessened.
As the economic power of miners has grown over time, they have become important stakeholders playing a key role in informing the policy making process. According to government interviewees, mining accounted for 21% of GDP in 2012, up from 11% in 2006.
This increased economic dependence on mining has taken place at the same time as Guyana has started to receive results-based REDD+ finance. Yet, while miners have participated in the government's LCDS and GSDS public consultations, mining communities have generally not been involved in REDD+ discussions in Guyana.

Oil, petrol and gas
To date, 13 offshore wells have been found to have commercial quantities of oil and gas, with the latest 15th discovery made by Exxon Mobil in December 2019 (Blackmon 2019). The company announced its intention to drill more than 10 exploration and appraisal wells in offshore Guyana in 2019 and 2020. A 2019 article in the Stabroek News newspaper reported "the potential for at least five floating, production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessels on the Stabroek Block, producing more than 750,000 barrels of oil per day by 2025" (Stabroek News 2019c). If exploited, the find would place Guyana amongst the largest of Latin American oil producers.
Much attention is being directed towards the potentially significant contribution that exploitation of its hydrocarbon resources could make to the country's economy. As a consequence, there is slow movement towards other alternative revenue streams, including REDD+ plans. Discussions with stakeholders revealed concerns regarding the oil sector's impact on conservation efforts and agriculture investments; stakeholders also highlighted an unfair playing field for less-skilled Guyanese, given the influx of overseas workers. It was also felt that legislative development and environmental regulations are not moving at a pace that is suitable for impending oil extraction in 2020. There are also concerns that the concept of 'big money' may negatively impact the political landscape of Guyana -transparency and accountability need special attention to avoid the 'Dutch disease' that has plagued some oil-rich countries.
The fledgling petroleum sector needs knowledgeable and astute leadership to ensure the country's patrimony is carefully managed, its environment protected, and the benefits accrued are secured and equitably shared for the benefit of all Guyanese. The newly formed Departments of Environment and Energy are steps in the right direction, and need to be fully staffed with capable and experienced personnel and boosted by the requisite policies, legislation, plans and budgets that stipulate, oversee and manage the sector and its actors.
Earlier uncertainty regarding the responsibility and oversight of oil and gas development within the highest government structures were addressed in October 2018, when then Minister of State Mr. Joseph Harmon "[…] reiterated that responsibility for the oil and gas sector rests solely with President David Granger" (Ministry of the Presidency 2018).

Infrastructure development
Infrastructure development has always been a national priority in Guyana (Chabrol 2018

Broader climate change policy context
The country has developed a number of instruments, strategies and plans to guide Guyana's response to climate change and land degradation ( However LCDS -and its successor the GSDSis just one piece of the puzzle, as the Government of Guyana has also strengthened its climate change policy framework through (i) the new National Forest Plan 2018, along with a National Forest Policy Statement 2018, designed to encourage best practice in the sector; (ii) the new National Land Use Plan 2013, to "provide a strategic framework to guide land development in Guyana" (GLSC 2013); and (iii) the Protected Areas Act 2011, to establish more Protected Areas as a national response to mitigate climate change through ecosystem maintenance.

2009-2018
Ministry of Agriculture Aims to effectively reduce the risks posed by climate change and position the agricultural sector to adapt. Among its objectives is to build resilience and adaptive capacity within the sector.

2012
Ministry of Agriculture Focuses on Guyana's 'national circumstances' and a 'vulnerability and adaptation assessment' .

2020-2030
Office of Climate Change Lays out the national climate action vision, highlevel goals and objectives, for Guyana. Consists of 19 policy objectives addressing adaptation, mitigation, resistance building and risk reduction. would not maintain its prominence and would be replaced by a 'green economy' approach. This has led to some uncertainty in terms of national ownership and commitment, as well as availability of performance-based funds for REDD. However, in April 2017, a framework document for the GSDS was published, replacing the LCDS. • Benefit sharing -Opt-in mechanism under development.

• REDD+ readiness aspects such as safeguards and strategy funded by Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
Project (FCPF). • REDD+ international commitments -Guyana has made commitments under the Paris Agreement through the NDC. • Forest, mining and energy sectors prioritized, with plan to increase Protected Areas by 2 million ha.

• Q: How many subnational REDD+ initiatives are in place?
• A: One and this is a local (hinterland/indigenous) development fund for REDD+ projects.

• Q. Are local REDD+ projects in the country coordinated with the national government? If yes, how?
• A: Yes. The application process includes review by a steering committee. National government (Office of Climate Change) finances projects through GRIF, and oversees the projects.

• Q. Is the sale of carbon credits by subnational initiatives recognized by the national government?
• A: Not yet.

• Q: What kinds of decision-making powers have been devolved to subnational governments (and local government and communities if applicable)? • A:
The opt-in mechanism is being developed for indigenous communities (councils), to include their lands as eligible for payments for ecosystem services (PES) payments.

Source: Analysis and key informant interviews with NGOs key informants
The government also started meeting with its Norwegian counterparts to extend the Letter of Intent beyond 2016, and to negotiate a possible new agreement.

