The crux of the matter
Kaieteur News, 26 August 2007
Dear Editor,
In her letter printed in Kaieteur News, August 23, 2007, Ms Samantha
Griffith charges that ‘petitioners have their own devious and
clandestine agenda' in drawing attention of the National Assembly to
the unilateral replacement of the draft Forests Act 2004 with the
Forest Bill 2007, without explanation and with scant justification for
the deliberate removal of some, and insertion of new clauses, which,
taken together, weaken the Draft Forests Act 2004.
The Commissioner of Forests, Mr James Singh, has stated with regard to
the draft Forests Act that, “The real consultation period only ended in
2004” (‘The figure quoted as being earned by the country from forestry
investors does not take into account the employment provided and other
important spinoff activities', (Letter to the Editor, SN, November 17,
2006).
This is the crux of the matter – the substitution of a Forest Bill 2007
in place of the earlier drafts on which stakeholders were consulted.
Neither the 2004 nor the 2007 versions conform to best international
practice, which has advanced as greater understanding of forest
criminality has developed (an excellent guide was recently published in
the Law, Justice, and Development Series of the World Bank/FAO, titled
Forest Law and Sustainable Development: addressing contemporary
challenges through legal reform, by Lawrence Christy, Charles E. Di
Leva, Jonathan Lindsay, and Patrice Talla Takoukam).
Petitioners, including me, support legislative reform, but that should
conform to best international practice as regards a fully participatory
process and contents which use the simplest possible language and are
precise, transparent, equitable and reduce administrative discretion to
a minimum; administrative discretion being one of the key features
indicated by the World Bank and Transparency International as being
associated with government corruption and regulatory capture.
As much of the 2007 draft of the Forest Bill does not have these
characteristics, and so would not be conducive to implementation of
Article 36 of the National Constitution or of the National Forest
Policy 1997, or the National Forest Plan 2001, sending it back to the
participatory drawing board is in the best interests of Guyana.
Kaieteur News, 26 August 2007
Dear Editor,
In her letter printed in Kaieteur News, August 23, 2007, Ms Samantha
Griffith charges that ‘petitioners have their own devious and
clandestine agenda' in drawing attention of the National Assembly to
the unilateral replacement of the draft Forests Act 2004 with the
Forest Bill 2007, without explanation and with scant justification for
the deliberate removal of some, and insertion of new clauses, which,
taken together, weaken the Draft Forests Act 2004.
The Commissioner of Forests, Mr James Singh, has stated with regard to
the draft Forests Act that, “The real consultation period only ended in
2004” (‘The figure quoted as being earned by the country from forestry
investors does not take into account the employment provided and other
important spinoff activities', (Letter to the Editor, SN, November 17,
2006).
This is the crux of the matter – the substitution of a Forest Bill 2007
in place of the earlier drafts on which stakeholders were consulted.
Neither the 2004 nor the 2007 versions conform to best international
practice, which has advanced as greater understanding of forest
criminality has developed (an excellent guide was recently published in
the Law, Justice, and Development Series of the World Bank/FAO, titled
Forest Law and Sustainable Development: addressing contemporary
challenges through legal reform, by Lawrence Christy, Charles E. Di
Leva, Jonathan Lindsay, and Patrice Talla Takoukam).
Petitioners, including me, support legislative reform, but that should
conform to best international practice as regards a fully participatory
process and contents which use the simplest possible language and are
precise, transparent, equitable and reduce administrative discretion to
a minimum; administrative discretion being one of the key features
indicated by the World Bank and Transparency International as being
associated with government corruption and regulatory capture.
As much of the 2007 draft of the Forest Bill does not have these
characteristics, and so would not be conducive to implementation of
Article 36 of the National Constitution or of the National Forest
Policy 1997, or the National Forest Plan 2001, sending it back to the
participatory drawing board is in the best interests of Guyana.
Janette Bulkan
No comments:
Post a Comment