Amerindian Peoples Association forced to pull out of Architecture for REDD+ Transactions carbon credit appeal process
Amerindian Peoples Association forced to pull out of Architecture for REDD+ Transactions carbon credit appeal process
ART's complaint mechanism is not fair, independent, or transparent.
In 2015, ExxonMobil started drilling a series of exploration wells off the coast of Guyana. Since then the company has made “over 25 significant discoveries”. This is deep-water offshore drilling — the riskiest fossil fuel extraction process. But ExxonMobil had found light, sweet crude. That’s the easiest oil to refine and gets the highest price on the global market. The first barrel of oil was shipped in 2019.
ExxonMobil formed a partnership with Hess Corporation, a US-based oil company, and China’s CNOOC to extract the oil.
In December 2022, the government of Guyana announced that Hess Corporation would buy US$750 million worth of carbon credits generated by Guyana’s forests. The carbon credits are listed on the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions’ (ART) registry.
Oil giant Chevron has recently agreed to buy Hess Corporation for US$53 billion. Guyana’s Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo said in a press conference last week that Chevron will be a “good partner” in Guyana. Presumably Jagdeo is unaware of the 16 billion gallons of toxic wastewater that Chevron dumped in the rainforest over three decades of oil drilling in Ecuador.
At the press conference, Jagdeo revealed that his political philosophy — borrowed from Pink Floyd — remains unchanged: “Money, it’s a hit. Don’t give me that do goody good bullshit.”
Jagdeo told the press that,
“We believe that they have deep pockets and they can fund the investment programme to move us to production at the earliest point in time.”
And Jagdeo said that the US$750 million carbon credit deal with Hess Corporation will remain intact after the sale of the company to Chevron.
Amerindian Peoples Association’s complaint
In March 2023, the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA), a Guyanese Indigenous Peoples’ organisation, made a formal complaint to Winrock International, the Secretariat for ART about the issuance of carbon credits to Hess Corporation.
In May 2023, the ART Secretariat rejected the complaint.
In June 2023, APA filed an appeal to that decision.
On 28 October 2023, APA announced that it is being forced to withdraw from the appeal of the decision to reject its complaint by the ART Secretariat.
Here’s APA’s statement about the appeal process. The statement reveals that Winrock International and the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions were hiding behind bureaucratic pedantry, confidentiality clauses, and as APA notes, a failure to implement a “fair, independent, and transparent complaint mechanism”.
APA forced to withdraw from carbon credit appeal process
Amerindian Peoples Association statement, 28 October 2023
The Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) is currently being forced to withdraw from the appeal of its complaint to the Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART) Secretariat regarding the 2022 issuance of carbon credits to the Government of Guyana. The APA’s complaint was that ART did not apply its own standard, The REDD+ Excellence Standard (TREES), correctly, since TREES requires that the Government of Guyana fully respect the rights of indigneous peoples before ART can issue carbon credits to the Government. The APA believes, and numerous international human rights bodies have found, that the Government of Guyana does not adequaterly respect the rights of indigenous peoples and therefore it does not meet TREES.
The forced withdrawal from this process lies at the feet of the ART Secretariat’s refusal to budge and address the concerns of the APA relating to the terms of reference (TORs) for the appeals committee which would determine the appeal. The APA's concerns relate to aspects of the TORs which would undermine the fairness, legitimacy, effectiveness, and transparency of the appeal process.
On May 11, 2023, the APA’s initial complaint regarding the process employed for the issuance of carbon credits was rejected by the ART Secretariat. Interestingly, the same day that the ART Secretariat dismisses the APA’s complaint, it publishes a new complaints guidance which elaborates new criteria for complaints and appeals.
Nevertheless, we filed an appeal to that decision on June 16, 2023. The APA believes that from the onset, the appeals process is highly biased in favour of the ART Secretariat and we have consistently raised objections in this regard.
According to the TREES Standard, the Appeals Committee is to be established with one representative from the ART Secretariat, one from Winrock International and an independent representative chosen by the APA. The mere fact that Winrock International - which hosts the ART Secretariat - and the ART Secretariat gets to choose the majority of the members on the Appeals Committee is a cause for concern for the APA and raises question about the fair adjudication of complains and appeals. Nevertheless, the APA resolved to pursue the process and to try to encourage the process to as much as possible meet international standards for grievance mechanisms.
In July 2023, ART responds informing that it will convene a committee to review the appeal, and that the committee will determine the eligibility of the appeal. That decision, from the onset, is a deviation from TREES Art. 16, which does not stipulate that there is to be an eligibility determination before the appeal. Additionally, it is also a deviation from the new Complaints Guidance, which says that ART is to conduct the eligibility review of the appeal within 30 days of receipt of the appeal.