REDD+ financing
To implement the financing aspects, the GRIF was set up in October 2010 with partner entities the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). This multi-contributor trust fund was established to: "(i) manage payments provided by Contributors to the GRIF for forest climate services provided by Guyana; and (ii) transfer these payments and any investment income earned on these payments, net of any administrative costs of the Secretariat and the Trustee, to Partner Entities for Projects and activities that support the implementation of Guyana's LCDS" (GRIF Steering Committee 2011, p. 6).
According to the official GRIF webpage, "the GRIF represents an effort to create an innovative climate finance mechanism which balances national sovereignty over investment priorities while ensuring that REDD+ funds adhere to the highest internationally recognized standards for financial, environmental and social safeguards" (GRIF Steering Committee 2011, p. 2). This is a temporary mechanism, pending the creation of an international REDD+ mechanism, and in that way it is innovative and a test case. The GRIF structure includes Contributors, a Steering Committee, a Secretariat, Trustee, Partner Entities, and various Implementing Entities (Figure 7).  According to Bade (2013), under this structure, money flows: "(1) from Norway to the World Bank, based on continued low deforestation rates in Guyana, (2) from the World Bank to the Partner entities after they submit projects and are approved by the steering committee, then (3)  Under the MoU with Norway, up to USD 250 million of performance-related payments would be made to Guyana over five years. There were two sets of performance criteria for payments: • Indicators of enabling activities: These were a set of policies and safeguards designed to ensure REDD+ efforts contribute to the achievement of the goals set out in the Agreement. These indicators spoke to arrangements to ensure systematic and transparent multi-stakeholder consultations throughout the process; protection of the rights of Indigenous peoples; ensuring environmental integrity and biodiversity protection; ensuring continuous improvements in forest governance; and providing transparent, accountable oversight and governance of the financial support received. • REDD+ performance indicators: A set of forest-based greenhouse gas emissions-related indicators. It was agreed these indicators would gradually be replaced as the monitoring, reporting and verification system became fully operational. The indicators were developed based on conservative estimates while encouraging the development of a more accurate system over time through building national capacities.

GRIF Partner Entities Implementing Entities in Guyana
Despite these written commitments, key informant interviewees claimed that Norway has since put in additional requirements which were not part of the original plan, such as Guyana needing to sign a VPA and being member of EITI, leading to additional burdens on the state.

REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism
No formal decision was made in the MoU regarding carbon credits, formal or otherwise, being transferred between Guyana and Norway (Office of the President 2013). The agreement was purely voluntary, with Norway providing finance in return for Guyana's delivery of results as measured, and independently verified or assessed, against REDD-plus Performance Indicators and Indicators of Enabling Activities.
A no-cost extension with Norway Agreement has been implemented to complete activities. The fifth payment of USD 190 million was released, while the sixth (and final JCN) payment is based on 2014 performance results.
Payments are also based on the independent thirdparty verification process of Guyana's REDD+ MRVS (whereby the GFC is audited by a firm hired by Norway). All payments under Phase 1 of the Guyana Norway Agreement have been made in 2019 (Stabroek News 2019b).
Finance received has been used for approved REDD+ projects -ICT for Hinterland, the National Optin Mechanism, Amerindian Land Titling, the Amerindian Development Fund, the Sustainable Land Development Project, and Cunha Canal.

Monitoring, reporting and verification
Prior to the Guyana-Norway MoU, there were estimates of deforestation available. Thus, a first step under the agreement with Norway was the development of a national MRVS by the GFC, to "establish a comprehensive national system to monitor report and verify forest carbon emissions resulting from deforestation and forest degradation" (Figure 8; Box 3). The MRVS was developed as performance measurement mechanism for REDD+ with focus initially placed on the development of two primary components: (i) a framework for forest area change assessment and monitoring; and (ii) forest carbon stock measurement and monitoring.
The national-scale MRVS is identified as a national priority of Guyana's REDD+ program. Guyana's MRVS Roadmap, developed in 2009, aimed to build a comprehensive national system to monitor, report and verify forest carbon emissions resulting from deforestation and forest degradation. In addition to this national-level MRV effort, a community-level MRV initiative (CMRV) was launched in Annai and Konashen to develop a community-based system to manage and monitor natural resources and well-being, facilitate capacity building in the communities, and create a replicable community model that could be integrated into the national MRV system.
Since 2010, there have been seven national-level assessments done on an annual basis. In 2010, the first assessment monitoring forest change was completed using mainly Landsat 5. In the following year, a combination of Landsat 5 and 7 was used, and for the first time, 5 m highresolution imagery, with RapidEye coverage assessing approximately half of Guyana, where the majority of land use changes were taking place. Forest change in 2013 was determined using highresolution imagery for the whole of Guyana. The current method follows careful systematic manual interpretation of satellite imagery, to identify deforestation based on different drivers of change.
Guyana's formal definition of a forest sets a minimum mapping unit (MMU) for deforestation of 1 ha, and a country-specific definition of 0.25 ha for degradation. The total forested area of Guyana is estimated as 18.39 million ha.
Forest area change assessment in Guyana is undertaken through estimation of gross deforestation,  which assesses: i) the rate of conversion of forest area; ii) forest area, as defined by the Marrakech Accords; iii) conversion of natural forests to tree plantations, which is counted as deforestation; and iv) forest area converted to new infrastructure, including logging roads, which is also counted as deforestation.

