Tuesday, January 30, 2007
WYSINWYG
Guyana and the wider world
The disposition of Guyana's forest assets: WYSINWYG or 'What You See Is Not What You Get'
By Dr Clive Thomas and Janette Bulkan
Sunday, January 28th 2007
Introduction
This is the first of a series on forestry policies and current practices in Guyana. This introductory column examines the mistaken belief in inexhaustible forest, the overlooked loss of control of forest harvest, and the existence of under-used laws and policies (national and party) which could restore sustainable productivity and secure jobs and income for Guyanese.
When it comes to the 'bush,' which is how coastlanders refer to the interior forests, Guyanese fondly cling to some quaint beliefs. 'Dah wood kyan done, Man,' meaning that 'the forest is inexhaustible,' is a commonplace boast. Official and publicity brochures reinforce this belief with stock mantras of their own, as if mere repetition alone provided proof of the assertions. Two of officialese's mantras are 'Guyana is one of four remaining pristine rainforest areas globally' and 'the FAO has said that the rate of deforestation in Guyana is low.'
Sorry, fellow Guyanese, but no amount of repetition will make the first proposition hold true or the second proposition relevant. The formula of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for calculating deforestation is based on data supplied by national forest services and on broad definitions of 'tree' and 'tree cover.' This is fare for public consumption, akin to President George W Bush's denial of the reality of global warming. The reality, on the other hand, is forest degradation, the excessive selective removal of Guyana's prime wood species.
The current rate of harvesting of Guyana's prime species of timber is unsustainable. In layman's language, in many accessible forested areas the capacity for natural regeneration by keystone species is either under severe stress or lost. Local sculptors and the more quotidian carvers of purpleheart utensils and kitchenware already know about the localized extinction of some of the defining timbers of Guyana, chief among them purpleheart. There is no organization which represents the interests of artisan carvers and sculptors as their livelihoods vanish without a trace, in parallel with the haemorrhaging of prime log species.
While the forestry companies are creaming off and exporting prime hardwood logs, who is monitoring Guyana's forests in deed rather than in word only? Guyana's 75 per cent forested interior should be like a long-term bond (never matures) if the forestry concession holders were regulated in the interests of net social benefit and public good. On the contrary, our natural capital is being liquidated and shipped out to create jobs in China and India, at the cost of jobs foregone in the present, and with a degraded forest remaining and stretching into the future.
The holders of large concessions repeat their own stock mantras to veil the booming export of prime timber species in log form. What they say ranges from: "It's economics" (Stabroek Business, August 27, 2004) to, the local forestry sector "is probably on the verge of bankruptcy" (Stabroek Business, January 12, 2007). What these concession holders do is retain harvesting concessions over 80 per cent of State Production Forests and an undisclosed amount of control over small-scale forest permissions and forests on Amerindian titled lands.
Are the acreage fees, said to be the lowest acreage fees in the world, fully paid up? Here is what the GFC wrote in August 2005:
"However, due to the strong lobby by the Forest Products Association (FPA), GFC's Board has maintained this [acreage] rate at 50% [of the amounts set in 1996 to compensate for years of erosion by inflation and change in currency exchange rates]. At present, even though the rates for acreage fees are considered low, the sector, mainly the large concessionaires, have been very tardy in meeting their assessed payments of these amounts. To date, in excess of G$200 million [US$1 million] is owed from outstanding acreage fees to the GFC. The GFC has not been charging interest on the outstanding balance. A few large companies have made efforts in formulating repayment plans with the GFC to repay the amounts owing. The main problem lies with the inactive and low activity concessions. This has resulted in no revenue been generated [sic] to cover the accumulating acreage fees that become due annually."
What about forest revenue contribution to the government treasury? A UNDP Programme on Forests (PROFOR) study of Guyana's forest sector financing in 2001 noted:
"The GFC has not contributed to the state treasury/consolidated accounts during the past [21] years although the GFC has been making a profit since 1992. Such a lax treatment of the various public sector commissions and parastatals has apparently been the norm in Guyana. Consequently, the GFC has been accumulating a significant positive bank account balance over the past years."
What then is the status quo? Through sub-letting, four foreign-owned logging companies have extended their legal 38 per cent control of allocated State Production Forest by 14 per cent (more than 870,000 hectares), so that Asian loggers now control well over half the forest allocated by the GFC for harvesting. Sixty-nine per cent of all large concessions which cover over 52% of the
allocated state commercial forests are now controlled by these four Asian forestry companies, in direct violation of the terms of concession agreements.
The sub-letting is against the National Forest Policy (1997, part I, B3(d)). The GFC Board of Directors should immediately rescind such abused concessions and return the forest areas to the pool available for re-allocation under the Strategic Plan (National Forest Plan, 2001, NFP300) and National Forest Policy (1997, part III, B3). The widespread practice of landlording forest harvesting concessions to foreign contractors makes a nonsense of GFC strategic allocation of State Production Forests.
The GFC should not be permitted by Minister for Forestry Robert Persaud or the Minister of Forestry (President Bharrat Jagdeo) to condone this practice which is against the law without explicit presidential approval (Forest Regulations 1953, Article 12) and specific clauses in the concession licences (for example, TSA clause 13). Clause 13 of Forest Regulation 25 of 1982, Second schedule 'A,' Timber Sales Agreement, states: "The grantee shall not transfer, sublet, mortgage or otherwise dispose of any interest arising under this agreement except in accordance with the Forest Regulations and any purported disposition made except in accordance with such Regulations shall be null and void." In addition there are specific exclusions in concession terms of business.
The present situation is the worst of all possible worlds for Guyanese who fondly believe that we are the owners of the country's natural bounty. 'Dah wood kyan done, Man'? Not true.
With political will, and with GFC staff in the field, Guyana's forests could be restored to sustainable production for local added-value industries. The GFC should implement the agreed and published Forest Law and Forest Regulations and National Forest Policy, together with the timber tagging system as designed in 1999 to control the abuses now seen daily on Guyanese rivers, in log ponds, on pontoons and slung from ballahoos. The PPP/C's 2006 election manifesto repeats four times the "added value" slogan for forest industries. Let us see some government action on this manifesto commitment.
StabroekNews (GINA free with no additivies nor preservatives)
The disposition of Guyana's forest assets: WYSINWYG or 'What You See Is Not What You Get'
By Dr Clive Thomas and Janette Bulkan
Sunday, January 28th 2007
Introduction
This is the first of a series on forestry policies and current practices in Guyana. This introductory column examines the mistaken belief in inexhaustible forest, the overlooked loss of control of forest harvest, and the existence of under-used laws and policies (national and party) which could restore sustainable productivity and secure jobs and income for Guyanese.
When it comes to the 'bush,' which is how coastlanders refer to the interior forests, Guyanese fondly cling to some quaint beliefs. 'Dah wood kyan done, Man,' meaning that 'the forest is inexhaustible,' is a commonplace boast. Official and publicity brochures reinforce this belief with stock mantras of their own, as if mere repetition alone provided proof of the assertions. Two of officialese's mantras are 'Guyana is one of four remaining pristine rainforest areas globally' and 'the FAO has said that the rate of deforestation in Guyana is low.'
Sorry, fellow Guyanese, but no amount of repetition will make the first proposition hold true or the second proposition relevant. The formula of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for calculating deforestation is based on data supplied by national forest services and on broad definitions of 'tree' and 'tree cover.' This is fare for public consumption, akin to President George W Bush's denial of the reality of global warming. The reality, on the other hand, is forest degradation, the excessive selective removal of Guyana's prime wood species.
The current rate of harvesting of Guyana's prime species of timber is unsustainable. In layman's language, in many accessible forested areas the capacity for natural regeneration by keystone species is either under severe stress or lost. Local sculptors and the more quotidian carvers of purpleheart utensils and kitchenware already know about the localized extinction of some of the defining timbers of Guyana, chief among them purpleheart. There is no organization which represents the interests of artisan carvers and sculptors as their livelihoods vanish without a trace, in parallel with the haemorrhaging of prime log species.
While the forestry companies are creaming off and exporting prime hardwood logs, who is monitoring Guyana's forests in deed rather than in word only? Guyana's 75 per cent forested interior should be like a long-term bond (never matures) if the forestry concession holders were regulated in the interests of net social benefit and public good. On the contrary, our natural capital is being liquidated and shipped out to create jobs in China and India, at the cost of jobs foregone in the present, and with a degraded forest remaining and stretching into the future.
The holders of large concessions repeat their own stock mantras to veil the booming export of prime timber species in log form. What they say ranges from: "It's economics" (Stabroek Business, August 27, 2004) to, the local forestry sector "is probably on the verge of bankruptcy" (Stabroek Business, January 12, 2007). What these concession holders do is retain harvesting concessions over 80 per cent of State Production Forests and an undisclosed amount of control over small-scale forest permissions and forests on Amerindian titled lands.
Are the acreage fees, said to be the lowest acreage fees in the world, fully paid up? Here is what the GFC wrote in August 2005:
"However, due to the strong lobby by the Forest Products Association (FPA), GFC's Board has maintained this [acreage] rate at 50% [of the amounts set in 1996 to compensate for years of erosion by inflation and change in currency exchange rates]. At present, even though the rates for acreage fees are considered low, the sector, mainly the large concessionaires, have been very tardy in meeting their assessed payments of these amounts. To date, in excess of G$200 million [US$1 million] is owed from outstanding acreage fees to the GFC. The GFC has not been charging interest on the outstanding balance. A few large companies have made efforts in formulating repayment plans with the GFC to repay the amounts owing. The main problem lies with the inactive and low activity concessions. This has resulted in no revenue been generated [sic] to cover the accumulating acreage fees that become due annually."
What about forest revenue contribution to the government treasury? A UNDP Programme on Forests (PROFOR) study of Guyana's forest sector financing in 2001 noted:
"The GFC has not contributed to the state treasury/consolidated accounts during the past [21] years although the GFC has been making a profit since 1992. Such a lax treatment of the various public sector commissions and parastatals has apparently been the norm in Guyana. Consequently, the GFC has been accumulating a significant positive bank account balance over the past years."
What then is the status quo? Through sub-letting, four foreign-owned logging companies have extended their legal 38 per cent control of allocated State Production Forest by 14 per cent (more than 870,000 hectares), so that Asian loggers now control well over half the forest allocated by the GFC for harvesting. Sixty-nine per cent of all large concessions which cover over 52% of the
allocated state commercial forests are now controlled by these four Asian forestry companies, in direct violation of the terms of concession agreements.
The sub-letting is against the National Forest Policy (1997, part I, B3(d)). The GFC Board of Directors should immediately rescind such abused concessions and return the forest areas to the pool available for re-allocation under the Strategic Plan (National Forest Plan, 2001, NFP300) and National Forest Policy (1997, part III, B3). The widespread practice of landlording forest harvesting concessions to foreign contractors makes a nonsense of GFC strategic allocation of State Production Forests.
The GFC should not be permitted by Minister for Forestry Robert Persaud or the Minister of Forestry (President Bharrat Jagdeo) to condone this practice which is against the law without explicit presidential approval (Forest Regulations 1953, Article 12) and specific clauses in the concession licences (for example, TSA clause 13). Clause 13 of Forest Regulation 25 of 1982, Second schedule 'A,' Timber Sales Agreement, states: "The grantee shall not transfer, sublet, mortgage or otherwise dispose of any interest arising under this agreement except in accordance with the Forest Regulations and any purported disposition made except in accordance with such Regulations shall be null and void." In addition there are specific exclusions in concession terms of business.
The present situation is the worst of all possible worlds for Guyanese who fondly believe that we are the owners of the country's natural bounty. 'Dah wood kyan done, Man'? Not true.
With political will, and with GFC staff in the field, Guyana's forests could be restored to sustainable production for local added-value industries. The GFC should implement the agreed and published Forest Law and Forest Regulations and National Forest Policy, together with the timber tagging system as designed in 1999 to control the abuses now seen daily on Guyanese rivers, in log ponds, on pontoons and slung from ballahoos. The PPP/C's 2006 election manifesto repeats four times the "added value" slogan for forest industries. Let us see some government action on this manifesto commitment.
StabroekNews (GINA free with no additivies nor preservatives)
Guyana Forestry Laws
Guyana has quite good laws and procedures on forestry on paper, but they are not being thoroughly implemented
Tuesday, January 30th 2007
Dear Editor,
I welcome the letter captioned "The Forestry Commission has had an effective log tracking system for seven years" (07.01.22). I feel that it is now possible to approach the crux of the matter concerning the forest sector in Guyana. This is the paradox between the generally good legal framework, national policy and strategy and the weak and selective application by Government and its agencies of this governance. Taking in sequence the points raised by author Paul Taylor -
1. Under the framework of the EU Action Plan for control of illegal logging and trade in illegally harvested forest products, the EU will progressively close its external border to imports of forest products which are not licensed as legally produced. The EU has begun negotiations with countries which export timber to the EU, on voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs). A key element in the VPAs is an agreed definition of legality and measures to assure legality of production; measures which exist not just on paper but which are applied consistently and equitably nation-wide. The recent update meeting (25 and 26 January) on illegal logging at the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA, London, a meeting which a Chevening Scholar from Guyana attended) showed that some countries which have begun informal negotiations with the EU on VPAs are actually much less advanced than Guyana in both paper procedures and their field application. Unfor- tunately, Guyana has failed to engage with the EU and has thus missed both the first and second tier opportunities to negotiate a VPA.
2. The timber tagging system developed in 1999 was intended from the beginning to use bar-coded tags and electronic bar-code readers. The tags have indeed been distributed by the GFC but by failing to have an operational electronic database and bar-code readers the timber tagging actually facilitates illegal logging, as I pointed out in my Guyana Citizens Initiative seminar on 9 November last year, reported by SN on 13 November ('Country getting a pittance from Asian forestry companies -Bulkan'). It is good to hear from Paul Taylor that the GFC is acting on the recommendations by Proforest on a legality verification scheme, and I hope that he will use his influence to ensure that both the Proforest report and the GFC response will be published widely and soon. A VPA with the EU will need a fully operational timber tagging system of this type (or better), plus independent forest monitoring by an agency which is not controlled by either the public or the private sector and which publishes its reports without restriction.
3.The definition of illegal logging which I quoted from the RIIA in my SN letter published on January 17 ('Illegal logging in Guyana is worse than admitted by the Guyana Forestry Commission') is the one used by the EU, and its detail will need to be addressed by Guyana in any future VPA negotiations.
4. The definition includes "Illegalities may also occur during transport including illegal processing and export, misdeclaration to customs, and avoidance of taxes and other charges". Paul Taylor says that "When . . . any breach occurs, it is . . immediately dealt with". I note here that long-standing debts for forest taxes are still unpaid by (some) members of the Forest Products Association (over one million US dollars, according to a GFC publication of August 2005), and that Barama's tax avoidance on export of logs not derived from its own concession is still outstanding, according to reports from the Commissioner of Forests to the GFC Board of Directors.
5. The report published by Accreditation Services International GmbH on January 15 testifies that Barama equipment is being used outside Barama's concession TSA 04/1991; see http://www.accreditation-services.com/Documents/ASI-Forest%20Management%20Audit-Guyana-SGS-2006-Final.pdf. Barama has not denied that the equipment was imported under foreign direct investment concessions. Paul Taylor, who is apparently privy to the activities of the Guyana Revenue Authority, the GFC and the Forest Products Marketing Council (FPMC) should wake up these three agencies.
6. Sub-letting of forest harvesting concessions is illegal under the specific terms of those agreements. The deals by which Barama has extended its legal 26 per cent control of Guyana's allocated State Production Forest to more than 33 per cent (and DTL to extend from 8 to over 10 per cent, UNAMCO from 2 to over 6 per cent, and JaLing from 2 to over 4 per cent) - are not of the simple logging contractor/sub-contractor ("sprinter") arrangements. When these foreign companies have taken over concessions leased by the GFC they have taken effective managerial control in exchange for an illegal rent, and this is against both policy and the laws. The law (Forest Regulations) is absolutely clear that transfer of concessions is permissible only with Presidential approval and only if GFC conditions are followed. The GFC Board has never approved any such conditions (except for a single trial several years ago) and there is no public record of any Presidential approval.
These transactions therefore are both illegal and against policy. At this point, may I apologise for an error to which Paul Taylor has drawn attention: I should have referred to the National Forest Policy (1997, Part III - not Part I), section B 3 (d) which requires the GFC to abrogate non-compliant concessions. Section B 3 (a) in the same policy requires the GFC to re-negotiate forest concessions "through a fair and transparent framework" - which has not (yet) been published.
In summary, Mr Editor, Guyana is indeed ahead of many countries in having quite good paper laws and procedures. The question which Paul Taylor does not answer is why are these laws and procedures not being implemented thoroughly?
Yours faithfully,
Janette Bulkan
StabroekNews (GINA free with no additives nor preservatives)
Tuesday, January 30th 2007
Dear Editor,
I welcome the letter captioned "The Forestry Commission has had an effective log tracking system for seven years" (07.01.22). I feel that it is now possible to approach the crux of the matter concerning the forest sector in Guyana. This is the paradox between the generally good legal framework, national policy and strategy and the weak and selective application by Government and its agencies of this governance. Taking in sequence the points raised by author Paul Taylor -
1. Under the framework of the EU Action Plan for control of illegal logging and trade in illegally harvested forest products, the EU will progressively close its external border to imports of forest products which are not licensed as legally produced. The EU has begun negotiations with countries which export timber to the EU, on voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs). A key element in the VPAs is an agreed definition of legality and measures to assure legality of production; measures which exist not just on paper but which are applied consistently and equitably nation-wide. The recent update meeting (25 and 26 January) on illegal logging at the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA, London, a meeting which a Chevening Scholar from Guyana attended) showed that some countries which have begun informal negotiations with the EU on VPAs are actually much less advanced than Guyana in both paper procedures and their field application. Unfor- tunately, Guyana has failed to engage with the EU and has thus missed both the first and second tier opportunities to negotiate a VPA.
2. The timber tagging system developed in 1999 was intended from the beginning to use bar-coded tags and electronic bar-code readers. The tags have indeed been distributed by the GFC but by failing to have an operational electronic database and bar-code readers the timber tagging actually facilitates illegal logging, as I pointed out in my Guyana Citizens Initiative seminar on 9 November last year, reported by SN on 13 November ('Country getting a pittance from Asian forestry companies -Bulkan'). It is good to hear from Paul Taylor that the GFC is acting on the recommendations by Proforest on a legality verification scheme, and I hope that he will use his influence to ensure that both the Proforest report and the GFC response will be published widely and soon. A VPA with the EU will need a fully operational timber tagging system of this type (or better), plus independent forest monitoring by an agency which is not controlled by either the public or the private sector and which publishes its reports without restriction.