APA named our nominee to the Appeal Committee to ART of August 22. We submitted the name of Professor Rosa Celorio of the George Washington University, an expert in international human rights law, as APA’s independent nominee. APA’s independent nominee was approved on August 30 by the ART Secretariat.
The APA received on September 18, a document from the ART Secretariat outlining Terms of Reference for the Appeal Committee. The email from ART related that ART is “attaching a copy for you to review” and that they were sending a copy via DocuSign for Signature. ART follows up on October 3 asking APA to sign the TOR by October 6. APA responded on October 3 saying that we are “still reviewing the Terms of Reference and planning to suggest some revisions.”
In relation to this correspondence, the ART Secretariat responded indicating that they would need APA’s edits by the following day “to determine if we can address them or not. The Terms of Reference for the appeal is not meant to be a negotiated document since the scope of work and need for confidentiality are straightforward.”
While we were already concerned that ART seemed unwilling to negotiate on the TOR, in keeping with the deadline, the APA returned its comments on the TORs on October 4 outlining its concerns. We indicated that the TORs now adds new Threshold Criteria for the appeal which are not in TREES and not in the Complaints Guidance; it does not give the Appeal Committee the opportunity to consult external experts, which is necessary because none of the committee members have any experience with Guyanese law (an understanding of which is key to determination of APA’s appeal) and only one committee member has expertise in international human rights law; it does not give the Appeal Committee the chance to review information outside the appeal record, which restricts the amount of information they have available to decide the appeal; and it makes all communications regarding the appeal and appeal process confidential, even after the appeal is decided, undermining the transparency of the process.
On October 6, our independent nominee submitted a list of questions to ART Secretariat regarding the TOR.
Four days later, on October 10, ART responded to APA’s comments and sent a revised TOR stating that “In the event that the TOR and the Confidentiality Undertaking is not executed and returned by all applicable APA entities and the APA’s selected Appeal Committee member on or before October 13, 2023, we will determine that APA does not wish to proceed with the Appeal and consider it thereby withdrawn.”
ART made no significant changes to the TORs nor did it address APA’s concerns. As a matter of fact, ART only corrected its spelling of Professor Celorio’s name and gave APA three days to file and addendum to address the new Threshold Requirements. Additionally, ART characterized Professor Celorio’s questions as “Advocacy Communication”. We later learned from our nominee that ART did not provide her with any answers and has not communicated with her since.
On October 12, APA emailed ART to request an additional week to respond, noting that rapid communication with the Executive Board, who are dispersed in various communities throughout Guyana, is difficult The APA reiterated our commitment to the appeal process but noted that we wanted to be able to trust that the TOR would establish a “fair process that will appropriately consider the substance of our complaint and appeal.”
On October 13, ART responded to APA’s request, extending the deadline to October 18.
ART’s letter also states that “the Appeal Secretariat’s procedures are not at the discretion of the Appellant or the Respondent”. However, the “Appeal Secretariat” cannot be established until all parties have agreed and signed the TORs, since it is a body that is only established in the TOR. Importantly, the two persons that the TOR names to be on the Appeal Secretariat are also representatives of the Respondent (ART).
On October 18, APA submitted a letter, a redlined TOR, and its Appeal addenda to ART by the deadline set by ART. APA also submitted attachments to the addenda which are copies of documents that were footnoted in the appeal to ensure ease of access to that information for the Appeal Committee. On October 25, ART emailed the APA to reject the APA’s proposed redlines and with an Order for Dismissal, and to set an ultimatum, stating that the Order for Dismissal would go into effect on October 27 at 6:01 pm if the APA did not sign the TOR in their current form.
The APA has responded that it cannot sign a TOR that did not have equal and adequate input from both parties, and that would not allow for a fair, transparent, legitimate, and effective process. The APA letter noted that we remained open to discussing the TOR further if ART changed its mind about shutting down the process. It is clear form the communications with ART that the process has been intended to no only frustrate the APA but also quickly dispose of our appeal without due process. The APA is of the belief that ART is doing everything in its power to shut down any questions that are raised relating to its issuance of carbon credits to Guyana.
While we are aware that this is the first such issuance since the establishment of ART, we are now forced to question why ART refuses to employ a fair, independent, and transparent complaint mechanism that will scrutinise its decisions and uphold transparency?
It is only natural, in the Grand Scheme of Things, that The Little People are at all times pushed under the bus of regulatory baffle-gab so that if they complain about anything at all, they end up merely talking to themselves, because nobody in Power is ever going to actually listen. That is how we get to one Grand Project after another, over a road to Progress paved with trampled rights.