Box 3. Key issues around MRV in Guyana
Forest cover on 3 February 2009 is used as baseline for monitoring gross deforestation, and reporting is based on medium resolution satellite imagery (5 m resolution) and in situ observations. The Guyana Forest Commission monitors, detects and reports on expansion of human infrastructure.

Guyana also established a Forest Carbon
Monitoring System (FCMS), developing a framework which focuses on three sample phases (Table 21; Figure 9).

Safeguards, stakeholder inclusion and engagement
At national level, the government established the Multi-Stakeholder Steering Committee (MSSC) to manage the LCDS consultation process and later on, take on broader responsibility including "receiving updates and discussing projects under the LCDS, reviewing and discussing various Terms of References and proposals, and discussing Guyana's involvement in international fora related to REDD+." The MSSC consisted of members of government ministries and agencies, and invited members of the country's NGOs and civil society. Despite initial good intentions, the MSSC encountered a number of challenges; these included the fact that it did not include parliamentary opposition; it was perceived as being dominated by senior government officials; and it lacked a clear mandate or terms of reference (Laing 2018). Our interview results confirmed some of this, with key informants indicating concern on how inclusive the REDD+ decision-making process is in Guyana, both in terms of understanding and implementation (Box 4).
Stakeholders interviewed also have different perceptions on the future of REDD+ in Guyana.
Indigenous peoples interviewed expected REDD+ to be more appealing for the indigenous community, in terms of ensuring inclusiveness and equal access to participate in REDD+ and obtain benefits. Adequate support needs to be given for a communication campaign so that key messages regarding REDD+ and its implementation are clear, to avoid further confusion or different interpretations among community members.