3.The definition of illegal logging which I quoted from the RIIA in my SN letter published on January 17 ('Illegal logging in Guyana is worse than admitted by the Guyana Forestry Commission') is the one used by the EU, and its detail will need to be addressed by Guyana in any future VPA negotiations.
4. The definition includes "Illegalities may also occur during transport including illegal processing and export, misdeclaration to customs, and avoidance of taxes and other charges". Paul Taylor says that "When . . . any breach occurs, it is . . immediately dealt with". I note here that long-standing debts for forest taxes are still unpaid by (some) members of the Forest Products Association (over one million US dollars, according to a GFC publication of August 2005), and that Barama's tax avoidance on export of logs not derived from its own concession is still outstanding, according to reports from the Commissioner of Forests to the GFC Board of Directors.
5. The report published by Accreditation Services International GmbH on January 15 testifies that Barama equipment is being used outside Barama's concession TSA 04/1991; see http://www.accreditation-services.com/Documents/ASI-Forest%20Management%20Audit-Guyana-SGS-2006-Final.pdf. Barama has not denied that the equipment was imported under foreign direct investment concessions. Paul Taylor, who is apparently privy to the activities of the Guyana Revenue Authority, the GFC and the Forest Products Marketing Council (FPMC) should wake up these three agencies.
6. Sub-letting of forest harvesting concessions is illegal under the specific terms of those agreements. The deals by which Barama has extended its legal 26 per cent control of Guyana's allocated State Production Forest to more than 33 per cent (and DTL to extend from 8 to over 10 per cent, UNAMCO from 2 to over 6 per cent, and JaLing from 2 to over 4 per cent) - are not of the simple logging contractor/sub-contractor ("sprinter") arrangements. When these foreign companies have taken over concessions leased by the GFC they have taken effective managerial control in exchange for an illegal rent, and this is against both policy and the laws. The law (Forest Regulations) is absolutely clear that transfer of concessions is permissible only with Presidential approval and only if GFC conditions are followed. The GFC Board has never approved any such conditions (except for a single trial several years ago) and there is no public record of any Presidential approval.
These transactions therefore are both illegal and against policy. At this point, may I apologise for an error to which Paul Taylor has drawn attention: I should have referred to the National Forest Policy (1997, Part III - not Part I), section B 3 (d) which requires the GFC to abrogate non-compliant concessions. Section B 3 (a) in the same policy requires the GFC to re-negotiate forest concessions "through a fair and transparent framework" - which has not (yet) been published.
In summary, Mr Editor, Guyana is indeed ahead of many countries in having quite good paper laws and procedures. The question which Paul Taylor does not answer is why are these laws and procedures not being implemented thoroughly?
Yours faithfully,
Janette Bulkan
StabroekNews (GINA free with no additives nor preservatives)
Monday, January 29, 2007
FSC certification
FSC certification and subsequent FSC
decertification processes raise questions
Kaieteur News, 29 January 2007
Dear Editor,
Generally, today's world no longer supports, or wants to be seen
supporting, the old destructive forestry practices (to the environment
and to the forestry peoples, animals, plants, etc).
This change of consumers' attitudes has been brought about largely
because of the work of various environmental and cultural survival
groups (local and international), modern science, better business
practices, and common sense, etc.
The market places of consumers (e.g. North America and Europe ) are
demanding that the forestry products (‘green products') comply with
environmentally friendly and sustainable practices. Hence, sensible and
adaptive forestry businesses that want access to these more lucrative
but informed consumers must confirm to certain new industry standards.
Hence international companies try to get and maintain FSC
certification.
SGS is an independent Swedish company that certifies compliance with
the principles of the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC). SGS did an
audit (Feb, 28th 2005 - March 4th and Aug 29th – Sept 3rd, 2005) and
granted the Barama Company Ltd temporary FSC certification (17th Feb,
2006 to 16th Feb.2011. It is usually valid for five years.) Certain
recommendations (Corrected Action Requested (CAR)) were made, that were
to be implemented in a limited time frame. The validity of this FSC
certification was questioned by certain groups. The full report (60
pages) can be found online at:
(http://www.sgs.com/9205-gy_-_barama_ma2005-10_-_ad36a-03_gm.pdf) found
referenced on a WRM bulletin:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/105/Guyana.html.
This report has some interesting points (page 57): One stakeholder
questioned - (1) The legality of the Barama contract with the
Government of Guyana “…it was a deal with an official who probably
didn't have the legal right to grant the concession at all, because it
was during the hiatus between the dictatorship and the democratic
government taking charge.” The SGS Investigators were told: “Barama
Company Ltd has a legal contract of tenureship over the concession
area, and a legal investment contract with the Government of Guyana.
This was confirmed with both the Prime Minister, Samuel E. Hinds, and
the Commissioner of Forests, James Singh, personally in a meeting with
the SGS team on 2nd September, 2005.”
My Commentary: The PPP (in opposition) was saying that the deal was
illegal, and rightly condemned it. Now, we have His Excellency, Prime
Minister Mr. Sam Hinds, saying that the deal was legal. Does this view
reflect legal advice and/or the judgment of a court? I am not aware
that the PPP Govt. contested the legality of this matter in any court
(local and foreign) and lost.
Where, or by whom, was that decision rendered both legal and binding on
the Guyanese Govt.? If the legality of the deal was not contested, then
what changed? Do we have to live with this immoral and obscene deal for
another three further decades? Would His Excellency Mr. Samuel Hinds
please explain?
Mr. James Singh, in a letter (SN, Nov 17 th, 2006), said that they had
no choice but to accept the Barama deal which was inherited from the
PNC Govt. Mr. Singh therefore implied that the deal was bad, but it was
what they inherited. If this is true then it is more puzzling why the
Barama concessions were increased and the deal was re-negotiated even
moreso in favour of the Barama Company Ltd by the GFC and the PPP Govt.
Is this not making a bad deal worse? Is this not rewarding those who
practice unfavourable business practices in Guyana ?
Mr. Mohamed Yusuf (SN, Jan 11 th 2007 - Bad investment deals are still
made.) was kind enough to point this out to the public and me (“Mr.
Beharry would recall that the PPP re-negotiated investment deals
inherited from the PNC. It is under the PPP Government that Barama was
given more Forestry concessions).
Today, Barama owns more than one tenth of Guyana 's soil…”). Mr. M.
Yusuf's statement is substantiated by the dire warning of a letter
writer in SN, March 12 th, 2006 in which the writer calculated that, in
effect, Barama controlled 1/3 of the State's forest. This raises
questions of what really transpired outside the public view.
Have our Govts. (PNC and PPP) created a state within the State of
Guyana? Would the Commissioner of Forestry (GFC) please enlighten us?
The PPP had rightly condemned the secret deals. However, on gaining
political office, it emulated its nemesis. Why were/are these deals
still being conducted in secret, without public scrutiny and/or input?
State property was not the personal possession of the then unelected
PNC Government. nor is it now the personal property of the elected PPP
Govt. It is to be managed in the best interests of the state and people
of Guyana .
In that same report (page 57), we are told that: “Barama has paid
US$147,000 as royalties for logs harvested in year 2004. In 2005, the
estimated royalty payment is about US$330, 000.” On page 58, we read:
“On 2 September 2005, SGS met with His Excellency the Guyana Prime
Minister and questioned him about the tax concessions (given to
Barama). He stated emphatically that this was the responsibility of the
GRA. The stakeholder needs to address this issue with the GRA. The SGS
cannot intervene further in this issue, for it is a decision taken by
the Guyanese Government, and not in conflict with the FSC P&C. The same
applies to the export tax.”
My Commentary: Surprisingly, here we see that His Excellency, Prime
Minister Mr. Samuel Hinds, is in effect saying that if the stakeholder
has problems, he/she should go to the GRA. The team from SGS apparently
rightly concluded that if the Govt. of Guyana does not care about
revenue collection, then why should the SGS?
Why was the GRA not asked by the PPP Govt. to look into the situation
at Barama? This suggests that no one is auditing the accounts at Barama
and that only Forestry practices are probably being minimally monitored
by the FSC.
It seems strange that the biggest forestry company in Guyana has no
financial monitoring by the GRA, or that the GRA has not been directed
to do so. Why? (Most Western Democratic Govts. release their best blood
hounds after possible revenues for the Govt's coffers.)
Perhaps someone in Govt. will be kind enough to explain to us the
intricacies of the situation. I have the utmost personal respect for
His Excellency, Prime Minister, Mr. Samuel Hinds, therefore I am asking
him to please clarify the situation with regard to his statements. Or,
would someone from the President's Office please address this issue?
What is striking is that the PNC opposition also has been silent on
this forestry issue. Why? Is it because some of the generous
concessions were also granted to PNC officials and former PNC Govt.
ministers? Is it that these operations know that it is only a matter of
time before the spotlight shines on their own questionable deals and
practices? The forestry workers at Barama are represented by the GLU,
with Mr. Robert Corbin as Honorary Head. Yet even their plight is not
raised in Parliament. Why?
The People of Guyana are still waiting to see the much vaunted rewards
of forestry harvesting trickle down to their outstretched begging
bowls. How long can they hold on, waiting for the crumbs from their
masters' tables (foreign and local)? Where are the profits? Who are
profiting from this plunder?
Where are the people who were elected to serve Guyana and the interests
of the people?
International aid agencies or donors of gifts (Govts.- e.g. Britain,
Brazil, Canada, China, Cuba, India, Germany, Holland, Japan, USA,
Venezuela, etc. or other agencies –UN) and private individuals (
Non-Guyanese and Guyanese (e.g. especially those in Canada (Toronto),
USA (New York, Florida,) and Britain (London), Trinidad, Barbados,
etc.)) should please ask His Excellency President B. Jagdeo (Honorary
Chair of the IDB):
Why does the PPP Govt. allow a foreign company to harvest Guyana 's
forests without any serious revenue contribution to the state's
treasury? What will you say, Your Excellency? Why does the President
seem content to visit other places with his begging bowl when Guyana is
a resource-rich country? Who respects beggars?
Why is His Excellency not collecting revenues from the exploitation of
the state resources to: feed his underfed populace; properly educate
his undereducated young people; fund his underfinanced heath-care and
social programmes; build sports and cultural facilities; repair his
dilapidated infrastructure; pay livable wages to his underpaid
teachers, civil servants, police, judiciary, and army; fund his
understaffed environmental programmes; and properly fund his scientific
research institutions, Universities, colleges, etc?
Why must the children suffer? Would His Excellency, President Mr. B.
Jagdeo, and the PPP Govt. please tell us why?
Seelochan Beharry
decertification processes raise questions
Kaieteur News, 29 January 2007
Dear Editor,
Generally, today's world no longer supports, or wants to be seen
supporting, the old destructive forestry practices (to the environment
and to the forestry peoples, animals, plants, etc).
This change of consumers' attitudes has been brought about largely
because of the work of various environmental and cultural survival
groups (local and international), modern science, better business
practices, and common sense, etc.
The market places of consumers (e.g. North America and Europe ) are
demanding that the forestry products (‘green products') comply with
environmentally friendly and sustainable practices. Hence, sensible and
adaptive forestry businesses that want access to these more lucrative
but informed consumers must confirm to certain new industry standards.
Hence international companies try to get and maintain FSC
certification.
SGS is an independent Swedish company that certifies compliance with
the principles of the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC). SGS did an
audit (Feb, 28th 2005 - March 4th and Aug 29th – Sept 3rd, 2005) and
granted the Barama Company Ltd temporary FSC certification (17th Feb,
2006 to 16th Feb.2011. It is usually valid for five years.) Certain
recommendations (Corrected Action Requested (CAR)) were made, that were
to be implemented in a limited time frame. The validity of this FSC
certification was questioned by certain groups. The full report (60
pages) can be found online at:
(http://www.sgs.com/9205-gy_-_barama_ma2005-10_-_ad36a-03_gm.pdf) found
referenced on a WRM bulletin:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/105/Guyana.html.
This report has some interesting points (page 57): One stakeholder
questioned - (1) The legality of the Barama contract with the
Government of Guyana “…it was a deal with an official who probably
didn't have the legal right to grant the concession at all, because it
was during the hiatus between the dictatorship and the democratic
government taking charge.” The SGS Investigators were told: “Barama
Company Ltd has a legal contract of tenureship over the concession
area, and a legal investment contract with the Government of Guyana.
This was confirmed with both the Prime Minister, Samuel E. Hinds, and
the Commissioner of Forests, James Singh, personally in a meeting with
the SGS team on 2nd September, 2005.”
My Commentary: The PPP (in opposition) was saying that the deal was
illegal, and rightly condemned it. Now, we have His Excellency, Prime
Minister Mr. Sam Hinds, saying that the deal was legal. Does this view
reflect legal advice and/or the judgment of a court? I am not aware
that the PPP Govt. contested the legality of this matter in any court
(local and foreign) and lost.
Where, or by whom, was that decision rendered both legal and binding on
the Guyanese Govt.? If the legality of the deal was not contested, then
what changed? Do we have to live with this immoral and obscene deal for
another three further decades? Would His Excellency Mr. Samuel Hinds
please explain?
Mr. James Singh, in a letter (SN, Nov 17 th, 2006), said that they had
no choice but to accept the Barama deal which was inherited from the
PNC Govt. Mr. Singh therefore implied that the deal was bad, but it was
what they inherited. If this is true then it is more puzzling why the
Barama concessions were increased and the deal was re-negotiated even
moreso in favour of the Barama Company Ltd by the GFC and the PPP Govt.
Is this not making a bad deal worse? Is this not rewarding those who
practice unfavourable business practices in Guyana ?
Mr. Mohamed Yusuf (SN, Jan 11 th 2007 - Bad investment deals are still
made.) was kind enough to point this out to the public and me (“Mr.
Beharry would recall that the PPP re-negotiated investment deals
inherited from the PNC. It is under the PPP Government that Barama was
given more Forestry concessions).
Today, Barama owns more than one tenth of Guyana 's soil…”). Mr. M.
Yusuf's statement is substantiated by the dire warning of a letter
writer in SN, March 12 th, 2006 in which the writer calculated that, in
effect, Barama controlled 1/3 of the State's forest. This raises
questions of what really transpired outside the public view.
Have our Govts. (PNC and PPP) created a state within the State of
Guyana? Would the Commissioner of Forestry (GFC) please enlighten us?
The PPP had rightly condemned the secret deals. However, on gaining
political office, it emulated its nemesis. Why were/are these deals
still being conducted in secret, without public scrutiny and/or input?
State property was not the personal possession of the then unelected
PNC Government. nor is it now the personal property of the elected PPP
Govt. It is to be managed in the best interests of the state and people
of Guyana .
In that same report (page 57), we are told that: “Barama has paid
US$147,000 as royalties for logs harvested in year 2004. In 2005, the
estimated royalty payment is about US$330, 000.” On page 58, we read:
“On 2 September 2005, SGS met with His Excellency the Guyana Prime
Minister and questioned him about the tax concessions (given to
Barama). He stated emphatically that this was the responsibility of the
GRA. The stakeholder needs to address this issue with the GRA. The SGS
cannot intervene further in this issue, for it is a decision taken by
the Guyanese Government, and not in conflict with the FSC P&C. The same
applies to the export tax.”
My Commentary: Surprisingly, here we see that His Excellency, Prime
Minister Mr. Samuel Hinds, is in effect saying that if the stakeholder
has problems, he/she should go to the GRA. The team from SGS apparently
rightly concluded that if the Govt. of Guyana does not care about
revenue collection, then why should the SGS?
Why was the GRA not asked by the PPP Govt. to look into the situation
at Barama? This suggests that no one is auditing the accounts at Barama
and that only Forestry practices are probably being minimally monitored
by the FSC.
It seems strange that the biggest forestry company in Guyana has no
financial monitoring by the GRA, or that the GRA has not been directed
to do so. Why? (Most Western Democratic Govts. release their best blood
hounds after possible revenues for the Govt's coffers.)
Perhaps someone in Govt. will be kind enough to explain to us the
intricacies of the situation. I have the utmost personal respect for
His Excellency, Prime Minister, Mr. Samuel Hinds, therefore I am asking
him to please clarify the situation with regard to his statements. Or,
would someone from the President's Office please address this issue?
What is striking is that the PNC opposition also has been silent on
this forestry issue. Why? Is it because some of the generous
concessions were also granted to PNC officials and former PNC Govt.
ministers? Is it that these operations know that it is only a matter of
time before the spotlight shines on their own questionable deals and
practices? The forestry workers at Barama are represented by the GLU,
with Mr. Robert Corbin as Honorary Head. Yet even their plight is not
raised in Parliament. Why?
The People of Guyana are still waiting to see the much vaunted rewards
of forestry harvesting trickle down to their outstretched begging
bowls. How long can they hold on, waiting for the crumbs from their
masters' tables (foreign and local)? Where are the profits? Who are
profiting from this plunder?
Where are the people who were elected to serve Guyana and the interests
of the people?
International aid agencies or donors of gifts (Govts.- e.g. Britain,
Brazil, Canada, China, Cuba, India, Germany, Holland, Japan, USA,
Venezuela, etc. or other agencies –UN) and private individuals (
Non-Guyanese and Guyanese (e.g. especially those in Canada (Toronto),
USA (New York, Florida,) and Britain (London), Trinidad, Barbados,
etc.)) should please ask His Excellency President B. Jagdeo (Honorary
Chair of the IDB):
Why does the PPP Govt. allow a foreign company to harvest Guyana 's
forests without any serious revenue contribution to the state's
treasury? What will you say, Your Excellency? Why does the President
seem content to visit other places with his begging bowl when Guyana is
a resource-rich country? Who respects beggars?
Why is His Excellency not collecting revenues from the exploitation of
the state resources to: feed his underfed populace; properly educate
his undereducated young people; fund his underfinanced heath-care and
social programmes; build sports and cultural facilities; repair his
dilapidated infrastructure; pay livable wages to his underpaid
teachers, civil servants, police, judiciary, and army; fund his
understaffed environmental programmes; and properly fund his scientific
research institutions, Universities, colleges, etc?
Why must the children suffer? Would His Excellency, President Mr. B.
Jagdeo, and the PPP Govt. please tell us why?
Seelochan Beharry
PPP double standards re Barama
The PPP condemned the Barama deal when in opposition but expanded their concessions when in government
Monday, January 29th 2007
Dear Editor,
Generally, today's world no longer supports or wants to be seen supporting the old destructive forestry practices (to the environment and to the forestry peoples, animals, plants, etc). This change of consumer's attitude has been brought about largely because of the work of various environmental and cultural survival groups (local and international), modern science, better business practices, and common sense.
