The forestry commission's critics are now criticising it for enforcing standards

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56539693

The forestry commission's critics are now criticising it for enforcing
standards
Stabroek News, Saturday, February 23rd 2008


Dear Editor,

I would like to call attention to two letters captioned "The Industry
did not view the Forestry Commission's threats to curtail production as
credible" (08.02.16) by Mahadeo Kowlessar; and "The Forestry Commission
should focus on the huge losses suffered from log exports" (08.02.19)
by Janet Bulkan.

I actually delayed penning this letter, because based on the past
experience I was expecting a third letter by Seelochan Beharry to
follow closely on these initial two conforming to the pattern of their
continuing orchestrated attack on the Forestry Commission.

Let me deal firstly with Kowlessar's letter. In numerous press
releases, the GFC made it clear that May 2008 was the final date for
submission of inventory information - however inventory information
submitted prior to that date would be verified and only then approval
given for harvesting to occur. GFC made it abundantly clear that no
harvesting would be approved if inventory information was not provided.

What is the basis then for this gentleman to come to the assumption
that persons are being allowed to log in the absence of the 100 %
inventory submission?

Mr Kowlessar's statement that "the GFC's threats to curtail logging
were not viewed as credible" is laughable. Why would loggers who were
collectively fined two hundred and seventy-five million dollars
(G$275M) in 2007 not take the GFC seriously, and repeat the same error,
especially since according to the GFC, the penalties increase on the
second and third offences? This doesn't make sense, Mr Kowlessar.

The GFC stated clearly in one of their releases that the maximum
acreage harvestable in one calendar year was five hundred (500) blocks
for all concessionaires put together, or fifty thousand (50,000 ha)
hectares. How does Kowlessar arrive at 144,960 hectares? Where did he
get his misinformation from - or rather, is it his intention to
misinform? And when did GFC indicate that all of the blocks have to be
verified within the month of December. Is Kowlessar assuming
incorrectly that the loggers will log all of the blocks in January
2008?

No Mr Kowlessar, the intention as indicated by GFC is to verify some
blocks to allow harvesting in January 2008. Whilst the loggers are
operating in these blocks, the GFC teams continue to do verification.
Kowlessar needs to update himself more on forestry issues so that he
can offer constructive criticism, and not make it his duty to regularly
write negatively on the GFC to support some hidden agenda.

With respect to the letter by Ms Bulkan, she refers to the commission
the Guyana loses since Barama pays no export commission on the export
of greenheart logs. I suggest that this doctoral researcher gets her
facts right by referring to Article 8 B (Export tax) of the agreement
signed between the Guyana Government and Barama on 14th August 1991.
This article clearly states that Barama has to pay the export
commission on the export of greenheart logs.

Further reading of this agreement confirms what the GFC has been
stating all along- many agreements signed before 1992 give companies
unrestricted ability to export logs. Ms Bulkan also quotes how many
logs were exported in 2007( 157,097 cubic meters), but conveniently
omits that the export figures for 2006 were 190,783 cubic metres. This
means that even in the absence of a national log export policy, the GFC
was able to encourage concessionaires to export less logs in 2007, an
actual reduction of 33,686 cubic meters or a 17.66 % volume reduction.
Surely the GFC and producers need to be congratulated on this!

Bulkan however, in her haste to attack the GFC at every opportunity
misses this point. Her inconsistency is exposed by the fact that whilst
a few years ago she was quick to publicise the lack of standards and
quality in processing, now that the GFC is enforcing same after a long
period of consultation with the sector, she misguidedly tries to
portray the GFC as running after the processors. Yet, it is these same
processors who need to upgrade their equipment, standards, quality and
efficiency if they are to profitably process the logs that Bulkan wants
banned. This is a real dilemma for the GFC- in one instance the
doomsayers are upbraiding the GFC for not enforcing standards, quality
control etc. However, when GFC does begin the enforcement process
(after considerable dialogue with stakeholders), the Bulkans and
Kowlessars see it as a golden opportunity to try to discredit the GFC.

As a local consumer who has been forced to buy substandard forest
produce because of the limited quality produce readily available, and
as a Guyanese who has a stake in the patrimony of the forests, I say to
the GFC that it is time that the players in the forestry sector and
industry come on board. The GFC has been much too tolerant for too long
a period. I also say to you- ignore the Bulkans and Kowlessars who
obviously have agendas to satisfy.