This box offers some indigenous perspectives regarding REDD+ in Guyana, based on key informant interviews conducted in 2017.
Aiming to do no harm and to ensure equal access to REDD+ benefits, the government is in the process of establishing a benefit sharing mechanism named opt-in, targeting Guyanese Amerindians. In addition, a free prior informed consent (FPIC) procedure is being implemented on the ground, However, how to communicate these concepts well remains a challenge.
The issue of indigenous communities distrusting any projects that target their customary lands adds another layer of complication. For a long time, Guyanese Amerindians have been dealing with challenges over their customary lands. Despite the legal recognition given to their land rights, the state continues to hold ultimate control over land. Indigenous communities throughout Guyana have demanded that all outstanding land and territorial issues be resolved before any Low Carbon Development Strategy/REDD+ projects that may affect customary lands and resources proceed. Under the current arrangement, the amount of customary lands recognized by government is much smaller than ancestral claims. Thereby, a large portion of customary land remains untitled. Despite government claims that land rights and the principles of FPIC are included in the national LCDS and REDD+ programs, communities are concerned that they will not be adequately addressed, and that FPIC is restricted to titled lands only -which excludes untitled ancestral land claims. For example, a draft project document for an Amerindian Land Titling Project submitted to the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF) in early 2011 was not based on prior consultation and did not meet international standards and safeguards, partly due to faulty procedures set out in the Amerindian Act. No clear and fair process was established for describing which customary areas would be eligible for legal recognition by the government, or when. Communities are concerned that, if carried out improperly, land titling and demarcation could increase the potential of conflicts.
The Guyana Green State Development Strategy (GSDS) document that is the successor to the LCDS does not include recognition of indigenous communities, and does not acknowledge indigenous rights. Indigenous rights have not been included due to a lack of consultation; no prior consultation or information about the document was given to indigenous peoples, and Guyana's indigenous peoples have not been kept informed regarding how REDD will unfold following the GSDS. The required knowledge on forest and forest conservation is available within the indigenous communities; however, this is not being made use of. REDD+ is being paid lip service in Guyana.
The change in administration has caused momentum to slow down in the implementation of REDD+. Prior discussions led to expectations that money would flow into indigenous communities; these expectations have not been fulfilled. Different languages within indigenous communities negatively impact their understanding of the REDD+ program. It is therefore important to convey REDD+ in a more palatable way for indigenous communities. Making information on REDD+ more accessible via different communication streams (i.e. not limited to websites that require internet access and technology literacy), and creating forums for discussion at grassroots level, will help with the inclusion of indigenous peoples. It is equally important to remember that not all indigenous communities' representatives have the same capacity or willingness to voluntarily sensitize their neighborhoods on REDD+. While the North Rupununi District Development Board (NRDDB) is sensitizing neighboring communities, the same is not happening in other indigenous communities. Considering how to provide capacity building, identifying local champions especially youth, and creating an incentive mechanism to encourage such activity at the grassroot level, are key actions for successful sensitization.
This chapter is an overall reflection on REDD+ and its policy processes in Guyana in terms of 'the 3Es'. The 3Es are effectiveness -to what extent REDD+ has achieved carbon and non-carbon benefits; efficiency -to what extent all stakeholders got what they paid for; and equity. The last refers to "the distributional aspects of the associated costs and benefits, procedural aspects of participatory decision-making and the specific contexts that shape stakeholders' perceptions of equity" (Angelsen et al. 2009 Despite these achievements, some analysts contend that the impact of REDD+ funding in Guyana is largely yet to be seen. As an example, in the initial years of REDD+ implementation, the mining sector -the main driver of deforestation in the country -remained relatively untouched (Laing 2014). Accordingly, this situation has caused a perception of insignificant policy changes, despite attempts at the reform of agencies such as the GGMC, and the creation of the new cross-cutting Ministry of Natural Resources.
However, a CIFOR study (Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2019) highlights Guyana as one of three countries making significant REDD+ progress at a global level. This has been supported by a combination of alreadyinitiated policy change and strong ownership of the REDD+ process (Seymour and Busch 2016). In general, the Norway-Guyana partnership has been "effective in raising the political profile of climate change issues in Guyana" (Creed and Nakhooda 2011). Yet progress has slowed down, largely due to delays in financing, caused by the administrative hurdles of channeling funds through multilateral development banks, and disputes over the application of the World Bank's safeguard policies to revenues earned on a performance basis under the agreement (Creed and Nakhooda 2011). This slow disbursement has not only threatened to undermine political support for the partnership, but also constrained the government's ability to respond to the emergence of mining as the main cause of deforestation (Seymour and Busch 2016). Likewise, increased mining activities and the big oil find has diverted attention away from forest protection and REDD+, with minimal actual spending on REDD+ (Laing 2018).
It is too early to see the overall effect of REDD+ on the rate of deforestation in Guyana. However, it needs to be noted that since 2012, deforestation levels have progressively declined, with mining deforestation being reduced significantly. The most recent published rate of deforestation, in 2017, is 0.048% (GFC 2017a).
In 2018, Mongabay reported that Guyana recorded its lowest rate of deforestation since 2010, when the South American country first established its national MRV program. According to GFC data in 2018, the deforestation rate in 2017 was 0.048% -decreasing from the 0.050% recorded in 2015-2016. Though mining has continued to be the main driver of deforestation in Guyana, this lower deforestation rate for 2017 illustrates its decreasing impact. This indicates improvement as, initially, several reports showed that deforestation increased sharply in the years just before and during the REDD+ agreement, mainly due to increased mining in response to increased gold prices (Seymour and Busch 2016;Laing 2018). As this driver of deforestation expanded concurrently with REDD+ initiatives, measuring impacts attributable to the Guyana-Norway agreement has been difficult.
Currently, there is only the opt-in provision for indigenous communities. In the design of the opt-in mechanism, 'opting in' was the decision of individual villages: "it is voluntary, reversible, and without a deadline or consequences for other national development programs" (Overman et al. 2018). This implies that "if after FPIC, villages decide to opt in, traditional activities, including swidden farming, are permitted to continue. Emissions of village activities will be monitored, and the difference with the national reference level will be used to determine the amount of payment each year, per village. Transaction and implementation costs would be shared between government and village" (Overman et al. 2018).
At the design state of the opt-in mechanism, only a small amount of the funding received has actually been spent, most of which has been disbursed to the Micro and Small Enterprise Development Fund and the Amerindian Development Fund (ADF) (Laing 2015). A study by Laing (2018) has shown that it has not significantly led to behavioral changes. Likewise, Laing also states that "the opt-in mechanism that is fair for all indigenous communities, integrating REDD+ with the extractives industries such as mining, and keeping a focus on low-carbon development in the light of major new oil finds is still a work in progress." The government needs to prioritize the development of measures that directly address drivers of deforestation. Despite positive indications around the country performance, as shown by the decreased deforestation rate, proposals targeting the main drivers of deforestation and forest degradation are still lacking. Without a direct mechanism that tackles the drivers of deforestation, the effectiveness of REDD+ fails to ensure its permanence.
Currently, Guyana's economy still largely depends on extractive resources, with mining the main driver of deforestation. Since mining rights supersede the Forestry Act, this condition will remain for the foreseeable future (Forest Legality Initiative n.d.). Oil exploration has the potential to bring negative impacts to the effectiveness of REDD+, albeit indirectly. Foglia from Bloomberg (2019) reported how Guyana could be pumping 1 million barrels of oil a day by 2025. Although this may not pose a menace to Guyana's rainforest, the billions of dollars in taxes and royalties flowing into the government's coffers might (Foglia 2019). When the GDP doubles, oil money could pay for power lines, better schools and improved healthcare for the 100,000 people who live inside the rainforest. But that also would require building more roads -which would make the area more accessible to logging and mining companies.