The market place or consumers (e.g. North America and Europe) are demanding that the forestry products ('green products') comply with environmentally friendly and sustainable practices. Hence, sensible and adaptive forestry businesses that want access to these more lucrative but informed consumers must conform to certain new industry standards. Hence international companies try to get and maintain FSC certification.
SGS (SGS) is an independent Swedish Company that certifies compliance with the Principles of the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC). SGS did an audit (Feb, 28th 2005 - March 4th and Aug 29th - Sept 3rd, 2005) and granted the Barama Company Ltd temporary FSC certification (17th Feb, 2006 to 16th Feb.2011. It is usually valid for 5 years.) Certain recommendations (Corrected Action Requested (CAR)) were made that were to be implemented in a limited time frame. The validity of this FSC certification was questioned by certain groups. The full report (60 pages) can be found online at:
(http://www.sgs.com/9205-gy_-_barama_ma2005-10_-_ad36a-03_gm.pdf) found referenced on a WRM bulletin: http://www.wrm. org.uy/bulletin/105/Guyana.html.
This report has some interesting points (page 57): One stakeholder questioned - (1) The legality of Barama's contract with the Government of Guyana "…it was a deal with an official who probably didn't have the legal right to grant the concession at all because it was during the hiatus between the dictatorship and the democratic government taking charge." The SGS Investigators were told: "Barama Company Ltd has a legal contract of tenure-ship over the concession area, and a legal investment contract with the Government of Guyana. This was confirmed with both the Prime Minister H.E. Samuel E. Hinds as well the Commissioner of Forests, James Singh, personally in a meeting with the SGS team on 2nd September, 2005."
My Commentary: The PPP (in opposition) was saying that the deal was illegal and rightly condemned it. Now we have His Excellency, Prime Minister Mr. Sam Hinds saying that the deal was legal.
Does this view reflect legal advice and/or the judgment of a court? I am not aware that the PPP Govt. contested the legality of this matter in any court (local and foreign) and lost. Where or by whom was that decision rendered both legal and binding on the Guyanese Govt.? If the legality of the deal was not contested, then what changed?
Mr. James Singh in a letter captioned "The figure quoted as being earned by the country from forestry investors does not take into account the employment provided and other important spin-off activities", said that they had no choice, but to accept the Barama deal which was inherited from the PNC Govt. Mr. Singh therefore implied that the deal was bad, but it was what they inherited. If this is true then it is more puzzling why the Barama concessions were increased and the deal was re-negotiated even more in favour of the Barama Company Ltd by the GFC and the PPP Govt. Is this not making a bad deal worse?
Mr. Mohamed Yusuf in his letter captioned "Bad investment deals are still made" (07.01.11) was kind enough to point this out, to the public and me ("Mr. Beharry would recall that the PPP re-negotiated investment deals inherited from the PNC. It is under the PPP Government that Barama was given more Forestry concessions. To-day's Barama owns more than one tenth of Guyana's soil…"). Mr. M. Yusuf's statement is substantiated by the dire warning of a letter writer in SN, March 12th, 2006 in which the writer calculated that in effect, Barama controlled 1/3 of the State's forest.
Have our Govts (PNC and PPP) created a state within the State of Guyana? Would the Commissioner of Forestry (GFC) please enlighten us?
The PPP had rightly condemned the secret deals, however on gaining political office, it emulated its nemesis. Why were/are these deals still being conducted in secret - without public scrutiny and/or input? State property was not the personal possession of the then unelected PNC Govt.; nor is it now the personal property of the elected PPP Govt. It is to be managed in the best interests of the state and people.
In that same report (page 57), we are told that: "Barama has paid US$147,000 as royalties for logs harvested in year 2004. In 2005, the estimated royalty payment is about US$330 000." On page 58, we read: "On 2 September 2005, SGS met with His Excellency the Guyana Prime Minister and questioned him about the tax concessions (given to Barama).
He stated emphatically that this was the responsibility of the GRA. The stakeholder needs to address this issue with the GRA. The SGS cannot intervene further in this issue, for it is a decision taken by the Guyanese Government, and not in conflict with the FSC P&C. The same applies to the export tax."
My Commentary: Surpris-ingly, here we see that His Excellency, Prime Minister Mr. Samuel Hinds is in effect saying if the Stakeholder has problems, he/she should go the GRA. The team from SGS, apparently rightly concluded that if the Govt. of Guyana does not care about revenue collection then why should the SGS. Why was the GRA not asked by the PPP Govt. to look into the situation at Barama?
Perhaps someone in Govt. will be kind enough to explain to us the intricacies of the situation. I have the utmost personal respect for His Excellency, Prime Minister, Mr. Samuel Hinds, therefore I am asking him to please clarify the situation - with regards to his statements? Or, would someone from the President's office please address this issue?
What is striking is that the PNC opposition also has been silent on this forestry issue. Why?
The People of Guyana are still waiting to see the much vaunted rewards of forestry harvesting trickle down. How long can they hold on waiting for the crumbs from their masters' tables (foreign and local)?
Where are the people who were elected to serve Guyana and the interests of the people?
Yours faithfully,
Seelochan Beharry
http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article_letters?id=56512853
Monday, January 29th 2007
Dear Editor,
Generally, today's world no longer supports or wants to be seen supporting the old destructive forestry practices (to the environment and to the forestry peoples, animals, plants, etc). This change of consumer's attitude has been brought about largely because of the work of various environmental and cultural survival groups (local and international), modern science, better business practices, and common sense.
The market place or consumers (e.g. North America and Europe) are demanding that the forestry products ('green products') comply with environmentally friendly and sustainable practices. Hence, sensible and adaptive forestry businesses that want access to these more lucrative but informed consumers must conform to certain new industry standards. Hence international companies try to get and maintain FSC certification.
SGS (SGS) is an independent Swedish Company that certifies compliance with the Principles of the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC). SGS did an audit (Feb, 28th 2005 - March 4th and Aug 29th - Sept 3rd, 2005) and granted the Barama Company Ltd temporary FSC certification (17th Feb, 2006 to 16th Feb.2011. It is usually valid for 5 years.) Certain recommendations (Corrected Action Requested (CAR)) were made that were to be implemented in a limited time frame. The validity of this FSC certification was questioned by certain groups. The full report (60 pages) can be found online at:
(http://www.sgs.com/9205-gy_-_barama_ma2005-10_-_ad36a-03_gm.pdf) found referenced on a WRM bulletin: http://www.wrm. org.uy/bulletin/105/Guyana.html.
This report has some interesting points (page 57): One stakeholder questioned - (1) The legality of Barama's contract with the Government of Guyana "…it was a deal with an official who probably didn't have the legal right to grant the concession at all because it was during the hiatus between the dictatorship and the democratic government taking charge." The SGS Investigators were told: "Barama Company Ltd has a legal contract of tenure-ship over the concession area, and a legal investment contract with the Government of Guyana. This was confirmed with both the Prime Minister H.E. Samuel E. Hinds as well the Commissioner of Forests, James Singh, personally in a meeting with the SGS team on 2nd September, 2005."
My Commentary: The PPP (in opposition) was saying that the deal was illegal and rightly condemned it. Now we have His Excellency, Prime Minister Mr. Sam Hinds saying that the deal was legal.
Does this view reflect legal advice and/or the judgment of a court? I am not aware that the PPP Govt. contested the legality of this matter in any court (local and foreign) and lost. Where or by whom was that decision rendered both legal and binding on the Guyanese Govt.? If the legality of the deal was not contested, then what changed?
Mr. James Singh in a letter captioned "The figure quoted as being earned by the country from forestry investors does not take into account the employment provided and other important spin-off activities", said that they had no choice, but to accept the Barama deal which was inherited from the PNC Govt. Mr. Singh therefore implied that the deal was bad, but it was what they inherited. If this is true then it is more puzzling why the Barama concessions were increased and the deal was re-negotiated even more in favour of the Barama Company Ltd by the GFC and the PPP Govt. Is this not making a bad deal worse?
Mr. Mohamed Yusuf in his letter captioned "Bad investment deals are still made" (07.01.11) was kind enough to point this out, to the public and me ("Mr. Beharry would recall that the PPP re-negotiated investment deals inherited from the PNC. It is under the PPP Government that Barama was given more Forestry concessions. To-day's Barama owns more than one tenth of Guyana's soil…"). Mr. M. Yusuf's statement is substantiated by the dire warning of a letter writer in SN, March 12th, 2006 in which the writer calculated that in effect, Barama controlled 1/3 of the State's forest.
Have our Govts (PNC and PPP) created a state within the State of Guyana? Would the Commissioner of Forestry (GFC) please enlighten us?
The PPP had rightly condemned the secret deals, however on gaining political office, it emulated its nemesis. Why were/are these deals still being conducted in secret - without public scrutiny and/or input? State property was not the personal possession of the then unelected PNC Govt.; nor is it now the personal property of the elected PPP Govt. It is to be managed in the best interests of the state and people.
In that same report (page 57), we are told that: "Barama has paid US$147,000 as royalties for logs harvested in year 2004. In 2005, the estimated royalty payment is about US$330 000." On page 58, we read: "On 2 September 2005, SGS met with His Excellency the Guyana Prime Minister and questioned him about the tax concessions (given to Barama).
He stated emphatically that this was the responsibility of the GRA. The stakeholder needs to address this issue with the GRA. The SGS cannot intervene further in this issue, for it is a decision taken by the Guyanese Government, and not in conflict with the FSC P&C. The same applies to the export tax."
My Commentary: Surpris-ingly, here we see that His Excellency, Prime Minister Mr. Samuel Hinds is in effect saying if the Stakeholder has problems, he/she should go the GRA. The team from SGS, apparently rightly concluded that if the Govt. of Guyana does not care about revenue collection then why should the SGS. Why was the GRA not asked by the PPP Govt. to look into the situation at Barama?
Perhaps someone in Govt. will be kind enough to explain to us the intricacies of the situation. I have the utmost personal respect for His Excellency, Prime Minister, Mr. Samuel Hinds, therefore I am asking him to please clarify the situation - with regards to his statements? Or, would someone from the President's office please address this issue?
What is striking is that the PNC opposition also has been silent on this forestry issue. Why?
The People of Guyana are still waiting to see the much vaunted rewards of forestry harvesting trickle down. How long can they hold on waiting for the crumbs from their masters' tables (foreign and local)?
Where are the people who were elected to serve Guyana and the interests of the people?
Yours faithfully,
Seelochan Beharry
http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article_letters?id=56512853
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Major deficiencies uncovered in Barama
Major deficiencies uncovered in Barama forest management
- auditor to appeal some findings
Sunday, January 28th 2007
An international audit agency has found Barama Company Ltd (BCL) and its auditor SGS-Qualifor deficient at varying levels following an audit late last year of BCL's forest operations which led to a three-month suspension of BCL's certification.
Accreditation Services International GmbH (ASI), which conducted a forest management audit at Barama for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), found nine major and seven minor nonconformities (areas in which Barama and its auditor failed to conform to accepted standards) for which it has requested corrective actions. It also made four observations in other areas, which do not require corrective action. SGS-Qualifor has since said that it does not agree with a number of findings in the report and plans to appeal them.
BCL was contacted for a response to the ASI report, but this newspaper was told that General Manager Girwar Lalaram was out of the country.
The audit found that BCL has been deficient on a number of fronts, including harvesting on Amerindian reservations, logging outside its concession, not maintaining basic health and safety requirements for workers, lack of evidence of sustainability in harvesting, failure to perform the relevant environmental impact assessments and unsafe disposal of environmentally hazardous waste.
ASI also said that according to the comments garnered from stakeholders, SGS had unclear criteria to select primary stakeholders. "Some representative stakeholders [including representatives of indigenous communities] were not properly consulted."
The stakeholders said SGS's procedures were not adequate and SGS did not follow appropriate stakeholder consultation process in line with the laws of Guyana.
According to ASI, BCL, which had been certified by the FSC, could not demonstrate compliance with FSC certification requirements at the time of the audit, which was conducted between November 20 and 25, 2006. "The lack of appropriate evaluation against the FSC certification requirements has resulted in systematic major nonconformities which had not been addressed," the report said.
The corrective actions recommended by the ASI team have varying deadlines: one month after the finalisation of the report; three months after finalization; and by the next SGS office surveillance audit, which is in six months. The report was finalised on January 4, 2007 and last updated on January 15.
Failure to demonstrate compliance with all the major nonconformities within the specified period will result in a report to the FSC Executive Director recommending disciplinary action, the report said.
According to the audit, SGS failed to ensure that containers, liquid and solid non-organic waste including fuel and oil would be disposed of in an environmentally appropriate manner at off-site locations.
The audit found too that the company did not have a management plan for the certified compartment 4 (378,596). "This lack of appropriate evaluation against FSC Principle 7 has resulted in a systematic nonconformity at principle level," the report said.
The report said areas outside BCL's compartments of forest under evaluation were not managed in the spirit of the FSC and major nonconformities were witnessed by the ASI team.
During the ASI surveillance audit, SGS did not adequately evaluate the company's compliance with the company's own procedures regarding illegal activities and FSC requirements.
There was evidence that local indigenous communities had no control over forest management on their land in the areas under direct control of the company outside compartments 4 and 5.
The report said this was because of an exclusive contract signed between the community and a company called IWPI. "Due to this exclusive contract some local people are not allowed to perform forest management operations on their own land and it is BCL that is currently harvesting on these indigenous lands. BCL has a harvesting contract with IWPI and the ASI audit team witnessed the fact that BCL machinery and BCL staff [are] performing harvesting operations in this Amerindian reservation," the report said.
According to ASI, BCL said there is nothing that it can do because of the contract, but the communities said they have not been paid for the last six months for timber that BCL harvested.
At the time of the ASI surveillance audit, the company was not in compliance with the FSC Principle 4 certification requirement, which covers basic health and safety for workers. "SGS has not adequately evaluated the company's compliance against FSC principle 4 and the FSC criterion 7.3. This lack of appropriate evaluation has resulted in systematic major non-conformities at principle level," the ASI report stated.
Further, the auditors found workers' compensation lacking in certain aspects with regard to International Labour Organisation (ILO) rules. Adequate access to medical facilities and personal protective gear are also lacking and not in accordance with the ILO. ASI said these issues have a six-month deadline for compliance-until the next SGS audit.
There was no evidence that the rate of harvesting of forest products was not going to exceed levels which can be permanently sustained, the report said. It said the company was found to be failing in performing appropriate environmental impact assessments prior to performing activities with a very high and significant impact. The company has been given three months by which to correct this nonconformity.
The report said SGS did not ensure that BCL had established appropriate conservation zones and protection areas and implemented appropriate procedures to protect these areas. It also found that SGS didn't ensure that BCL had implemented written guidelines to control erosion, road construction and other mechanical disturbances and to protect water resources.
ASI is an independent accreditation body, developed by the FSC and established as a legal entity in Bonn, Germany, that delivers accreditation and other relevant services to the FSC and other certification schemes worldwide.
StabroekNews
- auditor to appeal some findings
Sunday, January 28th 2007
An international audit agency has found Barama Company Ltd (BCL) and its auditor SGS-Qualifor deficient at varying levels following an audit late last year of BCL's forest operations which led to a three-month suspension of BCL's certification.
Accreditation Services International GmbH (ASI), which conducted a forest management audit at Barama for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), found nine major and seven minor nonconformities (areas in which Barama and its auditor failed to conform to accepted standards) for which it has requested corrective actions. It also made four observations in other areas, which do not require corrective action. SGS-Qualifor has since said that it does not agree with a number of findings in the report and plans to appeal them.
BCL was contacted for a response to the ASI report, but this newspaper was told that General Manager Girwar Lalaram was out of the country.
The audit found that BCL has been deficient on a number of fronts, including harvesting on Amerindian reservations, logging outside its concession, not maintaining basic health and safety requirements for workers, lack of evidence of sustainability in harvesting, failure to perform the relevant environmental impact assessments and unsafe disposal of environmentally hazardous waste.
ASI also said that according to the comments garnered from stakeholders, SGS had unclear criteria to select primary stakeholders. "Some representative stakeholders [including representatives of indigenous communities] were not properly consulted."
The stakeholders said SGS's procedures were not adequate and SGS did not follow appropriate stakeholder consultation process in line with the laws of Guyana.
According to ASI, BCL, which had been certified by the FSC, could not demonstrate compliance with FSC certification requirements at the time of the audit, which was conducted between November 20 and 25, 2006. "The lack of appropriate evaluation against the FSC certification requirements has resulted in systematic major nonconformities which had not been addressed," the report said.
The corrective actions recommended by the ASI team have varying deadlines: one month after the finalisation of the report; three months after finalization; and by the next SGS office surveillance audit, which is in six months. The report was finalised on January 4, 2007 and last updated on January 15.
Failure to demonstrate compliance with all the major nonconformities within the specified period will result in a report to the FSC Executive Director recommending disciplinary action, the report said.
According to the audit, SGS failed to ensure that containers, liquid and solid non-organic waste including fuel and oil would be disposed of in an environmentally appropriate manner at off-site locations.
The audit found too that the company did not have a management plan for the certified compartment 4 (378,596). "This lack of appropriate evaluation against FSC Principle 7 has resulted in a systematic nonconformity at principle level," the report said.
The report said areas outside BCL's compartments of forest under evaluation were not managed in the spirit of the FSC and major nonconformities were witnessed by the ASI team.
During the ASI surveillance audit, SGS did not adequately evaluate the company's compliance with the company's own procedures regarding illegal activities and FSC requirements.
There was evidence that local indigenous communities had no control over forest management on their land in the areas under direct control of the company outside compartments 4 and 5.
The report said this was because of an exclusive contract signed between the community and a company called IWPI. "Due to this exclusive contract some local people are not allowed to perform forest management operations on their own land and it is BCL that is currently harvesting on these indigenous lands. BCL has a harvesting contract with IWPI and the ASI audit team witnessed the fact that BCL machinery and BCL staff [are] performing harvesting operations in this Amerindian reservation," the report said.
According to ASI, BCL said there is nothing that it can do because of the contract, but the communities said they have not been paid for the last six months for timber that BCL harvested.
At the time of the ASI surveillance audit, the company was not in compliance with the FSC Principle 4 certification requirement, which covers basic health and safety for workers. "SGS has not adequately evaluated the company's compliance against FSC principle 4 and the FSC criterion 7.3. This lack of appropriate evaluation has resulted in systematic major non-conformities at principle level," the ASI report stated.
