Guyana Chronicle, 3 September 2007
http://www.guyanachronicle.com
-07.html#Anchor-------------
I recently received a circular containing a petition to the National
Assembly for public discussion of Guyana’s Forest Bill 2007 before it
is passed. I support this petition. This is because I believe that
present and future generations of Guyanese, forest managers and the
Government of Guyana stand to benefit from a public review of the
legislation at this stage.
I never imagined that such a simple request would cause such a
hullabaloo.
Forests are Guyana’s most abundant, ecologically significant and
economically diverse natural resource. Whether it is timber; non-timber
forest products; eco-tourism; or the direct subsistence use that local
communities make of forests for food, medicines or materials for tools,
shelter and transport (which amounts to millions of dollars in market
value), the worth of our forest is tremendous. Its management concerns
all Guyanese.
The world of forestry has changed significantly even in the last year.
We not only have to think about lessons learned regarding timber
management but also the potential climate change market, in which we
are vulnerable to forest land speculators looking to either capture any
future profits to be had in carbon trading or to buy access early and
cheaply in order to meet emissions reduction requirements. Whether it
is timber or conservation concessions, the potential to harness forest
wealth in order to alleviate poverty and fuel national development,
rest largely on the legal and institutional frameworks for management.
This is widely understood and is proven by empirical data from around
the world.
I am deeply disappointed that this petition to the National Assembly
has catalysed a public street style squabble centered on an individual
instead of the intelligent public debate one would expect in a modern
democracy.
I would like to share some observations with you:
1. Where the letters regarding the forest law are concerned Janette
Bulkan – the main advocate for reform - deals with issues of how the
national forest wealth, which belongs to all Guyanese, is managed or to
be managed.
2. The rebuttal letters attack Janette Bulkan. Instead of focusing on
the issues letter writers focus heavily on attacking the person. To
date I have not seen a convincing rebuttal of the issues raised. In
fact some letters attack all persons who signed the petition. Last week
one writer claimed that those who signed have “clandestine” reasons for
wanting the Forest Act discussed publicly. I concluded that this must
be a ghost writer as such reasoning clearly comes from one who is brain
dead. People with clandestine purpose do not want public scrutiny. It
is much harder to secretly get what you want when everyone can see and
you have to negotiate with a broader group.
3. Writers consistently try to dismiss the legitimacy of issues by
claiming that Janette Bulkan’s work is motivated by her interest in her
relatives’ business. Why do these writers persist with this line? Does
Mr. Howard Bulkan not adequately represent his own views in the press?
Do individuals not have the capacity to think and act as professionals
and citizens independent of their fathers, mothers, brothers etc.? Far
from throwing the reader off, these writers give the impression that
they are clutching to this because they cannot actually address the
issues.
4. One writer, Mr. Chris Simpson, has started challenging Janette
Bulkan’s professional track record. His letter starts with the tone of
distance and neutrality then takes a 180 degree turn to vitriol. How
curious? Anyone who reads this letter cannot help but think that this
person is not consistent (perhaps not real?) and that the letter is
just a simplistic missile for Janette Bulkan.
I bring the above observations to the public’s attention because these
letters, which show a remarkable consistency in plot, appear to be
trying to fend off a public democratic process.
The attempts to focus the public mind onto Ms. Bulkan are actually
attempts to redefine the problem as a private ‘Janette Bulkan’ problem
rather than a public ‘matter of the national forest law’, which is of
interest to all Guyanese citizens.
I believe that if we do not have an open process in which all Guyanese
stakeholders – small, medium and large-scale – can discuss and agree on
the final details of our forest law and matters of fair and sensible
access to resources, we will be setting ourselves up for future
internal conflict and socio-economic failure.
I wish to state that in supporting the petition I have no interest in
mudslinging with anyone or in dragging officials down. Guyana is a very
complex place. Organizations, companies, individuals, government
agencies and communities can’t always get everything right. While I
respect Janette Bulkan’s work I do not always agree with her approach.
It may or may not have been possible for her to share her research in a
manner that led to less antagonism. I don’t know. However, regardless
of whatever conflicts are transpiring between Janette Bulkan and other
entities, the issues raised in the petition are well reasoned and they
still stand.
My interest in a public debate on the law is not about putting anyone
on trial. It is about drawing from the lessons learned to look at the
present challenges and to do everything we can to strengthen our forest
management system and ensure that Guyanese people benefit fairly from
Guyana’s forest (regardless of whether this is through local or foreign
investment).
I want to see Guyanese work and live in dignity in our own country. A
country where forests can be managed differently in order to help
realize this development ideal. We are about to make very significant
legal decisions for present and future generations of Guyanese. What is
the harm in having a transparent public discussion on this law?
I believe that the petition for further public review and input on the
Forest Bill 2007 should be given very serious consideration not only by
the Government but also opposition parties and civil society leaders.
This is a litmus test of the ‘democracy’ we hailed exactly a year ago
when we got the gift of peaceful elections.
Simone Mangal
No comments:
Post a Comment