Performance-based payments -or politics?
Under the Norway-Guyana REDD+ agreement, audits have been conducted to assess progress. The 2012 audit findings showed that seven out of ten verification indicators were not, or were only partially met (Rainforest Alliance 2012; Henders and Ostwald 2013;Lang 2013). Performance improved slightly the following year, with 13 out of 16 indicators met. Only one indicator was not met (application of EITI candidacy at the 2013 board meeting), and two indicators were partially met (Norwegian Ministry of the Environment 2013).
In the 2012 assessment, successes included institutional set up of an Office of Climate Change and the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC), with the REDD+ Secretariat, responsible for technical and operational implementation of REDD+ measures. Reports also acknowledge the strong performance of independent forest monitoring, progress in EU FLEGT, and Extractive Industries Transparency Initiatives. Guyana also enhanced intersectoral coordination on land uses, as the new Ministry of Natural Resources and the Department of Environment were established. However, stakeholders participating in our consultation workshops also reported weak consultation and irregular communication between government and local people.
According to some indigenous representatives interviewed, access to information has been a challenge to the inclusiveness of REDD+.
However, recognition is made of ongoing actions that seek to address these issues, and as government officials who were interviewed stated, Guyana is actively in its REDD+ Readiness phase inclusive of information and awareness building. Support is being provided by the FCPF through the Ministry of Natural Resources and a special Project Execution Unit has been set up. The officials asserted that several components of REDD+ Readiness were underway including "extensive strengthening and capacity building programmes with Indigenous and forest-dependent institutions and stakeholders, to ensure their readiness, involvement, inputs and active participation for an inclusive REDD+ programme". In particular regard to community engagement, one component comprises a two-year program with the National Toshaos Council and ten other Indigenous Peoples NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs) including the National Steering Committee of Community Forestry Organisations Slow implementation of the GRIF adds complexities. Two years after the inception of REDD+ in Guyana, in 2012, GRIF released a total of USD 9.2 million (13% of the total pledged, based on the Steering Committee's funding decisions) (Henders and Ostwald 2013;Lang 2013). While there was visible progress in certain areas, mainly technical forest monitoring and area mapping, the 2013 audit report concludes that the "dominant impression from this audit, based on inputs from all interested parties, is one of frustration and disappointment that more progress has not occurred" (Norwegian Ministry of the Environment 2013, p. 5). Despite rejecting indicator verification (Lang 2013;Laing 2018), the Norwegian government continued its support by allocating additional funds of USD 45 million to Guyana, based on "continued low deforestation", "improvements in forest governance", and "commitment to further improvements in 2013" (Ministry of the Environment 2012), with the acknowledgment that Guyana provides a valuable carbon storage service to the world, and can be a model to other countries with high forest cover and low deforestation rates (Lang 2013). Guyana continued to receive disbursements with the "final payment" under the bilateral agreement issued by Norway in September 2019 when Minister for Climate and Environment Ola Elvestuen was quoted as having emphasized that "Norway is most impressed with the continued low deforestation rates in Guyana over many years, and also with the substantive progress made on forest governance" (GRIF 2019, p. 1).
If funding disbursement or provision of additional funding is a measurement for performance, the experience of Guyana shows otherwise.

What is progress?
Guyana has made significant progress in the implementation of REDD+ and its overall green development agenda. Yet, even the notion of progress itself has been questioned, with NGOs and auditors having very different perspectives. Over 5 years ago, some authors said they had not seen progress in the way that it was outlined in the original MoU, thus leading them to question whether actual results justified further payments under a performance-based agreement (Henders and Ostwald 2013). Indeed, as a CIFOR study highlighted, one major gap in the current guidance for REDD+ finance is a lack of clear, context-relevant criteria and metrics to help justify and mobilize payments (Wong et al. 2016).
Often the way indicators are worded can lead to different assessment results, as shown by the audit reports (Norwegian Ministry of the Environment 2013), and the different assessments of the 2012 audit and the 2013 verification report. REDD+ is also an overarching umbrella term, encompassing aspects of technical monitoring, REDD+ policy, and programmatic implementation, all directed towards supporting continued low rates of deforestation and forest degradation, conservation and sustainable management. Due to the diversity of these included aspects, they are assessed in different manners.
Nevertheless, there is general agreement among stakeholders interviewed that progress has been made in numerous areas: On the other hand, several challenges persist: • Like many other countries, Guyana relies almost solely on reducing deforestation directly through more stringent legislation and enforcement of existing regulations (Laing 2018). This approach requires additional efforts to change the capacity for alternative livelihood options and adequate human and fiscal resources for monitoring and enforcement. • Overlapping and conflicting land uses, especially between forestry and mining, remain a persistent issue requiring a systematic and coordinated approach between the GGMC and GFC, and miners and loggers, respectively.
Making optimum use of trees is strongly recommended, before forested areas are cleared to accommodate mining operations. This would be enhanced through greater collaboration between the respective agencies (GGMC and GFC in particular), and cooperation between the miners and loggers. • In the mining sector, the management of mineral mining, especially for gold, still needs upgrading and strengthening in almost every sphere of activity. Monitoring and enforcement have seen some improvement, including recent actions to address cave-ins and accidents which have claimed the lives of some miners and jeopardized the livelihood of their dependents. However, there is a need for greater attention to avoid and/or mitigate pollution of waterways, reduction and safe use of mercury, and compliance with the health and safety protocols for all persons associated with this activity.