Further, the auditors found workers' compensation lacking in certain aspects with regard to International Labour Organisation (ILO) rules. Adequate access to medical facilities and personal protective gear are also lacking and not in accordance with the ILO. ASI said these issues have a six-month deadline for compliance-until the next SGS audit.
There was no evidence that the rate of harvesting of forest products was not going to exceed levels which can be permanently sustained, the report said. It said the company was found to be failing in performing appropriate environmental impact assessments prior to performing activities with a very high and significant impact. The company has been given three months by which to correct this nonconformity.
The report said SGS did not ensure that BCL had established appropriate conservation zones and protection areas and implemented appropriate procedures to protect these areas. It also found that SGS didn't ensure that BCL had implemented written guidelines to control erosion, road construction and other mechanical disturbances and to protect water resources.
ASI is an independent accreditation body, developed by the FSC and established as a legal entity in Bonn, Germany, that delivers accreditation and other relevant services to the FSC and other certification schemes worldwide.
StabroekNews
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Vested Interests
Kaieteur News, Saturday, 27 January 2007
Are powerful vested interests operating in the forestry sector?
Dear Editor,
I have read, with interest, recent letters to SN (on the 18th January
2007) relating to Barama - “Guyana's forestry resources are being
plundered for little gain”, “Barama's certificate for ‘good
forestry'
suspended,” and finally, “Barama introduced modern techniques of
forestry management to the declining forest industry in Guyana”.
I would like to offer an international perspective, responding in
particular to some of the inaccuracies and contradictions in that final
letter by Trevor Atkinson.
Firstly, it is frankly incredulous that Mr. Atkinson can suggest that
Barama has helped to develop ‘modern techniques of ...personal
development...and community relations'. He goes on to say that
‘Barama's contributions to Port Kaituma and surrounding Amerindian
communities, as part of its corporate responsibility, are outstanding and impressive'.
Brave statements, but perhaps a little premature in view of the
suspension of Barama's FSC certification! Corrective actions have been
published that confirm that Barama is not in compliance with FSC
Principle 4 on the basic health and safety requirements, and
accommodation for workers in the camps, their training, etc.
My own observations in the not too distant past were of shockingly
different treatment of national and foreign workers.
Why does Barama still attempt to justify the importation of foreign
workers to do ‘skilled jobs' when it could have trained local staff
over the 14 years in which it has been operating?
Why is Barama accused at the SGS stake holder meeting of preventing
local people from harvesting Kufa and Nibi vines, upon which they rely
for their livelihoods? Why, at that same meeting, are questions raised
about Barama still having harvesting contracts with SFP operators (e.g.
Barakat Timbers)?
Such SFPs are under little pressure to abide by FSC principles on
workers' health and safety. Subcontracting, if confirmed, would be in
breach of national legislation.
Why does Barama stand accused of deliberate subcontracting of Interior
Wood Products Incorporated (IWPI) to operate with impunity in the
Akawini Indigenous community area, about which there are reports of
serious Indigenous concerns?
Hardly the stuff of exemplary personal development and community
relations, or outstanding and impressive contributions!
We will soon know the truth when the reports of the SGS audit and the
FSC annual surveillance of SGS are made public.
Secondly, Mr. Atkinson makes light of Barama failing to pay taxes. Yet,
I cannot think of another equivalent example of so large a proportion
of a country's national territory being ceded to an expatriate company
with so little return to the national purse. Is it not legitimate for
the Guyanese citizen to object when his or her forest wealth is shipped
overseas to line foreign pockets without even the recompense of tax
revenues to be reinvested in the sector?
Is it not fair that Guyanese citizens at the SGS stakeholders' meeting
should question the GFC Report to its board of directors in March 2006
- stating that the Barama Company was negotiating directly with
Guyana's President, requesting to be exempted from payment of the 2%
commission on logs harvested outside its direct concession?
A report by the Guyana Forestry Commission itself pointed to the
absurdity of the situation in which small and medium enterprises
(mostly Guyanese owned) have access to
only 25% of the production forest, but employ 50% of the forestry
sector workforce, and contribute 75% of the government revenues. Such
reports certainly cannot be dismissed as ‘outdated and irrelevant
information,' as is Mr. Atkinson's practice. For further details, see:
http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/9540IIED.pdf
http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied/docs/flu/SME_pubs/Guyana SME.pdf
Thirdly, Mr. Atkinson, by implication, made much of the technology
injection that the Barama investment offers'. Why then is this view not
shared by the International Tropical Timber Organisation, who stated in
a 2003 report: “The use currently being made of Guyana 's extensive,
diverse, and complex forest resource is not satisfying many, if any, of
the stakeholders”?
A more recent analysis of the sector suggests that a more appropriate
response to Guyana 's low densities of desirable timber would be
through the much more modern and mobile sawmilling practices being
introduced by a number of small and medium firms. These allow much
higher recovery rates in volume and grade.
Innovative new practices take the means of timber conversion close to
the tree, where they can cut for grade, and so reduce transport costs
and sawmilling inefficiencies in one stroke. These new technologies
make more efficient use of each tree, and can therefore be run
efficiently on smaller concession sizes. What is more, they are more
affordable by Guyanese citizens, not relying on huge foreign
investments. Is it not legitimate for the Guyanese citizen to object
when huge chunks of territory are ceded to foreign control while
national operators are starved of forest land which they could use more
efficiently, and which could contribute to local, not foreign, wealth?
For further information see:
http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/13523IIED.pdf
It is, of course, commendable that Barama has sought to move towards
better forest management by attempting (and currently failing) to
comply with FSC standards. But much bigger political issues are at
stake here. Why should a foreign company be allowed to manage such a
large portion of the national production forest with so few national
benefits? Why is the government siding with a foreign company in
failing to collect the same taxes that are
imposed on Guyanese nationals? Why have international auditors seemed
so tardy to respond to many different concerns by Guyanese citizens?
Why does WWF dismiss as ‘minor deficiencies' and Mr. Atkinson dismiss
as ‘personal axe grinding' what to many Guyanese citizens seem such
major concerns?
As an outsider, I would hazard a guess that powerful vested interests
are cheating the average citizens of their national wealth - whatever
Mr. Atkinson thinks.
Duncan Macqueen
Senior Researcher in Responsible Forest Business
International Institute of Environment and Development
Are powerful vested interests operating in the forestry sector?
Dear Editor,
I have read, with interest, recent letters to SN (on the 18th January
2007) relating to Barama - “Guyana's forestry resources are being
plundered for little gain”, “Barama's certificate for ‘good
forestry'
suspended,” and finally, “Barama introduced modern techniques of
forestry management to the declining forest industry in Guyana”.
I would like to offer an international perspective, responding in
particular to some of the inaccuracies and contradictions in that final
letter by Trevor Atkinson.
Firstly, it is frankly incredulous that Mr. Atkinson can suggest that
Barama has helped to develop ‘modern techniques of ...personal
development...and community relations'. He goes on to say that
‘Barama's contributions to Port Kaituma and surrounding Amerindian
communities, as part of its corporate responsibility, are outstanding and impressive'.
Brave statements, but perhaps a little premature in view of the
suspension of Barama's FSC certification! Corrective actions have been
published that confirm that Barama is not in compliance with FSC
Principle 4 on the basic health and safety requirements, and
accommodation for workers in the camps, their training, etc.
My own observations in the not too distant past were of shockingly
different treatment of national and foreign workers.
Why does Barama still attempt to justify the importation of foreign
workers to do ‘skilled jobs' when it could have trained local staff
over the 14 years in which it has been operating?
Why is Barama accused at the SGS stake holder meeting of preventing
local people from harvesting Kufa and Nibi vines, upon which they rely
for their livelihoods? Why, at that same meeting, are questions raised
about Barama still having harvesting contracts with SFP operators (e.g.
Barakat Timbers)?
Such SFPs are under little pressure to abide by FSC principles on
workers' health and safety. Subcontracting, if confirmed, would be in
breach of national legislation.
Why does Barama stand accused of deliberate subcontracting of Interior
Wood Products Incorporated (IWPI) to operate with impunity in the
Akawini Indigenous community area, about which there are reports of
serious Indigenous concerns?
Hardly the stuff of exemplary personal development and community
relations, or outstanding and impressive contributions!
We will soon know the truth when the reports of the SGS audit and the
FSC annual surveillance of SGS are made public.
Secondly, Mr. Atkinson makes light of Barama failing to pay taxes. Yet,
I cannot think of another equivalent example of so large a proportion
of a country's national territory being ceded to an expatriate company
with so little return to the national purse. Is it not legitimate for
the Guyanese citizen to object when his or her forest wealth is shipped
overseas to line foreign pockets without even the recompense of tax
revenues to be reinvested in the sector?
Is it not fair that Guyanese citizens at the SGS stakeholders' meeting
should question the GFC Report to its board of directors in March 2006
- stating that the Barama Company was negotiating directly with
Guyana's President, requesting to be exempted from payment of the 2%
commission on logs harvested outside its direct concession?
A report by the Guyana Forestry Commission itself pointed to the
absurdity of the situation in which small and medium enterprises
(mostly Guyanese owned) have access to
only 25% of the production forest, but employ 50% of the forestry
sector workforce, and contribute 75% of the government revenues. Such
reports certainly cannot be dismissed as ‘outdated and irrelevant
information,' as is Mr. Atkinson's practice. For further details, see:
http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/9540IIED.pdf
http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied/docs/flu/SME_pubs/Guyana SME.pdf
Thirdly, Mr. Atkinson, by implication, made much of the technology
injection that the Barama investment offers'. Why then is this view not
shared by the International Tropical Timber Organisation, who stated in
a 2003 report: “The use currently being made of Guyana 's extensive,
diverse, and complex forest resource is not satisfying many, if any, of
the stakeholders”?
A more recent analysis of the sector suggests that a more appropriate
response to Guyana 's low densities of desirable timber would be
through the much more modern and mobile sawmilling practices being
introduced by a number of small and medium firms. These allow much
higher recovery rates in volume and grade.
Innovative new practices take the means of timber conversion close to
the tree, where they can cut for grade, and so reduce transport costs
and sawmilling inefficiencies in one stroke. These new technologies
make more efficient use of each tree, and can therefore be run
efficiently on smaller concession sizes. What is more, they are more
affordable by Guyanese citizens, not relying on huge foreign
investments. Is it not legitimate for the Guyanese citizen to object
when huge chunks of territory are ceded to foreign control while
national operators are starved of forest land which they could use more
efficiently, and which could contribute to local, not foreign, wealth?
For further information see:
http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/13523IIED.pdf
It is, of course, commendable that Barama has sought to move towards
better forest management by attempting (and currently failing) to
comply with FSC standards. But much bigger political issues are at
stake here. Why should a foreign company be allowed to manage such a
large portion of the national production forest with so few national
benefits? Why is the government siding with a foreign company in
failing to collect the same taxes that are
imposed on Guyanese nationals? Why have international auditors seemed
so tardy to respond to many different concerns by Guyanese citizens?
Why does WWF dismiss as ‘minor deficiencies' and Mr. Atkinson dismiss
as ‘personal axe grinding' what to many Guyanese citizens seem such
major concerns?
As an outsider, I would hazard a guess that powerful vested interests
are cheating the average citizens of their national wealth - whatever
Mr. Atkinson thinks.
Duncan Macqueen
Senior Researcher in Responsible Forest Business
International Institute of Environment and Development
GFC Log Tracking
The Forestry Commission has had an effective log tracking system for seven years
Saturday, January 27th 2007
Dear Editor,
A letter captioned "Illegal Logging in Guyana is worse than admitted by the Guyana Forestry Commission" (07.01.17) is another in a series of letters that seeks to selectively use information in a very manipulative way to serve the agendas of individuals who have launched an attack on the Government and the Commission.
The Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) has had in place the log tracking system for about seven years now. It has proven to be a very useful tool to restrict significantly the incidence of illegal logging, and importantly, to be able to quickly detect cases of illegal logging which may occur from time to time. The system is constantly being reviewed and upgraded and only recently (2006) a review of its efficiency was done by PROFOREST.
That review identified certain gaps in the implementation of the log tracking system and made very clear recommendations which are currently being implemented by the GFC.
The statement made by the FPMC that the "Log Tracking System has exposed and hence reduced the number of illegal operations especially the chainsaw operations" is very factual. Not all chainsaw operators operated illegally, but some years ago, a lot of existing chainsaw operations were being done by "poaching" on state forests that were unallocated, or leased to other concessionaires.
After repeatedly being held with untagged forest produce, these "illegal" operators then heeded the call of the Government and GFC to become regularized and legal operators. This led to the GFC coordinating the formation of Community Forestry Groups and allocating state forest land to them to operate in a legal manner.
The letter gives one definition of illegal logging, but readers should know that many highly recognized international institutions such as the World Bank, the Centre for International Research in Forestry (CIFOR), the World Wide Fund for Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), all have definitions of illegal logging.
In any case none of the companies existing in Guyana is in continuous breach of the definition of illegal logging as stated by the Royal Institute of International Affairs. When the minimal incidence of any breach occurs, it is quickly detected by the GFC's control procedures and immediately dealt with.
Ms. Bulkan attempts to further add her definition of illegal logging to continue her vendetta against the foreign companies. The public should be aware that the Guyana Revenue Authority and the GFC have made it explicit to the foreign companies that all concessions granted by the Government are specifically for use in the state forests leased to them. This arrangement is being monitored by both GRA and GFC.
The statement of sub-letting by members of the FPA is again not factual, but we are accustomed to Ms Bulkan either misrepresenting the facts, or being very selective in choosing information to support her position.
For example, she quotes that sub-letting is against the National Forestry Policy (1997, Part 1, B3(d)). Unfortunately for Ms. Bulkan, the National Forest Policy Document of 1997, has no Part 1, B3(d). It would be advisable for a PhD research person to be more careful in making quotes that are non-existent. Again there is reference to a Part III, B3 in the National Forest Policy which is non-existent. Ms. Bulkan then quotes specific clauses in the Forest Regulations and TSA Agreement (clause 13) which deal with sub letting, but conveniently omits clause 14 of the same TSA Agreement which allows for the employment of agents and contractors.
This clause allows for companies to legally contract other companies to harvest within their leased concessions, with approval from the GFC, and in accordance with their Annual Operational Plan. To say that this is illegal logging does a disservice to the mentality of the public and certainly does not promote Guyana's international image.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Taylor
Stabroek News
Saturday, January 27th 2007
Dear Editor,
A letter captioned "Illegal Logging in Guyana is worse than admitted by the Guyana Forestry Commission" (07.01.17) is another in a series of letters that seeks to selectively use information in a very manipulative way to serve the agendas of individuals who have launched an attack on the Government and the Commission.
The Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) has had in place the log tracking system for about seven years now. It has proven to be a very useful tool to restrict significantly the incidence of illegal logging, and importantly, to be able to quickly detect cases of illegal logging which may occur from time to time. The system is constantly being reviewed and upgraded and only recently (2006) a review of its efficiency was done by PROFOREST.
That review identified certain gaps in the implementation of the log tracking system and made very clear recommendations which are currently being implemented by the GFC.
The statement made by the FPMC that the "Log Tracking System has exposed and hence reduced the number of illegal operations especially the chainsaw operations" is very factual. Not all chainsaw operators operated illegally, but some years ago, a lot of existing chainsaw operations were being done by "poaching" on state forests that were unallocated, or leased to other concessionaires.
After repeatedly being held with untagged forest produce, these "illegal" operators then heeded the call of the Government and GFC to become regularized and legal operators. This led to the GFC coordinating the formation of Community Forestry Groups and allocating state forest land to them to operate in a legal manner.
The letter gives one definition of illegal logging, but readers should know that many highly recognized international institutions such as the World Bank, the Centre for International Research in Forestry (CIFOR), the World Wide Fund for Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), all have definitions of illegal logging.
In any case none of the companies existing in Guyana is in continuous breach of the definition of illegal logging as stated by the Royal Institute of International Affairs. When the minimal incidence of any breach occurs, it is quickly detected by the GFC's control procedures and immediately dealt with.
Ms. Bulkan attempts to further add her definition of illegal logging to continue her vendetta against the foreign companies. The public should be aware that the Guyana Revenue Authority and the GFC have made it explicit to the foreign companies that all concessions granted by the Government are specifically for use in the state forests leased to them. This arrangement is being monitored by both GRA and GFC.
The statement of sub-letting by members of the FPA is again not factual, but we are accustomed to Ms Bulkan either misrepresenting the facts, or being very selective in choosing information to support her position.
For example, she quotes that sub-letting is against the National Forestry Policy (1997, Part 1, B3(d)). Unfortunately for Ms. Bulkan, the National Forest Policy Document of 1997, has no Part 1, B3(d). It would be advisable for a PhD research person to be more careful in making quotes that are non-existent. Again there is reference to a Part III, B3 in the National Forest Policy which is non-existent. Ms. Bulkan then quotes specific clauses in the Forest Regulations and TSA Agreement (clause 13) which deal with sub letting, but conveniently omits clause 14 of the same TSA Agreement which allows for the employment of agents and contractors.
This clause allows for companies to legally contract other companies to harvest within their leased concessions, with approval from the GFC, and in accordance with their Annual Operational Plan. To say that this is illegal logging does a disservice to the mentality of the public and certainly does not promote Guyana's international image.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Taylor
Stabroek News
Rupununi Wetlands
Campaign to preserve Rupununi wetlands sharpening focus
Saturday, January 27th 2007
Stakeholders in the North Rupununi Wetlands project on Tuesday took the first step towards identifying hindrances and coming up with programmes to preserve and sustainably manage the rich ecosystem found there.
This is being done through an initiative titled the North Rupununi Adaptive Management Plan (NRAMP), which seeks to take the three-year old Wetlands Project forward. This project is being done with funding from the Darwin Initiative and seeks to manage in a sustainable way the ecology found in the wetlands and to address the economic concerns of residents through sustainable use of that ecosystem.
At a workshop held at the University of Guyana's Centre for the Study of Biological Diversity, Turkeyen, on Tuesday, the stakeholders discussed the boundaries of the wetland area, the important agencies and their roles and the threats to these important wetlands and solutions to these management problems. Organised by the North Rupununi Wetlands Project team, the workshop aimed to produce a press release on the way forward and to understand the impact the NRAMP process is having.
At the workshop, the attendees broke up into three working groups to discuss three broad themes: the North Rupununi Wetlands and the boundaries that define them; the stakeholders of the North Rupununi Wetlands and their relationship to the wetlands; and relevant management initiatives related to the North Rupununi Wetlands, such as fisheries management, the Giant River Turtle and the Black Caiman.
