Support for beneficiaries rather than consultants

Dear Editor,
The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) seems to be gaining momentum. Having said that, I must say I noted that advertisements were placed in the media for consultants for institutional strengthening of the NTC and Indigenous NGOs of Guyana.
I had raised the issue of support to the NTC and the NGOs at previous meetings in the initial stage of the FCPF, and, mind you, I was integrally involved in getting the FCPF programme formulated and approved for Guyana. The NTC, and more so the NGOs — at least TAAMOG — had the clear understanding that direct support would come to the organization. US0,000 were earmarked for the NTC and US0,000 for the four NGOs, hence TAAMOG was expecting no less than US,000 to US,000 in direct support.
I have been on record to make this point to the secretariat: that the organizations need direct support, and not consultancy- based support; this was the trust of the FCPF programme document.
Moreover, it must be recalled that, at a meeting at the Regency Hotel in April 2017, a number of attendees had expressed strongly that support should be provided directly to the beneficiaries, rather than hiring consultants to do capacity-building and submit reports.

I recall this point being made by Mr Thom of Kwakwani, Mr Lincoln Lewis of the TUC, and Ms Karen De Souza. It was noted that the programme should not waste resources in hiring a bunch of consultants just to do capacity-building and file a report. It was indicated that that was certainly not the case, and that the project is a very people-oriented project. Low and behold, the ads are for consultants to serve for two long years (24 months) just to do the said capacity building/institutional strengthening activities as outlined in the adv.
TAAMOG and many other indigenous organisations find this very worrying and troubling and, needless to say, a waste of project resources. TAAMOG and other indigenous groups will not support this undertaking, and we urged that this consultancy be scrapped and a task force be set up to include a wide cross-section of civil society actors who would help identify priority areas for the funding and chart a best approach for use of the funds.
Guyana has in-house capacity, and the indigenous groups are aware of the issues, but need tangible resources to make an impact.
The current approach being adopted by the secretariat is a quick-fix, and will leave no lasting impacts. I am afraid it would not work for the Amerindian peoples of Guyana. I would also like to know the IDB’s input to this activity, and that the IDB, having been part of the drafting of the FCPF document with the World Bank, is fully aware that the expectation of the programme was direct support to beneficiaries. I therefore find it strange that the IDB would give its no-objection and change course without consulting the indigenous groups on what form of support is best suited.
I do look forward for the project’s Terms of Reference (ToR) to be adjusted, and until such time, I would again plead with the Tender Board not to proceed any further with this particular consultancy.

Regards,
Peter Persaud