Is the Low Carbon/Green Development Strategy the right framework to include REDD+?
In general, REDD+ implementation reflects a variety of policies, programs and interventions that include enabling measures, disincentives and incentives (Angelsen et al. 2018). While the importance of tenure and rights remains, new ideas have come to the fore, including the need to engage the private sector and to situate REDD+ within broader jurisdictional approaches to lowemission rural development (Angelsen et al. 2018).
In the case of Guyana, REDD+ was positioned as part of its LCDS (Thomas 2016 Birdsall and Busch (2014) conducted in-country interviews and research, and reported that Guyana's performance-based payment system has functioned as designed with payments lower in years when deforestation emissions are higher, consistent with a credible contingent payment system; while Laing (2018) claimed that the LCDS lacked a direct mechanism through which finance received from Norway would impact deforestation. In fact, the specific actions undertaken by the GFC to review, upgrade and enforce its regulations and other prescriptions, including increasing its human and technical capacity, counter this assertion as they are strategic actions focused directly on deforestation. The Commission's establishment and continued improvement of a robust MRVS that spatially accounts for the area of deforestation and degradation with confidence, and that is independently verified is a significant mechanism in this regard. This MRVS is in its second phase following the MRVS Road Map proposed in 2009, and benefits from continuous improvements to improve accuracy (GFC 2017a), but which was already deemed an "excellent national system for monitoring deforestation" assessed at a reference level relative to a high-forest/low-deforestation (HFLD) country (Birdsall and Busch 2014).
The question is more, to what extent the MRVS should be integrated into the GSDS, and to what extent it should monitor overall development.
The LCDS included two critical components for achieving effectiveness and equity: (i) the development of a national Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification System (MRVS), and (ii) multistakeholder participation -in particular that of indigenous forest-dependent communities -in its design and implementation of REDD+ (Bellfield et al. 2015).
The GSDS acknowledges the "solid results" the GFC has delivered though the MRVS and the expansion of this expertise into the EU FLEGT to reduce illegal logging (EU FLEGT 2018a). Further, the Strategy and Vision states the CMRV of indigenous communities would be strengthened, but does not elaborate on how this would be accomplished. Moreover, the GSDS does not appear to present any provisions for the national MRVS or of what specific mechanisms would be deployed to directly target deforestation.
As mentioned, the LCDS was, at least partly, funded by the performance payments of different REDD+ agreements. Yet LCDS and the subsequent GSDS are more an economic development plan (Laing 2015), and their specific plans to directly reduce the pressure on forests are generally unclear. As in many other countries, the integration of climate change aspects into wider development frameworks occurs more through projects run outside the government (GoG 2006). Thomas (2009) and current trends highlight the growing importance of mining in Guyana's economy. Reports, including Guyana's EITI report underscore the need for further study and data on the industry to improve its performance, both economically and environmentally, as well as to strengthen its alignment with the GSDS. As such, focus on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation is generally diluted in the overall Strategy and its implementing mechanisms.

Efficiency
The LCDS sought to assign an economic cost to ecological services provided by Guyana's rainforests to the world. This economic value to the world (EVW) was estimated at USD 40 billion per year. However, the economic value of the forests to the nation (EVN) was estimated at a much lower value of USD 580 million per year, representing the income Guyana would gain if the natural resources in its forests were exploited. Through this premise, Guyana committed to conserving its forests on the condition that the international community funded this initiative at a monetary value higher than the EVN (Gregersen et al. 2010).
Guyana's MRVS is the most advanced system of its kind in the world. During its early phases, the REDD+ Readiness stage moved fast. Such progress was contributed to by two tiers of interagency coordination and a multi-stakeholder participation system, with the President of Guyana holding a major role in convening and chairing the Multi-Stakeholder Steering Committee, and GFC convening and chairing the MRVS Steering Committee. Both committees had strong links with the Ministry of Natural Resources in their efforts to understand how the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation could be more efficiently managed to reduce emissions (Office of the President 2011).
The complexity of the institutional structure through which REDD+ finance flowed has led to slow REDD+ financial flow and expenditure, which in turn has constrained REDD+ implementation. Such complexity was in part created to satisfy the myriad of safeguards and prerequisites, due to limited capacity within the Government of Guyana (Stabroek News 2011; Office of Climate Change 2013; Laing 2018). Slow financial delivery has likewise meant increasing administrative costs payable to intermediary entities (Laing 2014), and thereby resulting in reduced payments received by Guyana in return for its performance -essentially less than it had earned by its performance.
Generally, the slow delivery of finance has resulted in extremely slow progress in projects, particularly those most practical to indigenous communities. The land titling program finally began in 2013, following the Amerindian Development Fund, which began in 2012. The opt-in program was delayed due to concerns over land rights issues and consultation processes with indigenous communities (Anselmo and Almas 2017).
The complexities and attendant project delays with receipt of Norway's disbursements could be directed at the misconception primarily by the intermediary agencies (World Bank and IDB) that the Guyana and Norway MoU was premised on overseas direct aid (ODA) which these agencies are more familiar with, rather than recognizing that it was a payment for ecosystem services (PES) agreement. While some of these challenges were understandable given that there was no precedent to follow for this landmark agreement, the fact that they persisted and were not rectified or resolved, contributed to further delays and indeed some levels of frustration felt by the targeted beneficiaries of the predetermined project activities for which the funds were to be directed. Birdsall and Busch (2014) asserted that these scenarios may have eclipsed the potential contribution to broader policy and program ideas for tackling deforestation.
Guyana has invested significant sums of its own funds to establish the necessary structures and processes to implement its MRVS and associated actions that supported the LCDS and the Guyana-Norway Agreement. The GFC has become the lead agency undertaking significant responsibilities outside its own mandate and extra-budgetary expenses. These expenses borne by the Commission to ensure successful implementation of mechanisms that monitor, verify and report on Guyana's performance should be quantified and assessed against what was earned by the country by the payments. Indeed, the overall cost to Guyana for all the activities to meet the requirements of the bilateral agreement with Norway, should be compared against what was earned through the performance-based payments. The value of improved technical and institutional capacities should also be considered. Overall, this would present a more accurate position on the efficacy and other parameters of this agreement designed to represent a model for other HFLD countries to emulate.