Indranee Roopsind and Lakeram Haynes gave a review of the project before the participants broke into groups.
Represented at the workshop were the North Rupununi District Development Board; WWF, Conservation International; the Iwokrama International Centre; the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC); the Environmental Protection Agency (GFC); the University of Guyana; Piyakîita Resource Management Unit (Ministry of Amerindian Affairs); Royal Holloway University of London; Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust; and The Open University.
According to the Wetlands team, the North Rupununi Wetlands are important because of the amazing diversity of wildlife found there, the uniqueness of their cultural heritage and the natural resources they provide.
"These resources, such as fish, are essential to sustaining local people and their livelihoods. It is recognized by the workshop that threats to these wetlands require effective management to maintain this unique region," a press release from the team following the workshop said.
For the purposes of management, the team proposed that the core area of the North Rupununi Wetlands include all land areas historically and traditionally used by the Makushi, areas that sustain populations of the `Giants of El Dorado' (Giant River Otter, Jaguar, Giant Anteater, Arapaima, Anaconda, Giant River Turtle, Harpy Eagle), areas that have been studied for their rich biodiversity.
"We recognize that activities, such as mining, occurring within the wider area can impact on the wildlife and people of the North Rupununi. For example, pollution in the South Rupununi or over-fishing in the Ireng River could impact severely on the wetlands and the people of the North Rupununi. The North Rupununi Wetlands wider area includes places from where water flows into the Rupununi River, the Siparuni River, the Ireng River from Guyanese lands and parts of the upper reaches of the Essequibo. It also includes river and land migration routes for species such as fish and important species breeding areas," the release from the team said.
According to the release, there are many different stakeholder groups concerned with natural resource management within the North Rupununi. These range from government, non-government organizations, communities, commercial interests to individual people. "These groups and individuals have varying capacity to implement management and often have conflicting and overlapping roles. To clarify the management of natural resources it is recognized by the workshop that management of the North Rupununi Wetlands should be undertaken by community organizations and in particular the NRDDB," the release said.
It added that other organisations and agencies should support the NRDDB in the implementation of natural resource management. "In particular regulatory, education and conservation/research organizations should actively support the NRDDB. Commercial, social service, enforcement, donor and public action groups should provide advice and input where necessary," said the Wetlands team.
The team fully recognises that there are several issues that require immediate and practical solutions. These include pollution, over harvesting, irresponsible hunting, and unregulated mining that result in the loss of species in general, as well as more specifically, the destruction of inland fisheries. "It has been recognised that the major issue restricting the proper management of the North Rupununi Wetlands is the current lack of legislation/appropriate legislation and in cases where there is legislation, the lack of resources (financial, human and technical capacity) and awareness to implement and enforce these laws," the release said.
The team proposed that agencies such as the EPA, Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), Guyana Lands and Survey Commission (GLSC), and other such agencies would need to have a representative at the local level. It said that this would not only provide a rapid response to incidents, but would also be a step towards raising awareness and clearly defining the roles of these various agencies in natural resource management.
"We recognize that the current management initiatives within the North Rupununi Wetlands such as the Arapaima Management Plan, Piyakîita Resource Management Unit and the North Rupununi Adaptive Management Plan, should include all stakeholders so that efforts are not replicated, and resources are used wisely to promote the development of community livelihoods," the team stated.
In concluding, the team said that it is important to emphasise that the strengthening of local authorities to police natural resource use by persons from both within and outside of the North Rupununi Wetlands is pivotal in collaboratively managing this region.
NRAMP is part educational (capacity building), a database, and a management plan mostly focusing on a process of stakeholder engagement and the development of a shared understanding.
The NRAMP process can be defined by five terms: adaptive; participative; holistic; evidence based; and practical. This process allows management of natural resources to be planned and implemented by local people, for local people. Over the long term, the project will initiate capacity building and income generation within the NRAMP.
The North Rupununi Wetlands Project team include the NRDDB; Iwokrama; the EPA; UG; Royal Holloway University of London; Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust; and The Open University.
Stabroek News
Saturday, January 27th 2007
Stakeholders in the North Rupununi Wetlands project on Tuesday took the first step towards identifying hindrances and coming up with programmes to preserve and sustainably manage the rich ecosystem found there.
This is being done through an initiative titled the North Rupununi Adaptive Management Plan (NRAMP), which seeks to take the three-year old Wetlands Project forward. This project is being done with funding from the Darwin Initiative and seeks to manage in a sustainable way the ecology found in the wetlands and to address the economic concerns of residents through sustainable use of that ecosystem.
At a workshop held at the University of Guyana's Centre for the Study of Biological Diversity, Turkeyen, on Tuesday, the stakeholders discussed the boundaries of the wetland area, the important agencies and their roles and the threats to these important wetlands and solutions to these management problems. Organised by the North Rupununi Wetlands Project team, the workshop aimed to produce a press release on the way forward and to understand the impact the NRAMP process is having.
At the workshop, the attendees broke up into three working groups to discuss three broad themes: the North Rupununi Wetlands and the boundaries that define them; the stakeholders of the North Rupununi Wetlands and their relationship to the wetlands; and relevant management initiatives related to the North Rupununi Wetlands, such as fisheries management, the Giant River Turtle and the Black Caiman.
Indranee Roopsind and Lakeram Haynes gave a review of the project before the participants broke into groups.
Represented at the workshop were the North Rupununi District Development Board; WWF, Conservation International; the Iwokrama International Centre; the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC); the Environmental Protection Agency (GFC); the University of Guyana; Piyakîita Resource Management Unit (Ministry of Amerindian Affairs); Royal Holloway University of London; Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust; and The Open University.
According to the Wetlands team, the North Rupununi Wetlands are important because of the amazing diversity of wildlife found there, the uniqueness of their cultural heritage and the natural resources they provide.
"These resources, such as fish, are essential to sustaining local people and their livelihoods. It is recognized by the workshop that threats to these wetlands require effective management to maintain this unique region," a press release from the team following the workshop said.
For the purposes of management, the team proposed that the core area of the North Rupununi Wetlands include all land areas historically and traditionally used by the Makushi, areas that sustain populations of the `Giants of El Dorado' (Giant River Otter, Jaguar, Giant Anteater, Arapaima, Anaconda, Giant River Turtle, Harpy Eagle), areas that have been studied for their rich biodiversity.
"We recognize that activities, such as mining, occurring within the wider area can impact on the wildlife and people of the North Rupununi. For example, pollution in the South Rupununi or over-fishing in the Ireng River could impact severely on the wetlands and the people of the North Rupununi. The North Rupununi Wetlands wider area includes places from where water flows into the Rupununi River, the Siparuni River, the Ireng River from Guyanese lands and parts of the upper reaches of the Essequibo. It also includes river and land migration routes for species such as fish and important species breeding areas," the release from the team said.
According to the release, there are many different stakeholder groups concerned with natural resource management within the North Rupununi. These range from government, non-government organizations, communities, commercial interests to individual people. "These groups and individuals have varying capacity to implement management and often have conflicting and overlapping roles. To clarify the management of natural resources it is recognized by the workshop that management of the North Rupununi Wetlands should be undertaken by community organizations and in particular the NRDDB," the release said.
It added that other organisations and agencies should support the NRDDB in the implementation of natural resource management. "In particular regulatory, education and conservation/research organizations should actively support the NRDDB. Commercial, social service, enforcement, donor and public action groups should provide advice and input where necessary," said the Wetlands team.
The team fully recognises that there are several issues that require immediate and practical solutions. These include pollution, over harvesting, irresponsible hunting, and unregulated mining that result in the loss of species in general, as well as more specifically, the destruction of inland fisheries. "It has been recognised that the major issue restricting the proper management of the North Rupununi Wetlands is the current lack of legislation/appropriate legislation and in cases where there is legislation, the lack of resources (financial, human and technical capacity) and awareness to implement and enforce these laws," the release said.
The team proposed that agencies such as the EPA, Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), Guyana Lands and Survey Commission (GLSC), and other such agencies would need to have a representative at the local level. It said that this would not only provide a rapid response to incidents, but would also be a step towards raising awareness and clearly defining the roles of these various agencies in natural resource management.
"We recognize that the current management initiatives within the North Rupununi Wetlands such as the Arapaima Management Plan, Piyakîita Resource Management Unit and the North Rupununi Adaptive Management Plan, should include all stakeholders so that efforts are not replicated, and resources are used wisely to promote the development of community livelihoods," the team stated.
In concluding, the team said that it is important to emphasise that the strengthening of local authorities to police natural resource use by persons from both within and outside of the North Rupununi Wetlands is pivotal in collaboratively managing this region.
NRAMP is part educational (capacity building), a database, and a management plan mostly focusing on a process of stakeholder engagement and the development of a shared understanding.
The NRAMP process can be defined by five terms: adaptive; participative; holistic; evidence based; and practical. This process allows management of natural resources to be planned and implemented by local people, for local people. Over the long term, the project will initiate capacity building and income generation within the NRAMP.
The North Rupununi Wetlands Project team include the NRDDB; Iwokrama; the EPA; UG; Royal Holloway University of London; Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust; and The Open University.
Stabroek News
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Cult of Secrecy and the Environment
Cult of secrecy and the environment
Dear Editor,
What else is/are on these ships leaving Guyana besides the obviously
visible?
There is a very rigorous screening process at the Post Office in Guyana
to mail a package to any overseas destinations, but no apparent
supervision during the loading of a ship.
Recently, a very observant Guyanese, Mr. Patrick Jackson, brought to
the nation's attention that a ship was being loaded apparently without
any customs' supervision. (SN Wed. Dec. 27th, 2006. Which Timber
exporters had cargo on the Rong Cheng?). Clearly visible on the
Chinese–registered ship were logs being loaded from a pontoon.
Obviously, Mr. P. Jackson's questions have failed to get any
satisfactory qualitative (types of logs) and/or quantitative (number of
logs) response from the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC), (SN Jan 3rd,
2007). This is particularly even more puzzling in that we just read
(See refs in Ms. Janette Bulkan's letter Kaieteur News and SN, Jan
17th, 2007), that the GFC claims that it has the best national logging
tracking system (LTS) in the world.
Assuming that the system is still viable, the GFC would therefore have
no problems detailing what logs are being loaded, etc. I cannot
understand why the information (the species of logs, number of logs,
values of the logs, and who/ where the logs are destined to/for) is a
State secret. These are not the secrets of an industrial process.
By not answering the questions, the Commissioner has created further
misgivings in the minds of concerned citizens. We expect more openness
from the GFC, particularly in light of the fact the Commissioner had
just made a statement in the media (SN, Nov 17th, 2006) that the public
should direct questions/concerns to the GFC's office. Mr. P. Jackson
did as directed - only to be told that the information is not available
to the public.
This is a democracy; why should such information not be made public?
Why is the GFC so afraid of public oversight? Dr C. Jagan (1994) had
implored the public to be involved: “I want to assure you that you
must
be part and parcel of the policing apparatus. We don't have enough
money or resources in the Geology and Mines Commission or personnel in
the GFC. We don't have enough vehicles; we don't have boats to police
the vast interior. I say today….work closely not only with the army
and
the security forces, but also with the Geology and Mines Commission and
with the GFC, and become part of protecting your own rights.” The
eyes/ears of a vigilant public are to our nations' advantage. Is Dr C.
Jagan's request no longer in effect?
The GFC is there to serve the interests of the people of Guyana . The
GFC, by its refusal to answer the questions of Mr. Jackson, has
unfortunately and inadvertently created doubts with regards to its own
competence and effectiveness. That is, one is left to wonder whether
the GFC has any clue with regards to that particular shipment and
whether it is withholding the truth to cover its own or someone else's
blunder or directive. It is reasonable to assume that if the GFC had
the pertinent information on hand, that it would have made it public
immediately.
Why the secrecy? Was it not secrecy or lack of public input or
oversight that got us into these bad deals in the first place? How
would others report seeming infractions?
In any case, I have to take the Commissioner's word that everything was
above board, and that nothing is amiss here. We hope that he is right.
However, those with an investigative background may well ask what else
was being loaded during this unsupervised period?
Therefore what I read (SN Jan 3rd, 2007) bothers me: “The letter
writer
stated that the photos showed no Customs or GFC official present at the
loading of the ship, but a GFC official said that officers of the
agency don't have to be on hand every minute during the loading of the
logs on the ships.” This seems like a very cavalier way/attitude in
looking after the nation's business. I did not realise that so many
ships were being simultaneously loaded with products (e.g. logs) for
export that we do not have enough ‘qualified forestry customs
officers'
to oversee the loading of this one particular ship. Or, is it that the
Customs Officers never showed up, or were conveniently late?
Not having Customs officials there indicate a rather gaping hole in our
security. We are already fighting the undesirable and harmful image of
Guyana being a major transshipment point for illegal drugs from South
American drug cartels. Why make it easier for unscrupulous persons to
capitalise on the illegal use of our ports?
The Chinese Govt. is very seriously cracking down on the entry of
cocaine and other illegal drugs into China for use by its own citizenry
(the rising middle class and young); they will not view this potential
breach very lightly. The USA, Europe, and British Govt., etc will also
not take this so lightly.
The illegal wildlife trade destined for Asian countries (for use in
exotic foods and medicine) is growing rapidly around the world. For
example, poachers are killing tigers in India, rhinoceros in Kenya,
apes in Uganda and Congo, and bears in Canada to meet the demands of
this market. With the rise of the large middle class in China, there is
greater demand for exotic wildlife. This places a lot of stress on the
unprepared and relatively lightly-armed guardians/wardens of the state
forests /reserve/parks/etc of the developing world. Unfortunately, as
long as the demand is there, unscrupulous people will try to meet the
illegal market for the immediate financial rewards.
Regrettably, according to international experts, Asian governments (in
particular China) have not been effective (due to feeble efforts) in
shutting down the illegal wildlife trade.
The illegal wildlife trade is therefore very profitable. It is
therefore very possible for some unscrupulous persons to make big money
by illegally shipping Guyana's animals aboard these ships destined for
China or the Far East. The jaguars, monkeys, birds, snakes, etc. would
be particularly vulnerable.
We already know from local press reports that some bird species are
becoming scarce. (These losses will impact on the forestry industry,
ecotourism, conservation efforts, local ecology, etc.) We have also
heard complaints of illegal gold panning by forestry workers. It
therefore bothers me that the loading of these ships is not under
constant supervision. It is hard to believe that we are so negligent.
I hope that the EPA, the GFC, the Customs, and Police (Dock, Harbour,
or River patrols), Coast Guard, and the local environmental groups work
together to prevent the illegal trade of Guyana's wildlife.
The assistance of the Chinese Govt. officials in Guyana must be sought.
China is becoming very sensitive of its image in third world countries
(it is buying up natural resources) and also with environmental groups.
They will therefore help as much as they can. We have to ask first and
do so very politely.
I would like to thank Mr. Patrick Johnson for his keen observations. I
hope that all interested citizens continue to take an interest in the
business of the nation.
We must be ever vigilant as Dr. C. Jagan so rightly asked of us years
ago; it is our civic duty and responsibility, irrespective of what
‘our' current political leadership and Government officials think.
The nation's business is our business.
Seelochan Beharry
Kaieteur News 1/25/2007
Dear Editor,
What else is/are on these ships leaving Guyana besides the obviously
visible?
There is a very rigorous screening process at the Post Office in Guyana
to mail a package to any overseas destinations, but no apparent
supervision during the loading of a ship.
Recently, a very observant Guyanese, Mr. Patrick Jackson, brought to
the nation's attention that a ship was being loaded apparently without
any customs' supervision. (SN Wed. Dec. 27th, 2006. Which Timber
exporters had cargo on the Rong Cheng?). Clearly visible on the
Chinese–registered ship were logs being loaded from a pontoon.
Obviously, Mr. P. Jackson's questions have failed to get any
satisfactory qualitative (types of logs) and/or quantitative (number of
logs) response from the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC), (SN Jan 3rd,
2007). This is particularly even more puzzling in that we just read
(See refs in Ms. Janette Bulkan's letter Kaieteur News and SN, Jan
17th, 2007), that the GFC claims that it has the best national logging
tracking system (LTS) in the world.
Assuming that the system is still viable, the GFC would therefore have
no problems detailing what logs are being loaded, etc. I cannot
understand why the information (the species of logs, number of logs,
values of the logs, and who/ where the logs are destined to/for) is a
State secret. These are not the secrets of an industrial process.
By not answering the questions, the Commissioner has created further
misgivings in the minds of concerned citizens. We expect more openness
from the GFC, particularly in light of the fact the Commissioner had
just made a statement in the media (SN, Nov 17th, 2006) that the public
should direct questions/concerns to the GFC's office. Mr. P. Jackson
did as directed - only to be told that the information is not available
to the public.
This is a democracy; why should such information not be made public?
Why is the GFC so afraid of public oversight? Dr C. Jagan (1994) had
implored the public to be involved: “I want to assure you that you
must
be part and parcel of the policing apparatus. We don't have enough
money or resources in the Geology and Mines Commission or personnel in
the GFC. We don't have enough vehicles; we don't have boats to police
the vast interior. I say today….work closely not only with the army
and
the security forces, but also with the Geology and Mines Commission and
with the GFC, and become part of protecting your own rights.” The
eyes/ears of a vigilant public are to our nations' advantage. Is Dr C.
Jagan's request no longer in effect?
The GFC is there to serve the interests of the people of Guyana . The
GFC, by its refusal to answer the questions of Mr. Jackson, has
unfortunately and inadvertently created doubts with regards to its own
competence and effectiveness. That is, one is left to wonder whether
the GFC has any clue with regards to that particular shipment and
whether it is withholding the truth to cover its own or someone else's
blunder or directive. It is reasonable to assume that if the GFC had
the pertinent information on hand, that it would have made it public
immediately.
Why the secrecy? Was it not secrecy or lack of public input or
oversight that got us into these bad deals in the first place? How
would others report seeming infractions?
In any case, I have to take the Commissioner's word that everything was
above board, and that nothing is amiss here. We hope that he is right.
However, those with an investigative background may well ask what else
was being loaded during this unsupervised period?
Therefore what I read (SN Jan 3rd, 2007) bothers me: “The letter
writer
stated that the photos showed no Customs or GFC official present at the
loading of the ship, but a GFC official said that officers of the
agency don't have to be on hand every minute during the loading of the
logs on the ships.” This seems like a very cavalier way/attitude in
looking after the nation's business. I did not realise that so many
ships were being simultaneously loaded with products (e.g. logs) for
export that we do not have enough ‘qualified forestry customs
officers'
to oversee the loading of this one particular ship. Or, is it that the
Customs Officers never showed up, or were conveniently late?