Yours faithfully,

Samantha Griffith (Ms)

Is Guyana's logging deal in its best interests?

Is Guyana's logging deal in its best interests?
Rhett A. Butler, mongabay.com
February 22, 2008


In January Guyana awarded U.S. timber firm Simon & Shock International
a 400,000-hectare (988,400-acre) logging concession near the Brazilian
border.

Final approval hinges on the completion of an environmental impact
survey and a tree inventory. While Simon & Shock International says it
plans to conduct selective logging, the firm has not announced whether
it will seek Forest Stewardship Council certification, a mark for
responsibly-harvested timber.

To date it is unclear how much Guyana will see from the rainforest
logging project. Initial reports indicated Simon & Shock International
would invest $26 million developing the concession, or about $65 per
hectare, but these are simply the firm's costs for assessment, building
logging infrastructure like roads and sawmills, government fees and
tax, and employing loggers. Other guidance may come from an earlier
deal signed between Conservation International (CI) and the Guyanese
government to lease timber rights to 80,000 hectares of rainforest
along the Essequibo River. Under that 2003 agreement, the government
collected $41,000 in "fees" ($0.52 per hectare) while CI kicked in
$46,000 for a timber inventory and $30,000 for training of rangers, and
$10,000 annually for community development projects, according to an
analysis published by Katherine Ellison in Renting Biodiversity. All
said, the CI deal was worth about $200,000 or $2.50 per hectare.

These numbers suggest that logging in Guyana is worth between $2.50
and $65 per hectare, though $65 is generous since assumes all of Simon
& Shock International's investment is staying in the country through
capital equipment purchases, employment, and taxes — an unlikely
scenario.

What are Guyana's other options?



Right now there are few — Guyana is the second poorest country in
South America. For some, the best option seems to be paving the
Georgetown-Lethem Road to the Brazilian city of Boa Vista, a
development that could potentially turn Guyana's forests into a vast
sea of sugar cane plantations to supply the booming market for
biofuels. Plantation development would spur more roads that could open
up Guyana's mostly untouched interior to logging and mining —
activities that would surely benefit some elements of Guyana's economy.

At the same time, clearing of Guyana's dense and carbon-rich forests
would release hundreds of millions of tons of carbon into the
atmosphere, contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gases that is
warming the planet. Further, extractive industries like logging and
mining are rarely sustainable, nor do they create a more egalitarian
economy. With violence already a concern in Guyana (two mass killings
this month alone), it would seem unlikely that further class
stratification would benefit Guyana. Finally by logging its forests,
Guyana would forgo the future possibility of collecting ecosystem
services payments and developing ecotourism and other sustainable
economic activities.

Is there an alternative that can improve the lot for the average
Guyanese? There may be. Last fall Guyana's President, Bharrat Jagdeo,
hinted at the potential of using the country's forests as a giant
carbon offset to counter climate change. While he has yet to see any
takers, the emergence of REDD (Reducing emissions from deforestation
and degradation) as a recognized mechanism for fighting climate change
at the December climate talks in Bali, means that carbon offsets may
well play an important part in the economic future of Guyana.

How would it work?

Because Guyana has a low rate of deforestation, it is an atypical
example of a country that would qualify for REDD. Still because forests
has been concessioned for logging, these lands may be candidates for
compensation as REDD projects. Taking the Simon & Shock International
concession as an example, one could make the case that REDD could offer
competitive returns relative to logging. Here's a look.

Returns from logging

Simon & Shock International plans to log 400,000 hectares over a
30-year period, or roughly 13,333 hectares per year assuming a single
harvest (multiple harvests are likely, increasing the average area
harvested annually). Based on the CI case study, the Guyanese
government can expect to see a paltry $6500 per year in concession fees
(surely more would come from taxes on log processing and exports).
Using estimates from adjacent regions in the Amazon basin, Simon &
Shock International could expect to see revenue in the range of
$300-1000 per hectare, or $4-$13.3 million per year.