Equity
Guyana's recognition of indigenous rights is much advanced compared with many other countries. Over 3 million ha (approximately 14%) of the country's land mass is held by the indigenous peoples under ownership rights, while an additional 500,000 ha are allocated from the State Forest for Community Forestry Associations. In the context of REDD+, the indigenous peoples hold similar membership rights with representatives of other stakeholder groups on the Multi-Stakeholder Steering Committee, EU FLEGT National Implementation Working Group, FCPF REDD Readiness project and other fora. Specific actions also target the indigenous population in particular, such as the Grievance and Redress Mechanism, country-wide consultations and the Opt-In Mechanism (OIM). Further, the CMRV, introduced by Global Canopy Programme, the Iwokrama International Centre and the North Rupununi District Development Board in collaboration with the GFC trained 40 community representatives from 16 communities as CMRV technicians and managers for data collection, verification and dissemination. Out of the 16, Annai was designated at a national demonstration site by the GFC while other areas were designated for mining and forestry. Since the end of this initiative, and with the expertise of the trained personnel, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Guyana has rolled out two CMRV programs that empower villages and communities to use and manage forests for greater equity and benefit sharing.
The OIM was developed in consultation with indigenous leaders nationwide who provided reviews to inform the documents, and the community of Muritaro was assigned to be the national pilot site. However, the Mechanism is not yet finalized and the structure is still under development; payment is being navigated toward two options -direct payments to communities or indirect payments through the Amerindian Development Fund (Bellfield et al. 2015).
There are four challenges hindering progress of the opt-in mechanism as identified by various authors: 1. The size of area included for opt-in is much smaller if titled under community land, compared with ancestral land claims (Read et al. 2010;SCPDA 2012;Dooley and Griffiths 2014). This may have contributed to an increasing number of requests for extensions to village boundaries, which, when added to the current areas listed for review and demarcation contributes to even further delay. 2. As Chapter 3 highlights, multiple land uses and rights and the inadequacy of adequate consultations might impede the effectiveness of REDD+. Guyana exemplifies the range of property rights described by Bromley (1991).
Concessionaires have de jure rights in a number of areas -such as the right to extract. Other users, such as miners, may have competing de jure rights along with de facto rights in some areas. Amerindian communities have de jure rights to titled lands -predominantly outside the State Forest Estate -but there are many communities which exercise de facto rights over other areas and claim de jure rights through titling and extension processes. This complication of rights, especially between timber and mining interests, has led to instances of conflict and environmental damage which attract the attention of the regulatory agencies for resolution. Understanding the impact that the LCDS has had, and what the GSDS could have, on these rights to the forest would be crucial in assessing REDD+ effectiveness in Guyana. 3. The limited coordination between ministries has caused overlap (fully or partially) of indigenous communities' titles with extractive permits, which would remain valid under the 2006 Amerindian Act (Dooley and Griffiths 2014). 4. While there is annual conference between government and the National Toshaos Council which comprises the village leaders of all indigenous communities across the country, during which all matters, including REDD+ are discussed, there is some misunderstanding among some community members whether REDD+ earnings are to replace national funding for basic rural development for communities. Bovolo et al. (2012) raised the importance of having separate allocations to increase resilience against climate change, especially with changing weather patterns affecting communities' primary food source (farming) and drinking water supply in the southern part of Guyana, where it rains less than in other parts of the country. 5. Additionally, the FPIC process will need a much larger and continuous dissemination and engagement effort to make REDD+ more understandable.
Lastly, representatives of other forest-dependent communities and indeed some coastal residents have expressed concern that there appears to be a strong bias towards the indigenous communities as beneficiaries of the OIM, and perceptions (founded or unfounded) of a lack of equity in benefit sharing with other communities and/or groups. These conceptions, notwithstanding the added complexities of the coastal versus hinterland vs rural vs city residents, land ownership and uses must be ventilated at the level of government and with all stakeholder groups to ensure equity issues are wholesomely addressed.
However, it is anticipated that the Guyana FCPF REDD+ project is currently addressing some of these issues for which it was designed. The experience and support of the indigenous NGOs and others such as UNEP, Conservation International, WWF, Iwokrama and others should be sought to assist in this process, which should not be seen as a project activity, but continuous capacity and awareness-building actions.
Guyana, being a country of high forest cover and low deforestation is in a special position to contemplate the pursuit of REDD+ for the social and economic advancement of its relatively small population. In 2009, Norway agreed to support Guyana to maintain the low levels of deforestation over a five-year period, with REDD+ implemented through the LCDS developed by the then government. The LCDS put an economic value on the forest and the opportunity cost of forgone development of its vast natural resources. This has allowed the country to achieve significant progress in addressing illegal logging, established a robust MRVS and increased land ownership for its indigenous peoples -which by extension, adds to the areas under some form of conservation actions. An innovative benefit sharing concept -the 'Optin' Mechanism -is also on the way; this is unique to Guyana, when compared with other REDD+ countries and is designed to ensure equitable sharing of REDD+ benefits, but which could easily be adapted to other concepts.
