GFC has lost its credibility

GFC has lost its credibility
Kaieteur News, 15 October 2007

Dear Editor,

In reference to two articles, one carried by Kaieteur News on
Wednesday, 3rd October under the caption: “Sacked forest official
committed several breaches” and the other in the SN (October 7, 2007)
also pertaining to the dismissal.

The Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) claimed that they lost confidence
in Mr. Rudolph Adams to execute his duties in a manner that is
consistent with his position as the Assistant Commissioner of Forest ,
dealing with export, a man who has served the Commission for 15 years
and has never before been accused of breaching any regulations.

The article went on to say, among other things, that Mr. Adams should
have set the example in ensuring that the procedures were rigidly
followed.

I find this statement amusing since those in the top bracket of the
Commission break standard procedures to please their friends and
relations.

A forest officer was once accused of being too rigid in the
implementation of the Code of Practice and Forest Act by a senior
officer after someone who wanted to break the rules complained, and
this was quite confusing to the officer since some of these rules were
implemented by senior management.

That officer has since resigned from the Commission, having become a
target of many attacks.

It is my opinion that those in authority at the GFC make it difficult
for some officers who carry out their duties without fear or favour.

The GFC went on to say that there is a zero tolerance for breaches and
perceived malfeasance, thus appropriate disciplinary action was taken,
including dismissal.

This statement was quite a mouth full on their part; where was this
zero tolerance and loss of confidence when a senior officer of the
Forestry Monitoring Division (the enforcing arm of GFC), having
returned from a sponsored MSc Programme at the University of Guyana and
with responsibility for Detention/Seizure (Compounding) issues, was
found to be breaching the prescribed procedures.

When concessionaires are found harvesting outside of their boundaries
or persons who are not holders of concessions are caught harvesting
forest produce, these persons would have contravened the Forest Act,
Chapter 67:01; this is called the Forest Bible by some and of course
fines would be instituted for these offences.

It was stipulated by GFC that the following fines would be instituted:-

1. For a Tractor, Truck or Portable Mill -$100,000

2. For a Chainsaw - $50,000

3. For harvested produce, based on the species, the price/bm would be
calculated based on the average market value at the time and so forth.

These fines were instituted to serve as a deterrent for those
individuals who would want to break the forest laws.

The senior officer who was acquainted with this stipulation was
accepting payments that were far below the stipulated fines above and
this resulted in a loss of revenue for the Commission and also
tarnished the credibility and integrity of the Commission with respect
to its role in regulating the sector.

There was no investigation done to determine how much revenue this
officer's corrupt practices had cost the GFC and no disciplinary action
was taken against the said officer who is still a staff. This incident,
like so many other issues, was swept under the GFC's rug.

How transparent is the findings of the investigation carried out by
senior management of the GFC.

It is my opinion that senior officials should not have been allowed to
be part of the investigating body and that the help of independent
auditors should have been sought if the truth is to be known.

As one anonymous writer stated: The law doth punish man or woman who
steals the goose from off the common, but lets the greater felon loose
that steals the common from the goose.

Shannon Murray