Returns from carbon



Aboveground live biomass (AGLB) class map of terra firme old growth
forests derived from the decision rule classifier and multiple layers
of remote sensing data. © Sassan Saatchi et al (2007) Global Change
Biology.
Guyana's forests are particular carbon-dense. Remote sensing data from
Caltech, the Woods Hole Institute, and Brazil's INPE suggests Guyana's
forests store 250 to more than 400 tons of above-ground biomass carbon
per hectare. Selectively logged forest sequesters significantly less —
on the order of 50 percent the amount of carbon stored in intact
forest, according to Lasco 2005.

Conservatively assuming that Simon & Shock International's selective
logging reduces the carbon stock from 250 tons per hectare to 150 tons
per hectare, harvesting of 13,333 hectares per year would release 1.3
million tons of carbon or about 4.9 million tons of carbon dioxide per
year. Should these emissions be avoided — under a scenario whereby the
concession instead qualifies as a REDD project, for example — Guyana
would be able to see these credits on the international carbon market.
Though the market does not yet exist in an official capacity, a deal
signed last month in Aceh, Indonesia established a price floor for such
credits of around $3.00 per ton of CO2 ($11 per ton of carbon), a price
that will likely increase for high quality REDD projects. As such, the
concession would see $14.3 million in annual revenue from the sale of
carbon credits. After implementation and operational costs, even a
small government tax rate would easily exceed the $6500 seen from
logging.

Conclusion: REDD is a viable economic alternative to logging

These quick calculations suggest that under a qualifying REDD regime,
preserving forests for carbon credits could offer Guyana favorable
economic returns relative to logging. Further, maintaining forest cover
provides Guyana option values, including the possibility of sustainably
developing forests (ecotourism, non-wood forest products) and taking
advantage of ecosystem services payments as they develop. REDD may be
prove to be a wise course for Guyana.

Compensation for logging transgressions allowable under the law - Forestry Commissioner

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56539620

Compensation for logging transgressions allowable under the law
…Forestry Commissioner
Stabroek News, Business Supplement, Friday, February 22nd 2008


Forestry Commissioner James Singh

The monetary penalties imposed on a number of delinquent loggers by the
Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) are permissible under existing
forestry legislation and fall within the regulations of the Commission
and operators in the country's forestry sector are well aware of those
regulations, according to GFC Commissioner James Singh.

Singh was at the time responding to queries raised by a Forest
Producers Asso-ciation (FPA) source and reported in the February 15
issue of the Stabroek Business regarding the authority of the GFC to
impose the monetary penalties. The source told Stabroek Business that
there was nothing in the current legislation that guided the specific
monetary penalty imposed by the GFC.

However, Singh drew attention to existing forestry legislation which
allows "the Minister or forest officers authorised by the Minister" to
accept compensation for transgression of forestry regulations.

Last week Stabroek Business was informed by the FPA source that loggers
might move to the courts to challenge the imposition of the penalties
on the grounds that existing legislation made no provision for such
penalties. However, Singh explained that the penalties should not be
regarded as fines in the legal sense of the term but as compensatory
payments to the GFC under regulations that had previously been
discussed with the FPA and which had been approved by the Office of the
Auditor General.

According to Singh the regulations allowed the GFC to extract - in the
case of a first offence - compensation equivalent to one sixth of the
value of logs harvested under conditions that transgressed GFC
regulations. In the case of the second offence delinquent loggers were
liable for compensation equivalent to 35 per cent of the harvested
timber while the third offence carried a penalty of seizure of all
harvested timber.

Value added: Locally manufactired wooden furniture

Singh said that the imposition of compensatory payments, even at the 35
per cent, second offence rate, still allowed the delinquent loggers to
make a profit after the sale of the harvested timber.

Singh told Stabroek Business that the Commission had previously
overlooked transgressions by some logging companies and that the
current compensation demand of one sixth of the value of harvested
timber had taken no account of transgressions committed prior to 2007.

Under GFC regulations which have been in place since 2005 loggers are
required to submit to the Commission five-year forestry management
plans as well as annual operational plans for their concessions. Singh
explained that the twofold purpose of these plans was first, to ensure
the availability of harvested timber to meet market demands and,
secondly, to monitor industry adherence to the Commission's
sustainability forestry programme. Singh said that even in cases where
such plans were submitted the Commission was, in some instances,
unhappy with the submissions.

According to Singh vetting exercises carried out by the GFC last year
have revealed that some loggers were harvesting logs in excess of the
amounts stated on their annual operational plans as well as in blocks
of forest from which they had not received permission to harvest logs
by the GFC.