Yet, the early progress in REDD+ slowed down in later years. Increased mining activities (if gold prices are high) and commercial oil discoveries may divert attention away from forest protection and REDD+, with minimal actual spending on REDD+. Within the LCDS, REDD+ was taken to be almost synonymous with LCDS. When LCDS transformed into the GSDS, the position of REDD+ was less clear.
Questions have been raised as to whether payments are truly made for performance, as there have not been any measures taken to address direct drivers of deforestation, or whether it was instead political correctness, construed to build a certain image of REDD+ in the global eye. At the country level, Guyanese wondered whether the traditional mining and forestry sectors, identified as the main drivers of deforestation, would be closed, putting thousands out of work, and how they would be compensated to maintain and improve their livelihoods. There is an ongoing consultation process and communication strategy to engage and inform stakeholders.
Guyana has succeeded in earning the performancebased payments based on the sliding scale formula agreed to by both parties and has fulfilled all the requirements of the agreement signed with Norway. Guyana succeeded in earning the performancebased payments based on the sliding scale formula agreed to by both parties. Norway succeeded in ensuring the deforestation rates remained low and had the added bonus ensuring Guyana signed on to the EITI and EU FLEGT initiatives for greater scrutiny and compliance with international standards. Unfortunately, the flagship project in the agreement, particularly the Amaila Falls Hydropower project, designed to significantly reduce Guyana's heavy dependence on imported fossil fuels and to transform energy production to a renewable resource, was truncated, and is to be replaced by a mix of smaller renewable projects at various locations, with what may still have much less overall impact. However, the other projects in the agreement are at various stages of progress, with the GRIF serving as the repository, and a model of how funds derived through REDD+ and other special 'projects', could be managed appropriately (once all the kinks are ironed out). Water management is significantly improved by the Cunha Canal Rehabilitation Project, thereby protecting thousands of hectares of agriculture lands, many communitybased REDD+ projects were successfully implemented, and the land titling process, though significantly delayed, is securing traditional rights and ownership of indigenous lands, and indeed valuable biodiversity and ecosystems in the process.
This study has confirmed the enduring value of meaningful consultation and engagement 8 Conclusions of all stakeholders, of FPIC, of transparency and information sharing, and of the benefits of capacity and awareness building. The 3Es analysis of effectiveness, efficiency and equity presented a good picture of Guyana's REDD+ initiative, and of its overall performance in the interest of the parties involved. Some challenges remain. Engagement with indigenous communities is still perceived as inadequate by some representatives interviewed. However, there is recognition of plans to address this issue.
Further, while indigenous rights, particularly related to land titling needs to be improved, overlapping and conflicting land uses, especially between forestry and mining, need to be resolved for the long term. While indigenous rights need to be strengthened, overlapping and conflicting land uses, especially between forestry and mining, need to be resolved.
It is also too early to see the impact of all REDD+ activities on the rates of deforestation, particularly when Guyana's economy still largely depends on extractive resources, with mining remaining the main driver of deforestation. The potential revenue anticipated from oil drilling might change Guyana's landscape and outlook, putting the permanence of REDD+ under further scrutiny. On one hand, the increased revenue may release pressure from the forest as entrepreneurial activity could shift from the traditional extractive industries to the oil and gas sector, and on the other, there are concerns that it may lead to increased deforestation due to perceptions of less oversight by the regulators.
However, the consensus of all the participants in this study, is for the country to retain its historically low deforestation rates and, in parallel with improved monitoring and enforcement by the regulatory agencies, to continue the development of its natural resources for the socio-economic betterment of all Guyanese including coming generations. Openness to a renewed agreement with Norway remains at a high level and the constant threat of worsening climate change is a constant reminder of the importance of retaining valuable tropical forests such as Guyana's.
The assessment process of this study has also revealed that the risk of business-as-usual was not only confined to the manner in which extractive industries could be conducted, but even also to the way in which multilateral agencies perceived their roles and responsibilities, and of how service agreements were still being treated as international development finance arrangements. These matters provide good examples of what could occur and the pitfalls to be avoided.
The landmark Norway-Guyana Agreement, therefore, presents many lessons learned for other HFLD countries which seek to continue their development paths without jeopardizing national patrimony or development plans. The issues and experiences faced by the parties underscores that REDD+ agreements such as the one shared by Guyana and Norway cannot be viewed through the prism of development aid, but rather be recognized as service agreements which require different management modalities.
Guyana's boldness in undertaking an international REDD+ initiative should not only be recognized for improving forest management and earning payments for these efforts that in turn finance national development plans whilst contributing to the global climate fight, but also for providing a valuable example for other HFLD countries to emulate. It also underscores the merit and importance for meaningful involvement of all stakeholders in the process.
Guyana's REDD+ profile while still being refined is very laudable.