Not having Customs officials there indicate a rather gaping hole in our
security. We are already fighting the undesirable and harmful image of
Guyana being a major transshipment point for illegal drugs from South
American drug cartels. Why make it easier for unscrupulous persons to
capitalise on the illegal use of our ports?
The Chinese Govt. is very seriously cracking down on the entry of
cocaine and other illegal drugs into China for use by its own citizenry
(the rising middle class and young); they will not view this potential
breach very lightly. The USA, Europe, and British Govt., etc will also
not take this so lightly.
The illegal wildlife trade destined for Asian countries (for use in
exotic foods and medicine) is growing rapidly around the world. For
example, poachers are killing tigers in India, rhinoceros in Kenya,
apes in Uganda and Congo, and bears in Canada to meet the demands of
this market. With the rise of the large middle class in China, there is
greater demand for exotic wildlife. This places a lot of stress on the
unprepared and relatively lightly-armed guardians/wardens of the state
forests /reserve/parks/etc of the developing world. Unfortunately, as
long as the demand is there, unscrupulous people will try to meet the
illegal market for the immediate financial rewards.
Regrettably, according to international experts, Asian governments (in
particular China) have not been effective (due to feeble efforts) in
shutting down the illegal wildlife trade.
The illegal wildlife trade is therefore very profitable. It is
therefore very possible for some unscrupulous persons to make big money
by illegally shipping Guyana's animals aboard these ships destined for
China or the Far East. The jaguars, monkeys, birds, snakes, etc. would
be particularly vulnerable.
We already know from local press reports that some bird species are
becoming scarce. (These losses will impact on the forestry industry,
ecotourism, conservation efforts, local ecology, etc.) We have also
heard complaints of illegal gold panning by forestry workers. It
therefore bothers me that the loading of these ships is not under
constant supervision. It is hard to believe that we are so negligent.
I hope that the EPA, the GFC, the Customs, and Police (Dock, Harbour,
or River patrols), Coast Guard, and the local environmental groups work
together to prevent the illegal trade of Guyana's wildlife.
The assistance of the Chinese Govt. officials in Guyana must be sought.
China is becoming very sensitive of its image in third world countries
(it is buying up natural resources) and also with environmental groups.
They will therefore help as much as they can. We have to ask first and
do so very politely.
I would like to thank Mr. Patrick Johnson for his keen observations. I
hope that all interested citizens continue to take an interest in the
business of the nation.
We must be ever vigilant as Dr. C. Jagan so rightly asked of us years
ago; it is our civic duty and responsibility, irrespective of what
‘our' current political leadership and Government officials think.
The nation's business is our business.
Seelochan Beharry
Kaieteur News 1/25/2007
Why are we giving it away???
Why should a foreign company be allowed to manage such a large portion of the national production forest with so few benefits to the nation?
Thursday, January 25th 2007
Dear Editor,
I read with interest the letters captioned "Guyana's forestry resources are being plundered for little gain" and "Barama introduced modern techniques of forest management to the declining forest industry in Guyana" (07.01.18) as well as the report headlined "Barama certificate for good forestry suspended" on the same date. I would like to offer an international perspective, responding in particular to some of the inaccuracies and contradictions in that second letter by Trevor Atkinson.
Firstly, it is frankly incredible that Mr Atkinson can suggest that Barama has helped to develop "modern techniques of ...personal development...and community relations." He goes on to say that "Barama's contributions to Port Kaituma and surrounding Amerindian communities as part of its corporate responsibility are outstanding and impressive." Brave statements, but perhaps a little premature in view of the suspension of Barama's FSC certification! Corrective actions have been published that confirm that Barama is not in compliance with FSC Principle 4 on the basic health and safety requirements and accommodation for workers in the camps, their training etc.
My own observations in the not too distant past were of shockingly different treatment of national and foreign workers. Why does Barama still attempt to justify the import of foreign workers to do 'skilled jobs' when it could have trained local staff over the 14 years during which it has been operating? Why is Barama accused at the SGS stakeholder meeting of preventing local people from harvesting Kufa and Nibi vines - upon which they rely for their livelihoods? Why at that same meeting are questions raised about Barama still having harvesting contracts with SFP operators (e.g. Barakat Timbers). Such SFPs are under little pressure to abide by FSC principles on worker health and safety. Subcontracting, if confirmed, would be in breach of national legislation. Why does Barama stand accused of deliberate subcontracting of Interior Wood Products Incorporated (IWPI) to operate with impunity in the Akawini indigenous community area - about which there are reports of serious indigenous concern. Hardly the stuff of exemplary personal development and community relations - or outstanding and impressive contributions! We will soon see the truth when the reports of the SGS audit and the FSC annual surveillance of SGS are made public.
Secondly, Mr Atkinson makes light of Barama failing to pay taxes. Yet, I cannot think of another equivalent example of so large a proportion of a country's national territory being ceded to an expatriate company with so little return to the national purse. Is it not legitimate for the Guyanese citizen to object when his or her forest wealth is shipped overseas to line foreign pockets without even the recompense of tax revenues to be reinvested in the sector? Is it not fair that Guyanese citizens at the SGS stakeholder meeting should question the GFC report to its board of directors in March 2006 - stating that the Barama company was negotiating directly with Guyana's President requesting to be exempted from payment of the 2% commission on logs harvested outside its direct concession? A report by the Guyana Forestry Commission itself pointed to the absurdity of the situation in which small and medium enterprises (mostly Guyanese owned) have access to only 25% of the production forest, but employ 50% of the forest sector workforce, and contribute 75% of the government revenues. Such reports certainly cannot be dismissed as 'outdated and irrelevant information' as is Mr Atkinson's practice. For further detail see:http://www.iied. org/pubs/pdf/full/9540IIED.pdfhttp:// www.poptel.org.uk/iied/docs/flu/SME_pubs/Guyana_SME.pdf
Thirdly, Mr Atkinson made much of the "technology injection that the Barama investment offers." Why then is this view not shared by the International Tropical Timber Organisation who stated in a 2003 report: "the use currently being made of Guyana's extensive, diverse and complex forest resource is not satisfying many, if any, of the stakeholders"? A more recent analysis of the sector suggests that a more appropriate response to Guyana's low densities of desirable timber would be through the much more modern and mobile sawmilling practices being introduced by a number of small and medium firms - which allow much higher recovery rates in volume and grade.
Innovative new practices take the means of timber conversion close to the tree where they can cut for grade - and so reduce transport costs and sawmilling inefficiencies in one stroke. These new technologies make more efficient use of each tree, and can therefore be run efficiently on smaller concession sizes. What is more, they are more affordable by Guyanese citizens - not relying on huge foreign investments. Is it not legitimate for the Guyanese citizen to object when huge chunks of territory are ceded to foreign control while national operators are starved of forest land which they could use more efficiently, and which could contribute to local, not foreign wealth? For further information see:
It is of course commendable that Barama has sought to move towards better forest management by attempting (and currently failing) to comply with FSC standards. But much bigger political issues are at stake here. Why should a foreign company be allowed to manage such a large portion of the national production forest with so few national benefits? Why is the government siding with a foreign company in failing to collect the same taxes that are imposed on Guyanese nationals? Why have international auditors seemed so tardy to respond to many different concerns by Guyanese citizens? Why do WWF dismiss as 'minor deficiencies' and Mr Atkinson dismiss as 'personal axe grinding' what to many Guyanese citizens seem such major concerns? As an outsider - I would hazard a guess that powerful vested interests are cheating the average citizen of their national wealth - whatever Mr Atkinson thinks.
Yours faithfully,
Duncan Macqueen
Senior Researcher in Responsible Forest Business International Institute of Environment and Development
http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56512478
Thursday, January 25th 2007
Dear Editor,
I read with interest the letters captioned "Guyana's forestry resources are being plundered for little gain" and "Barama introduced modern techniques of forest management to the declining forest industry in Guyana" (07.01.18) as well as the report headlined "Barama certificate for good forestry suspended" on the same date. I would like to offer an international perspective, responding in particular to some of the inaccuracies and contradictions in that second letter by Trevor Atkinson.
Firstly, it is frankly incredible that Mr Atkinson can suggest that Barama has helped to develop "modern techniques of ...personal development...and community relations." He goes on to say that "Barama's contributions to Port Kaituma and surrounding Amerindian communities as part of its corporate responsibility are outstanding and impressive." Brave statements, but perhaps a little premature in view of the suspension of Barama's FSC certification! Corrective actions have been published that confirm that Barama is not in compliance with FSC Principle 4 on the basic health and safety requirements and accommodation for workers in the camps, their training etc.
My own observations in the not too distant past were of shockingly different treatment of national and foreign workers. Why does Barama still attempt to justify the import of foreign workers to do 'skilled jobs' when it could have trained local staff over the 14 years during which it has been operating? Why is Barama accused at the SGS stakeholder meeting of preventing local people from harvesting Kufa and Nibi vines - upon which they rely for their livelihoods? Why at that same meeting are questions raised about Barama still having harvesting contracts with SFP operators (e.g. Barakat Timbers). Such SFPs are under little pressure to abide by FSC principles on worker health and safety. Subcontracting, if confirmed, would be in breach of national legislation. Why does Barama stand accused of deliberate subcontracting of Interior Wood Products Incorporated (IWPI) to operate with impunity in the Akawini indigenous community area - about which there are reports of serious indigenous concern. Hardly the stuff of exemplary personal development and community relations - or outstanding and impressive contributions! We will soon see the truth when the reports of the SGS audit and the FSC annual surveillance of SGS are made public.
Secondly, Mr Atkinson makes light of Barama failing to pay taxes. Yet, I cannot think of another equivalent example of so large a proportion of a country's national territory being ceded to an expatriate company with so little return to the national purse. Is it not legitimate for the Guyanese citizen to object when his or her forest wealth is shipped overseas to line foreign pockets without even the recompense of tax revenues to be reinvested in the sector? Is it not fair that Guyanese citizens at the SGS stakeholder meeting should question the GFC report to its board of directors in March 2006 - stating that the Barama company was negotiating directly with Guyana's President requesting to be exempted from payment of the 2% commission on logs harvested outside its direct concession? A report by the Guyana Forestry Commission itself pointed to the absurdity of the situation in which small and medium enterprises (mostly Guyanese owned) have access to only 25% of the production forest, but employ 50% of the forest sector workforce, and contribute 75% of the government revenues. Such reports certainly cannot be dismissed as 'outdated and irrelevant information' as is Mr Atkinson's practice. For further detail see:http://www.iied. org/pubs/pdf/full/9540IIED.pdfhttp:// www.poptel.org.uk/iied/docs/flu/SME_pubs/Guyana_SME.pdf
Thirdly, Mr Atkinson made much of the "technology injection that the Barama investment offers." Why then is this view not shared by the International Tropical Timber Organisation who stated in a 2003 report: "the use currently being made of Guyana's extensive, diverse and complex forest resource is not satisfying many, if any, of the stakeholders"? A more recent analysis of the sector suggests that a more appropriate response to Guyana's low densities of desirable timber would be through the much more modern and mobile sawmilling practices being introduced by a number of small and medium firms - which allow much higher recovery rates in volume and grade.
Innovative new practices take the means of timber conversion close to the tree where they can cut for grade - and so reduce transport costs and sawmilling inefficiencies in one stroke. These new technologies make more efficient use of each tree, and can therefore be run efficiently on smaller concession sizes. What is more, they are more affordable by Guyanese citizens - not relying on huge foreign investments. Is it not legitimate for the Guyanese citizen to object when huge chunks of territory are ceded to foreign control while national operators are starved of forest land which they could use more efficiently, and which could contribute to local, not foreign wealth? For further information see:
It is of course commendable that Barama has sought to move towards better forest management by attempting (and currently failing) to comply with FSC standards. But much bigger political issues are at stake here. Why should a foreign company be allowed to manage such a large portion of the national production forest with so few national benefits? Why is the government siding with a foreign company in failing to collect the same taxes that are imposed on Guyanese nationals? Why have international auditors seemed so tardy to respond to many different concerns by Guyanese citizens? Why do WWF dismiss as 'minor deficiencies' and Mr Atkinson dismiss as 'personal axe grinding' what to many Guyanese citizens seem such major concerns? As an outsider - I would hazard a guess that powerful vested interests are cheating the average citizen of their national wealth - whatever Mr Atkinson thinks.
Yours faithfully,
Duncan Macqueen
Senior Researcher in Responsible Forest Business International Institute of Environment and Development
http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56512478
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Nation needs a skilled and well paid workforce
The nation needs a skilled and well paid workforce, large scale importation of forestry workers should not be allowed
Tuesday, January 23rd 2007
Dear Editor,
As a Guyanese living abroad, I am writing in response to the article "Five percent wages hike 'scandalous'" which highlighted the worsening conditions that my fellow Guyanese face. I applaud Mr. Andrew Garnett, president of the GTUC, for addressing these issues in a measured and rational manner. Furthermore, I hope that the authorities and all those involved can engage in critical and constructive dialogue with the members of the GTUC in order to achieve must-needed social justice.
The Guyanese government and authorities must take the necessary steps to secure the economic, political and social liberty of all its citizens and honour the democratic process.
First, in order for Guyana to develop economically and become a progressive player in the economic global order, the nation needs a properly skilled and well-paid workforce in conjunction with developing locally-owned industries to encourage the growth of productive forces and capital. Guyana, on the other hand, has suffered from increasing emigration and 'brain drain' due to the deteriorating national situation. People need economic incentives if they are to be encouraged to remain in Guyana. Hence, Mr. Garnett's points need to be seriously and urgently addressed by all those responsible so as to bring about immediate change for the poor but worthy wage-workers of Guyana.
Second, it is extremely distressing to read of the "unsustainable exploitation of our forest resources". Guyana suffers in innumerable ways through this system of log exportation by Asian logging companies. Apart from the natural devastation, loss of animal habitats and negative impact on indigenous peoples, Guyanese are also being deprived of local jobs within the forestry sector and as a nation, we are seeing Asian companies economically profiting from our natural resources. How can this situation be allowed to continue? In this catastrophic era of global warming, this non-renewable rate of deforestation will only contribute to the worsening global climatic state through the natural ecological balance. Of course, Guyana also suffers materially when Asian corporations enjoy the benefits of this lawless removal and destruction of our forests.
What really angers me, however, is the employment of foreign unskilled workers at the expense of highly available Guyanese labourers. This deprivation of local jobs faced by Guyanese people results, I suspect, from the inhumane conditions afforded to foreign workers which Guyanese workers themselves would never willingly or silently accept. In fact, there has been a recent rising consciousness of the contemporary phenomenon of global slavery and according to the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, ratified by the UN General Assembly in 2000, this importation of foreign unskilled persons constitutes one such example of human trafficking in persons. In the November/December 2006 publication of the Foreign Affairs Journal, Ethan B Kapstein, in his enlightening essay "The New Global Slave Trade "reveals how the process of economic globalization has fuelled a rise in the intentional trafficking of humans, which is usually supported by national governments.
As Kapstein states: "In order to thrive, the slave trade requires the direct or indirect involvement of national governments, at both the source and the destination. Since profits are high, slavers have plenty of money to pay off government officials."
It is therefore imperative that the Guyanese government and related authorities assume responsibility and accountability for this alleged illegal influx of foreign workers. This trafficking of labourers needs to cease immediately along with the foreign harvesting of natural resources, especially since Guyana possesses its own abundant supply of local workers. The Guyanese government needs to stop supporting this foreign labour importation, but rather place this issue at the top of its political agenda.
In conclusion, all these crises that the Guyanese people suffer need to be prioritized by the government and related authorities in dialogue with the GTUC in order to promote national economic growth and development while actively implementing and upholding the rights, freedoms and security of Guyanese citizens.
Yours faithfully,
M. Shankar
StabroekNews
Tuesday, January 23rd 2007
Dear Editor,
As a Guyanese living abroad, I am writing in response to the article "Five percent wages hike 'scandalous'" which highlighted the worsening conditions that my fellow Guyanese face. I applaud Mr. Andrew Garnett, president of the GTUC, for addressing these issues in a measured and rational manner. Furthermore, I hope that the authorities and all those involved can engage in critical and constructive dialogue with the members of the GTUC in order to achieve must-needed social justice.
The Guyanese government and authorities must take the necessary steps to secure the economic, political and social liberty of all its citizens and honour the democratic process.
First, in order for Guyana to develop economically and become a progressive player in the economic global order, the nation needs a properly skilled and well-paid workforce in conjunction with developing locally-owned industries to encourage the growth of productive forces and capital. Guyana, on the other hand, has suffered from increasing emigration and 'brain drain' due to the deteriorating national situation. People need economic incentives if they are to be encouraged to remain in Guyana. Hence, Mr. Garnett's points need to be seriously and urgently addressed by all those responsible so as to bring about immediate change for the poor but worthy wage-workers of Guyana.
Second, it is extremely distressing to read of the "unsustainable exploitation of our forest resources". Guyana suffers in innumerable ways through this system of log exportation by Asian logging companies. Apart from the natural devastation, loss of animal habitats and negative impact on indigenous peoples, Guyanese are also being deprived of local jobs within the forestry sector and as a nation, we are seeing Asian companies economically profiting from our natural resources. How can this situation be allowed to continue? In this catastrophic era of global warming, this non-renewable rate of deforestation will only contribute to the worsening global climatic state through the natural ecological balance. Of course, Guyana also suffers materially when Asian corporations enjoy the benefits of this lawless removal and destruction of our forests.
What really angers me, however, is the employment of foreign unskilled workers at the expense of highly available Guyanese labourers. This deprivation of local jobs faced by Guyanese people results, I suspect, from the inhumane conditions afforded to foreign workers which Guyanese workers themselves would never willingly or silently accept. In fact, there has been a recent rising consciousness of the contemporary phenomenon of global slavery and according to the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, ratified by the UN General Assembly in 2000, this importation of foreign unskilled persons constitutes one such example of human trafficking in persons. In the November/December 2006 publication of the Foreign Affairs Journal, Ethan B Kapstein, in his enlightening essay "The New Global Slave Trade "reveals how the process of economic globalization has fuelled a rise in the intentional trafficking of humans, which is usually supported by national governments.
As Kapstein states: "In order to thrive, the slave trade requires the direct or indirect involvement of national governments, at both the source and the destination. Since profits are high, slavers have plenty of money to pay off government officials."
It is therefore imperative that the Guyanese government and related authorities assume responsibility and accountability for this alleged illegal influx of foreign workers. This trafficking of labourers needs to cease immediately along with the foreign harvesting of natural resources, especially since Guyana possesses its own abundant supply of local workers. The Guyanese government needs to stop supporting this foreign labour importation, but rather place this issue at the top of its political agenda.
In conclusion, all these crises that the Guyanese people suffer need to be prioritized by the government and related authorities in dialogue with the GTUC in order to promote national economic growth and development while actively implementing and upholding the rights, freedoms and security of Guyanese citizens.
Yours faithfully,
M. Shankar
StabroekNews
Monday, January 22, 2007
Reasons for suspension of Barama's Certificate
The 2006 FSC Annual Surveillance of SGS (Forest Management in Guyana). Please be aware that the final report, considering SGS comments, has been published as a public summary in the ASI website http://www.accreditation-services.com/PublicSummaries.htm.
Illegal logging in Guyana is worse than admitted
Illegal logging in Guyana is worse than admitted by the Guyana Forestry Commission
Wednesday, January 17th 2007
Dear Editor,
StabroekNews
In February 2006, the Guyana Forestry Commission and the Forest Products Association issued a glossy brochure which claimed "Guyana is probably the only country in the world with a complete national log tracking system. Forest produce originating in Guyana and used in any part of the world can be tracked directly to the stump of the tree the wood was taken from.
The log tracking system provides detectable evidence on the legitimacy, location and magnitude of forest operations and is currently applied to all forestry operations including State Forests, Amerindian Reservations and Private Properties . . . All forest produce including logs, lumber piles, poles and posts are tagged ..."
Less than a year later, Paul Taylor in a letter captioned "Illegal logging is lower in Guyana than in many other countries" (07.01.15) admits that "The GFC will never be able to come up with a complete, robust system to stop illegal trade in its entirety". This admission is followed by a number of allegations against exporters and furniture manufacturers which almost entirely negate the GFC claims from February 2006. In part this is because the GFC has failed to install and operate the timber tagging system as it was designed in 1999. Instead, as the Forest Products Marketing Council (FPMC) admits on its website, the tagging system is used principally to penalise the small-scale national forestry sector. In the words of the FPMC: "By far the most significant findings and implications are those from a social perspective. The Log Tracking System has exposed and hence reduced the number of illegal operations especially the chainsaw operations".
The Royal Institute of International Affairs (http:// www.illegal-logging.info) has adopted a broader definition of illegal logging than the GFC or the FPMC:
"Illegal logging takes place when timber is harvested, transported, bought or sold in violation of national laws. The harvesting process itself may be illegal, including corrupt means to gain access to forests, extraction without permission from protected areas, cutting of protected species, or extraction of timber in excess of agreed limits. Illegalities may also occur during transport, including illegal processing and export, misdeclaration to customs, and avoidance of taxes and other charges."
More serious is the illegal logging undertaken by the foreign-owned companies which are receiving subsidies from Guyana through foreign direct investment (FDI) arrangements agreed by the Cabinet, for local industrial processing and value adding. These subsidies are then abused to support the huge expansion in export of unprocessed logs; exports happily documented month by month by the Guyana Forest Products Marketing Council.
This illegal logging is being carried out in forest harvesting concessions sub-let by members of the Forest Products Association. The sub-letting is against the National Forest Policy (1997, part I, B3(d)). The GFC Board of Directors should rescind such abused concessions and return the forest areas to the pool available for re-allocation under the Strategic Plan (National Forest Plan, 2001, NFP300) and National Forest Policy (1997, part III, B3). The widespread practice of landlording forest harvesting concessions to foreign contractors makes a nonsense of GFC strategic allocation of State Production Forests. The GFC should not be permitted to condone this practice, which is against the law without explicit Presidential app-roval (Forest Regulations 1953, Article 12) and specific clauses in the concession licences (for example, TSA clause 13). Through this sub-letting, four foreign-owned logging companies have extended their legal 38 per cent control of allocated State Production Forest by 14 per cent (more than 870,000 hectares), so that Asian loggers now control well over half the forest allocated by the GFC for harvesting. This amounts to rampant illegal logging, on a scale that dwarfs the infractions of the national chainsaw logging sector.
Yours faithfully,
Janette Bulkan
Wednesday, January 17th 2007
Dear Editor,
StabroekNews
In February 2006, the Guyana Forestry Commission and the Forest Products Association issued a glossy brochure which claimed "Guyana is probably the only country in the world with a complete national log tracking system. Forest produce originating in Guyana and used in any part of the world can be tracked directly to the stump of the tree the wood was taken from.
The log tracking system provides detectable evidence on the legitimacy, location and magnitude of forest operations and is currently applied to all forestry operations including State Forests, Amerindian Reservations and Private Properties . . . All forest produce including logs, lumber piles, poles and posts are tagged ..."
Less than a year later, Paul Taylor in a letter captioned "Illegal logging is lower in Guyana than in many other countries" (07.01.15) admits that "The GFC will never be able to come up with a complete, robust system to stop illegal trade in its entirety". This admission is followed by a number of allegations against exporters and furniture manufacturers which almost entirely negate the GFC claims from February 2006. In part this is because the GFC has failed to install and operate the timber tagging system as it was designed in 1999. Instead, as the Forest Products Marketing Council (FPMC) admits on its website, the tagging system is used principally to penalise the small-scale national forestry sector. In the words of the FPMC: "By far the most significant findings and implications are those from a social perspective. The Log Tracking System has exposed and hence reduced the number of illegal operations especially the chainsaw operations".
The Royal Institute of International Affairs (http:// www.illegal-logging.info) has adopted a broader definition of illegal logging than the GFC or the FPMC:
"Illegal logging takes place when timber is harvested, transported, bought or sold in violation of national laws. The harvesting process itself may be illegal, including corrupt means to gain access to forests, extraction without permission from protected areas, cutting of protected species, or extraction of timber in excess of agreed limits. Illegalities may also occur during transport, including illegal processing and export, misdeclaration to customs, and avoidance of taxes and other charges."
More serious is the illegal logging undertaken by the foreign-owned companies which are receiving subsidies from Guyana through foreign direct investment (FDI) arrangements agreed by the Cabinet, for local industrial processing and value adding. These subsidies are then abused to support the huge expansion in export of unprocessed logs; exports happily documented month by month by the Guyana Forest Products Marketing Council.
This illegal logging is being carried out in forest harvesting concessions sub-let by members of the Forest Products Association. The sub-letting is against the National Forest Policy (1997, part I, B3(d)). The GFC Board of Directors should rescind such abused concessions and return the forest areas to the pool available for re-allocation under the Strategic Plan (National Forest Plan, 2001, NFP300) and National Forest Policy (1997, part III, B3). The widespread practice of landlording forest harvesting concessions to foreign contractors makes a nonsense of GFC strategic allocation of State Production Forests. The GFC should not be permitted to condone this practice, which is against the law without explicit Presidential app-roval (Forest Regulations 1953, Article 12) and specific clauses in the concession licences (for example, TSA clause 13). Through this sub-letting, four foreign-owned logging companies have extended their legal 38 per cent control of allocated State Production Forest by 14 per cent (more than 870,000 hectares), so that Asian loggers now control well over half the forest allocated by the GFC for harvesting. This amounts to rampant illegal logging, on a scale that dwarfs the infractions of the national chainsaw logging sector.
Yours faithfully,
Janette Bulkan
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Barama's Certificate Suspended
Barama's certificate for 'good forestry' suspended
Thursday, January 18th 2007
Barama Company Limited's (BCL) certification from the international Forest Steward-ship Council has been suspended since the company failed to comply with certain conditions under the certificate, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) says.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, WWF Guianas Programme Officer Patrick Williams said that on January 10, Barama informed the organisation of the suspension by SGS-Qualifor (SGS), an independent FSC-accredited certification body.
"WWF is deeply disappointed by Barama's failure to comply with the certification and calls on the company to do whatever it takes to get back into full compliance with the FSC's rigorous environmental, social and economic standards," Williams said.
He said that the suspension of Barama's certification by SGS is a good example of what the FSC system was designed to do - detect and specify improvements for responsible forestry practice of both certified producers as well as the certification bodies that conduct the field audits.
Contacted yesterday, BCL's General Manager Girwar Lalaram told Stabroek News that the company will be issuing a statement on the issue after meetings with SGS and FSC on the way forward.
But he said that the company was in receipt of a three-month suspension from SGS and that further action will be contingent upon on the company - owned by Malaysian interests - correcting deficiencies on the ground. "However, a meeting has been set for all parties concerned. We are so far awaiting a final report from the auditors as to the areas of concern.
We will make public the findings [of the audit] after the meeting.
This is not a withdrawal of the certification," Lalaram said.
Barama was awarded the certification in February 2006 for 570,000 hectares of its forests in west central Guyana by SGS - only a portion of its vast concession. WWF provided the financial and technical support to Barama in the process leading up to its successful certification.
The company's certification was contingent upon its correcting several minor deficiencies for which SGS issued corrective action requests (CARs). "These CARs detailed mandatory improvements in Barama's performance in the area of worker housing, hygiene and safety, road planning and several other issues. "These CARs formed the basis of SGS's monitoring audit in November 2006," the statement from Williams said.
During the year since Barama achieved its certification, staff from the WWF Guianas Programme Office visited the company's operations several times under an ongoing monitoring programme.
Staff of the WWF met with Barama officials to discuss the company's adherence to responsible forest management practices that the FSC standards mandated. "During the process it became increasingly clear to WWF that Barama neither carried out nor gave priority and resources to many of the improvements the company had committed to pursue," Williams said.
He said that the WWF wrote Lalaram in December expressing concern and urging the company's management to solve these problems immediately. According to the WWF, Barama's CEO replied accepting the deficiencies identified to date and pledging to return to full compliance with the provisions of its FSC certification.
Engage
Williams said that the WWF is prepared to engage immediately with Barama, local forestry experts, and SGS auditors to address all the deficiencies discovered during the audit SGS conducted, provided that Barama renew its commitment to certification and deliver the resources necessary to "get the job done right."
"As such, the WWF calls upon Barama to make a public statement…indicating that the company is serious about attaining and practising responsible forestry according to the rigorous standards of the FSC [and] commit to a transparent, time-bound action plan to address all the deficiencies as specified by SGS and as required to be compliant with FSC certification," he said.
The release said that WWF is also examining its own role in the certification process to ensure that in the future all WWF procedures and protocols for working with companies seeking FSC certification, as outlined in its Global Forest and Trade Network (GFTN), are complied with.
According to the release, WWF's GFTN provides structured and rigorous support to companies in various countries around the world. Under GFTN, companies work closely with WWF and independent auditors and consultants under an agreed action plan for achieving forest certification.
Williams said that GFTN guidelines ensure that any company receiving WWF support rigorously prepares itself for, and fully deserves, certification. "Companies that fail to live up to their obligations under the GFTN are expelled," he said.
But Williams noted that currently the WWF does not have a local Forest and Trade Network structure in the Guianas.
It is however prepared to work closely with Barama in accordance with GFTN guidelines in the meantime, he stated. "This would be subject to Barama preparing a suitable time-bound plan of action consistent with GFTN requirements."
In recent weeks Barama and other Asian multinational forestry entities have been severely criticized because of the predisposition to export logs as against downstream processing of logs harvested. Barama has also been accused of not playing fairly as the company continues to ship logs harvested from outside of its own concessions. Furthermore, the Ministry of Agriculture had revealed that Barama had not complied with the tenets of its investment plan.
StabroekNews
Thursday, January 18th 2007
Barama Company Limited's (BCL) certification from the international Forest Steward-ship Council has been suspended since the company failed to comply with certain conditions under the certificate, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) says.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, WWF Guianas Programme Officer Patrick Williams said that on January 10, Barama informed the organisation of the suspension by SGS-Qualifor (SGS), an independent FSC-accredited certification body.
"WWF is deeply disappointed by Barama's failure to comply with the certification and calls on the company to do whatever it takes to get back into full compliance with the FSC's rigorous environmental, social and economic standards," Williams said.
He said that the suspension of Barama's certification by SGS is a good example of what the FSC system was designed to do - detect and specify improvements for responsible forestry practice of both certified producers as well as the certification bodies that conduct the field audits.
Contacted yesterday, BCL's General Manager Girwar Lalaram told Stabroek News that the company will be issuing a statement on the issue after meetings with SGS and FSC on the way forward.
But he said that the company was in receipt of a three-month suspension from SGS and that further action will be contingent upon on the company - owned by Malaysian interests - correcting deficiencies on the ground. "However, a meeting has been set for all parties concerned. We are so far awaiting a final report from the auditors as to the areas of concern.
We will make public the findings [of the audit] after the meeting.
This is not a withdrawal of the certification," Lalaram said.
Barama was awarded the certification in February 2006 for 570,000 hectares of its forests in west central Guyana by SGS - only a portion of its vast concession. WWF provided the financial and technical support to Barama in the process leading up to its successful certification.
The company's certification was contingent upon its correcting several minor deficiencies for which SGS issued corrective action requests (CARs). "These CARs detailed mandatory improvements in Barama's performance in the area of worker housing, hygiene and safety, road planning and several other issues. "These CARs formed the basis of SGS's monitoring audit in November 2006," the statement from Williams said.
During the year since Barama achieved its certification, staff from the WWF Guianas Programme Office visited the company's operations several times under an ongoing monitoring programme.
Staff of the WWF met with Barama officials to discuss the company's adherence to responsible forest management practices that the FSC standards mandated. "During the process it became increasingly clear to WWF that Barama neither carried out nor gave priority and resources to many of the improvements the company had committed to pursue," Williams said.
He said that the WWF wrote Lalaram in December expressing concern and urging the company's management to solve these problems immediately. According to the WWF, Barama's CEO replied accepting the deficiencies identified to date and pledging to return to full compliance with the provisions of its FSC certification.
Engage
Williams said that the WWF is prepared to engage immediately with Barama, local forestry experts, and SGS auditors to address all the deficiencies discovered during the audit SGS conducted, provided that Barama renew its commitment to certification and deliver the resources necessary to "get the job done right."
"As such, the WWF calls upon Barama to make a public statement…indicating that the company is serious about attaining and practising responsible forestry according to the rigorous standards of the FSC [and] commit to a transparent, time-bound action plan to address all the deficiencies as specified by SGS and as required to be compliant with FSC certification," he said.
The release said that WWF is also examining its own role in the certification process to ensure that in the future all WWF procedures and protocols for working with companies seeking FSC certification, as outlined in its Global Forest and Trade Network (GFTN), are complied with.
According to the release, WWF's GFTN provides structured and rigorous support to companies in various countries around the world. Under GFTN, companies work closely with WWF and independent auditors and consultants under an agreed action plan for achieving forest certification.
Williams said that GFTN guidelines ensure that any company receiving WWF support rigorously prepares itself for, and fully deserves, certification. "Companies that fail to live up to their obligations under the GFTN are expelled," he said.
But Williams noted that currently the WWF does not have a local Forest and Trade Network structure in the Guianas.
It is however prepared to work closely with Barama in accordance with GFTN guidelines in the meantime, he stated. "This would be subject to Barama preparing a suitable time-bound plan of action consistent with GFTN requirements."
In recent weeks Barama and other Asian multinational forestry entities have been severely criticized because of the predisposition to export logs as against downstream processing of logs harvested. Barama has also been accused of not playing fairly as the company continues to ship logs harvested from outside of its own concessions. Furthermore, the Ministry of Agriculture had revealed that Barama had not complied with the tenets of its investment plan.
StabroekNews
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Too little too late
Forestry Commissioner announces more focus on social development
THE Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC), as part of its 2007 focus, will be placing more emphasis on its Social Development Programme (SDP) to boost economic growth and alleviate poverty in communities which depend on the industry.
The Government Information Agency (GINA) said it will be the continuation of a process started three years ago, that emphasised equitable geographical distribution of economic activities and diversification of the economy, in keeping with objectives identified in the National Development Strategy (NDS).
GFC Commissioner, Mr. James Singh told GINA its Community Development Officer will reconvene meetings of the Communities Liaison Committee, through which site visits will be made to identify and resolve some of the problems affecting forestry and other developments in various rural areas.
He said the SDP is based on objectives outlined in the National Forestry Policy, which states that the utilisation of forest resources must be planned and managed with full consideration of any potential social or environmental impact.
The SDP targets all hinterland and rural locations which are engaged in forestry operations and where economic activity is dependent on the business.
It is being executed in collaboration with agencies in the ministries of Amerindian Affairs, Local Government, Health, Labour and Agriculture and monitoring and evaluation by Office of the President, which is a critical aspect.
Under the SDP, President Bharrat Jagdeo determines the grant of State Forest Permits (SFPs) to communities, which would enable them to utilise the resources within in a sustainable and economic way.
The SFP is granted for a period of two years and does not spawn more than 8,000 hectares, GINA stated.
However, it is mandatory that the communities form associations, which must be linked to the local authorities such as Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDCs) and Village Councils in the hinterland.
GINA said this is one requirement that has to be met before the community qualifies for the issuance of an SFP.
Under the SDP, last year training was conducted in forestry laws, management and inventory, in a number of rural communities of Regions One (Barima/Waini), Two (Pomeroon/Supenaam), Six (East Berbice/Corentyne), Seven (Cuyuni/Mazaruni), Eight (Potaro/Siparuni) and Nine (Upper Takutu/Upper Essequibo).
The exercise was undertaken with assistance from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
GINA said the local forestry sector contributes approximately six per cent to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employs about 25,000 people.
It also plays a significant role in the country’s development, particularly in rural and hinterland places where forestry activities generate income for many households and contribute to the national economy.
Link
THE Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC), as part of its 2007 focus, will be placing more emphasis on its Social Development Programme (SDP) to boost economic growth and alleviate poverty in communities which depend on the industry.
The Government Information Agency (GINA) said it will be the continuation of a process started three years ago, that emphasised equitable geographical distribution of economic activities and diversification of the economy, in keeping with objectives identified in the National Development Strategy (NDS).
GFC Commissioner, Mr. James Singh told GINA its Community Development Officer will reconvene meetings of the Communities Liaison Committee, through which site visits will be made to identify and resolve some of the problems affecting forestry and other developments in various rural areas.
He said the SDP is based on objectives outlined in the National Forestry Policy, which states that the utilisation of forest resources must be planned and managed with full consideration of any potential social or environmental impact.
The SDP targets all hinterland and rural locations which are engaged in forestry operations and where economic activity is dependent on the business.
It is being executed in collaboration with agencies in the ministries of Amerindian Affairs, Local Government, Health, Labour and Agriculture and monitoring and evaluation by Office of the President, which is a critical aspect.
Under the SDP, President Bharrat Jagdeo determines the grant of State Forest Permits (SFPs) to communities, which would enable them to utilise the resources within in a sustainable and economic way.
The SFP is granted for a period of two years and does not spawn more than 8,000 hectares, GINA stated.
However, it is mandatory that the communities form associations, which must be linked to the local authorities such as Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDCs) and Village Councils in the hinterland.
GINA said this is one requirement that has to be met before the community qualifies for the issuance of an SFP.
Under the SDP, last year training was conducted in forestry laws, management and inventory, in a number of rural communities of Regions One (Barima/Waini), Two (Pomeroon/Supenaam), Six (East Berbice/Corentyne), Seven (Cuyuni/Mazaruni), Eight (Potaro/Siparuni) and Nine (Upper Takutu/Upper Essequibo).
The exercise was undertaken with assistance from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
GINA said the local forestry sector contributes approximately six per cent to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employs about 25,000 people.
It also plays a significant role in the country’s development, particularly in rural and hinterland places where forestry activities generate income for many households and contribute to the national economy.
Link
Wood VAT
Lumber is exempt from VAT as it was from Consumption Tax
Tuesday, January 16th 2007
Dear Editor,
We the members of the Forest Products Association, refute a statement in Freddie Kissoon's column in the Kaieteur News of Friday. January 12, 2007 headed "Farmers and saw millers do not pay VAT: they should be made to do so" that "saw millers should be compelled to pay VAT." We feel that Mr Kissoon should have done his homework thoroughly.
We would like to inform that saw millers, or forest producers, are not exempted from VAT on inputs into their manufacturing process unless those items are zero rated or tax exempted by law. No VAT on lumber is required by law. The VAT paid on inputs has to be reclaimed as input credit from GRA if they are registered. And the law, not Mr Kissoon, stipulates who must be registered - that is all businesses earning in excess of $10 million annually.
In the past, forest producers, including saw millers, enjoyed waiver of Consumption Tax on a number of items used as inputs for the processing of lumber and other wood products. Apart from the large capital items, the producers now have to pay VAT on items such as chain saws, knives and cutting blades for wood working machines, bands and circular saw blades, sharpeners, strapping materials, cutlasses, felling axes, saw chains, just to name a few, all of which previously enjoyed waiver of Consumption Tax.
Over the past year, the forest producers have been lobbying government continuously to have the VAT on lumber zero rated or waived, as lumber had initially enjoyed a waiver of Consumption Tax and any additional tax imposed on it would be to the detriment of the low income housing drive.
This has been granted.
On the issue of increased prices, if any, for 'furniture wood' whatever that is, we can say that it has nothing to do with VAT impacting it and we are not aware that prices of lumber had increased.
Yours faithfully,
Mona Bynoe
Executive Director
for Members of the FPA
StabroekNews
Tuesday, January 16th 2007
Dear Editor,
We the members of the Forest Products Association, refute a statement in Freddie Kissoon's column in the Kaieteur News of Friday. January 12, 2007 headed "Farmers and saw millers do not pay VAT: they should be made to do so" that "saw millers should be compelled to pay VAT." We feel that Mr Kissoon should have done his homework thoroughly.
We would like to inform that saw millers, or forest producers, are not exempted from VAT on inputs into their manufacturing process unless those items are zero rated or tax exempted by law. No VAT on lumber is required by law. The VAT paid on inputs has to be reclaimed as input credit from GRA if they are registered. And the law, not Mr Kissoon, stipulates who must be registered - that is all businesses earning in excess of $10 million annually.
In the past, forest producers, including saw millers, enjoyed waiver of Consumption Tax on a number of items used as inputs for the processing of lumber and other wood products. Apart from the large capital items, the producers now have to pay VAT on items such as chain saws, knives and cutting blades for wood working machines, bands and circular saw blades, sharpeners, strapping materials, cutlasses, felling axes, saw chains, just to name a few, all of which previously enjoyed waiver of Consumption Tax.
Over the past year, the forest producers have been lobbying government continuously to have the VAT on lumber zero rated or waived, as lumber had initially enjoyed a waiver of Consumption Tax and any additional tax imposed on it would be to the detriment of the low income housing drive.
This has been granted.
On the issue of increased prices, if any, for 'furniture wood' whatever that is, we can say that it has nothing to do with VAT impacting it and we are not aware that prices of lumber had increased.
Yours faithfully,
Mona Bynoe
Executive Director
for Members of the FPA
StabroekNews
Monday, January 15, 2007
Always two sides to a story - but does that make it right?
Illegal logging is lower in Guyana than in many other countries
Monday, January 15th 2007
Dear Editor,
I wish to make two points on illegal logging and some driving forces in the forest sector of Guyana.
Many accusations have been levelled against the government for not doing enough to curb illegal logging. I wish to point out that illegal logging is far lower in Guyana than in many other comparable tropical forest producing countries. Studies have shown that the rate of illegal logging in Guyana in less than 5% of total production. In many countries illegal logging is carried out by armed gangs, and is a billion dollar industry in some countries. Police and the army usually are called in to assist, lives are also lost in the process. Fortunately this is non-existent in Guyana and all praise should go to the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) that these problems do not occur.
Illegal logging like fuel smuggling can never be totally eliminated but what we can do is keep it as low as possible and again I think the GFC is doing and has done an excellent job over the last five years or so to tackle this. What we need to understand as we develop more roads and river network is that this also creates access for poachers. If the joint services with their current resources cannot adequately cover our porous borders why do we expect miracles from the GFC monitoring team.
Secondly many furniture manufacturers including those who sell on the export market, forest exporters, lumber yards, sawmillers and other secondary users contribute to the illegal trade by buying timber without verifying the origin of the produce thereby contributing to the illegal trade. We all have a role to play in this process; it is one country and we should be our brother's keeper. The GFC will never be able to come up with a complete, robust system to stop illegal trade in its entirety and hence we the Guyanese people must do our part.
Some exporters of timber and value added products (furniture manufacturers) buy a small quantity of timber from a legitimate source and the balance from alleged illegal sources cheaply, but use the legitimate source to cover all the produce. The illegal timber is utilized overnight or within a few days so by the time the GFC officer comes to check it is hard to differentiate. These companies then use the small volume of legitimate timber and the chain of custody of legitimate operators to market their products overseas. For example if you buy from Barama in particular who have FSC certification then immediately your products are covered under this chain of custody of BCL, when in actuality only a small volume of timber was purchased from BCL. International buyers should therefore be cognizant of this and buy responsibly.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Taylor
StabroekNews
Monday, January 15th 2007
Dear Editor,
I wish to make two points on illegal logging and some driving forces in the forest sector of Guyana.
Many accusations have been levelled against the government for not doing enough to curb illegal logging. I wish to point out that illegal logging is far lower in Guyana than in many other comparable tropical forest producing countries. Studies have shown that the rate of illegal logging in Guyana in less than 5% of total production. In many countries illegal logging is carried out by armed gangs, and is a billion dollar industry in some countries. Police and the army usually are called in to assist, lives are also lost in the process. Fortunately this is non-existent in Guyana and all praise should go to the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) that these problems do not occur.
Illegal logging like fuel smuggling can never be totally eliminated but what we can do is keep it as low as possible and again I think the GFC is doing and has done an excellent job over the last five years or so to tackle this. What we need to understand as we develop more roads and river network is that this also creates access for poachers. If the joint services with their current resources cannot adequately cover our porous borders why do we expect miracles from the GFC monitoring team.
Secondly many furniture manufacturers including those who sell on the export market, forest exporters, lumber yards, sawmillers and other secondary users contribute to the illegal trade by buying timber without verifying the origin of the produce thereby contributing to the illegal trade. We all have a role to play in this process; it is one country and we should be our brother's keeper. The GFC will never be able to come up with a complete, robust system to stop illegal trade in its entirety and hence we the Guyanese people must do our part.
Some exporters of timber and value added products (furniture manufacturers) buy a small quantity of timber from a legitimate source and the balance from alleged illegal sources cheaply, but use the legitimate source to cover all the produce. The illegal timber is utilized overnight or within a few days so by the time the GFC officer comes to check it is hard to differentiate. These companies then use the small volume of legitimate timber and the chain of custody of legitimate operators to market their products overseas. For example if you buy from Barama in particular who have FSC certification then immediately your products are covered under this chain of custody of BCL, when in actuality only a small volume of timber was purchased from BCL. International buyers should therefore be cognizant of this and buy responsibly.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Taylor
StabroekNews
Update on Barama Company Limited
Update on Barama Company Limited
Dear Editor,
Barama is claiming that it is not a profitable company and therefore does not have to pay the measly tax.
A press report of November 25th, 2002 taken from the Land of Six Peoples' website (http://landofsixpeoplpes.com/news022/ns211258.htm) states: “GMA Annual Dinner - Barama lifts President's Export Award.”
“The foreign-owned Barama Company Limited (BCL) has, for the second time in three years, won the President's Award for the Export Achievement at the Guyana Manufacturers' Association (GMA) 2002 Annual Dinner.”
“BCL was awarded the trophy in recognition of the company's consistent increases in export sales, earning US$23 million from January to October; a reflection of the company's maintenance of economic competitiveness in overseas markets.”
“The award, presented by Prime Minister Sam Hinds on behalf of President Bharrat Jagdeo, was made to BCL Sales Manager Rodney Raghubansee at Le Meridien Pegasus Hotel on Friday evening.” The same news (November 10th, 2002) was also reported in the Guyana Chronicle.
What I fail to understand are: 1. How come a company can win the Presidential National Award for Export Achievement , citing its international competitiveness in overseas markets, and still claim that its business operation is unprofitable? Companies that are internationally competitive in overseas markets must show profits. I have never heard of an internationally competitive Company winning an award for not showing a profit.
2. If the company is not profitable, how come the President's Award was given to and accepted by Barama? It seems that something is not right here. It is inconsistent.
3. Is Guyana's ‘best' company a money loser? What kind of example is selected for an award? For example, failed students do not take the podium at UG. Only those who excelled are given special awards (Agriculture is what keeps this country from starvation and collapse, and in effect subsidise this company, yet there is no recognition of this sector and its workers).
Probably some of our astute financial and business oriented Guyanese can raise some questions. We need someone like Prof. Clive Thomas to emerge and to help guide us.
In reference to the much vaunted sense of corporate responsibility publicised by Barama's defenders, I have just seen the May 10th 2004 report taken from (http:www.op.gov.gy/stories/0241-glumeeting.htm) where President Jagdeo met Guyana Labour Union (GLU) members.
The report states: “…However, workers of Barama Company limited implored the Head of State to intervene on their behalf to address many complaints, including low wages and a housing programme.”
“According to the workers, their wages are below the minimum wage paid to public servants by Government, which is about G$22,000 (monthly).”
“The GLU's President (Mr Stanley Troyer) said that the Union has requested conciliation to resolve the matter, since the company has not responded favourably to workers' pleas for increases.”
“President Jagdeo was appalled at the low wages being paid to the shift workers, who earn below $100.00 per hour in overtime, and promised to raise the issue with Barama when he meets the company's representatives later this month to discuss the expansion plan.” (This approx US$0.50 per hour is about equivalent to what is paid to factory workers in China. Incidentally, I do not know why the President is appalled; he is doing the same thing to his government employees. Who is taking lessons from whom?)
“On the issue of housing, the workers said that Barama promised them to build low and high income houses costing G$2.4M and G$2.8M respectively, with a monthly instalment of G$20,000. Workers say they cannot afford this. The President urged them to apply, through the Ministry of Housing, for their land, and through the bank for loans to build with a G$12,000 repayment per month. Alternatively, he suggested that the Ministry of Housing work out a programme with Barama. Minister Shaik Baksh said that Government has already offered the company 100 house lots in Parfait Harmonie, but Barama is yet to get back to the ministry with a proposal….” (Imagine receiving about $20,000 per month and paying $12,000 per month for housing).
I do not know how this particular story ended. Maybe the GLU can give us an update. However, it does not paint a very favourable picture of a company which just won the Presidential Award. If this is the record of the ‘best' company, one shudders to think of what the others are doing.
The company did not seem to be honouring its promises to the workers – in this case represented by a union. How could we expect fair deals in the company's initial dealings with the Amerindians without even any union representation?
We know from reports in the press that government workers are not well paid and are struggling to survive. Yet the Barama workers are paid even less than the workers of the Government. Seems that even the President was surprised, being unaware of what was going on in the forestry industry, in this case, with Barama, holder of the largest concession in the forestry sector.
Mr. James C. Keylon, Managing Director, Barama Company Ltd. (Guyana) and President, Sterling Wood Products (USA), June 2000. “We have been here for a number of years and our experience has been that the people of Guyana always do the right thing. We are expanding, bringing more investment and widening our export base. We work with local suppliers and manufacturers, and it's a great experience.” Taken from:
http://www.international
specialreports.com/theamericas/00/guyana/3.html.The CEO is right. Guyana has always acceded to their requests, but has Barama always done the right thing for Guyana?
The Commissioner of Forestry (SN 17th Nov., 2006) said: “Whenever BCL has been in breach of any procedure, the GFC has meted out the appropriate penalty.” Maybe the Commissioner can enlighten us on what were these breaches, and what were the penalties? In this way, Guyanese can have some idea whether the penalties were commensurate with the infractions. Hopefully, we do not have to wait until after the Freedom of Information Act is passed.
We have to take steps to ensure that we are treated fairly. We cannot live in a fantasy world, hoping that companies will take care of us and fulfill their corporate responsibilities. We have to learn from our own experiences and those of others, and take preventative actions/measures to eliminate any potentially unfavourable treatment.
Seelochan Beharry
Dear Editor,
Barama is claiming that it is not a profitable company and therefore does not have to pay the measly tax.
A press report of November 25th, 2002 taken from the Land of Six Peoples' website (http://landofsixpeoplpes.com/news022/ns211258.htm) states: “GMA Annual Dinner - Barama lifts President's Export Award.”
“The foreign-owned Barama Company Limited (BCL) has, for the second time in three years, won the President's Award for the Export Achievement at the Guyana Manufacturers' Association (GMA) 2002 Annual Dinner.”
“BCL was awarded the trophy in recognition of the company's consistent increases in export sales, earning US$23 million from January to October; a reflection of the company's maintenance of economic competitiveness in overseas markets.”
“The award, presented by Prime Minister Sam Hinds on behalf of President Bharrat Jagdeo, was made to BCL Sales Manager Rodney Raghubansee at Le Meridien Pegasus Hotel on Friday evening.” The same news (November 10th, 2002) was also reported in the Guyana Chronicle.
What I fail to understand are: 1. How come a company can win the Presidential National Award for Export Achievement , citing its international competitiveness in overseas markets, and still claim that its business operation is unprofitable? Companies that are internationally competitive in overseas markets must show profits. I have never heard of an internationally competitive Company winning an award for not showing a profit.
2. If the company is not profitable, how come the President's Award was given to and accepted by Barama? It seems that something is not right here. It is inconsistent.
3. Is Guyana's ‘best' company a money loser? What kind of example is selected for an award? For example, failed students do not take the podium at UG. Only those who excelled are given special awards (Agriculture is what keeps this country from starvation and collapse, and in effect subsidise this company, yet there is no recognition of this sector and its workers).
Probably some of our astute financial and business oriented Guyanese can raise some questions. We need someone like Prof. Clive Thomas to emerge and to help guide us.
In reference to the much vaunted sense of corporate responsibility publicised by Barama's defenders, I have just seen the May 10th 2004 report taken from (http:www.op.gov.gy/stories/0241-glumeeting.htm) where President Jagdeo met Guyana Labour Union (GLU) members.
The report states: “…However, workers of Barama Company limited implored the Head of State to intervene on their behalf to address many complaints, including low wages and a housing programme.”
“According to the workers, their wages are below the minimum wage paid to public servants by Government, which is about G$22,000 (monthly).”
“The GLU's President (Mr Stanley Troyer) said that the Union has requested conciliation to resolve the matter, since the company has not responded favourably to workers' pleas for increases.”
“President Jagdeo was appalled at the low wages being paid to the shift workers, who earn below $100.00 per hour in overtime, and promised to raise the issue with Barama when he meets the company's representatives later this month to discuss the expansion plan.” (This approx US$0.50 per hour is about equivalent to what is paid to factory workers in China. Incidentally, I do not know why the President is appalled; he is doing the same thing to his government employees. Who is taking lessons from whom?)
“On the issue of housing, the workers said that Barama promised them to build low and high income houses costing G$2.4M and G$2.8M respectively, with a monthly instalment of G$20,000. Workers say they cannot afford this. The President urged them to apply, through the Ministry of Housing, for their land, and through the bank for loans to build with a G$12,000 repayment per month. Alternatively, he suggested that the Ministry of Housing work out a programme with Barama. Minister Shaik Baksh said that Government has already offered the company 100 house lots in Parfait Harmonie, but Barama is yet to get back to the ministry with a proposal….” (Imagine receiving about $20,000 per month and paying $12,000 per month for housing).
I do not know how this particular story ended. Maybe the GLU can give us an update. However, it does not paint a very favourable picture of a company which just won the Presidential Award. If this is the record of the ‘best' company, one shudders to think of what the others are doing.
The company did not seem to be honouring its promises to the workers – in this case represented by a union. How could we expect fair deals in the company's initial dealings with the Amerindians without even any union representation?
We know from reports in the press that government workers are not well paid and are struggling to survive. Yet the Barama workers are paid even less than the workers of the Government. Seems that even the President was surprised, being unaware of what was going on in the forestry industry, in this case, with Barama, holder of the largest concession in the forestry sector.
Mr. James C. Keylon, Managing Director, Barama Company Ltd. (Guyana) and President, Sterling Wood Products (USA), June 2000. “We have been here for a number of years and our experience has been that the people of Guyana always do the right thing. We are expanding, bringing more investment and widening our export base. We work with local suppliers and manufacturers, and it's a great experience.” Taken from:
http://www.international
specialreports.com/theamericas/00/guyana/3.html.The CEO is right. Guyana has always acceded to their requests, but has Barama always done the right thing for Guyana?
The Commissioner of Forestry (SN 17th Nov., 2006) said: “Whenever BCL has been in breach of any procedure, the GFC has meted out the appropriate penalty.” Maybe the Commissioner can enlighten us on what were these breaches, and what were the penalties? In this way, Guyanese can have some idea whether the penalties were commensurate with the infractions. Hopefully, we do not have to wait until after the Freedom of Information Act is passed.
We have to take steps to ensure that we are treated fairly. We cannot live in a fantasy world, hoping that companies will take care of us and fulfill their corporate responsibilities. We have to learn from our own experiences and those of others, and take preventative actions/measures to eliminate any potentially unfavourable treatment.
Seelochan Beharry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)