He said that the Commission had previously acceded to requests from
the industry for "more time" to comply with the regulations. According
to Singh in 2006 the Commission had "called in" loggers and had made
available technical officers to assist with the preparation and
submission of these plans. He added that information regarding the
submission of the documentation was also available on the Commission's
website and that at this stage there was "absolutely no justification"
for failure to comply with the requirements.

"We believe that we have made more than enough concessions and granted
the industry sufficient time to comply with the regulations and a point
had been reached where we felt that action had to be taken to
demonstrate that the Commission was serious about enforcing its
regulations."

Meanwhile Singh disclosed that a number of loggers are yet to submit
their 2008 annual forestry plans which were due since November last
year. He said that the Commission had once again decided to demonstrate
a degree of flexibility with the sector by extending the submission
period to May this year but had also decided that delinquent loggers
would not be allowed to harvest timber until their operating plans for
the current year were submitted.

GFC officials have previously told Stabroek Business that the industry
is constrained by financial problems that militate against enhancing
the efficiency of the sector. However, Singh told this newspaper that
modern forestry practices demanded that operators in the industry
"retool" their operations.

And according to Singh the GFC has moved to ensure even tighter
scrutiny of logging operations to monitor compliance with its
regulations by recruiting 50 additional staff to keep track of logging
procedures.

Guyana boasts 13.8 million hectares of forested area of which around 50
per cent has been allocated for timber harvesting.

The forestry commission should focus on the huge losses suffered from log exports

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56539376

The forestry commission should focus on the huge losses suffered from
log exports
Stabroek News, Tuesday, February 19th 2008


Dear Editor,

It is just a year since 350 stakeholders at the public consultation on
a log export policy convened by the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC)
endorsed overwhelmingly the replacement of log exports by local timber
processing.

This agreement tallies with the national development strategy
2001-2010, national forest policy (1997), national forest plan (2001)
and PPP pre-election manifesto (2006). Since that public consultation
on February 17, 2007, the GFC has made no public move to phase in bans
on exports of any logs, despite assurances given by Minister Robert
Persaud that "within 4 weeks the policy recommendation [would] be
tabled at Cabinet for members' consideration" (GFC. National Log Export
Policy. Post Consultation Summary, March 2007). Instead, the GFC is
chasing mills and lumber yards over matters for which it appears to
have neither full legal mandate nor legitimate means of effective
enforcement ("The Forestry Commission seems to be making a long overdue
attempt to restore its operational mandate", SN letter, February 8,
2008). And the GFC has yet to publish a technical justification for its
detailed specification to mills and lumber yards.

Meanwhile, what has Guyana been losing through this persistent failure
to implement national policy? According to the GFC's own figures,
157,000 m3 of logs were exported in calendar year 2007 with a declared
FOB value of US$ 20.8 million. Almost one-third of the logs were
greenheart: 46,000 m3, mostly to India at an average declared FOB value
of US$ 110 per m3. If the 2 per cent export commission had been paid on
all that greenheart, Guyana would have gained US$ 102,000. But as
Barama is by far the largest log exporter, in its own name and through
subsidiaries, Guyana loses the 2 per cent export commission because
Barama through its secret Foreign Direct Investment agreement is exempt
from this tax. By way of comparison, the export commission on logs in
Suriname is 20 per cent.

In addition, 14,000 m3 of greenheart piles were exported mainly to the
USA with FOB value of US$ 2.7 million, at an average of US$ 193 per m3.
Those piles made up 30 per cent of the exported greenheart log volumes,
but have earned Guyana US$55,000 in export commission mostly through
locally-owned producer companies, versus zero on the logs shipped by
and through Barama to India and China.

Using the value multipliers for furniture from the log price at mill
gate, which I estimated last year ("New colonial masters, Malaysian
loggers in South America: how under-valuation of forest resources
exposes Guyana to unscrupulous exploitation". CFA News (Commonwealth
Forestry Association) 9 (3) issue 38:1-2,11-13), the 157,000 m3 of
exported logs could have produced furniture with FOB export prices
ranging from US$125.1 million (multiplier 9.0) up to US$203.0 million
(multiplier 14.6), a ten-fold improvement over the declared log export
values. Instead of which, it is likely that the 95 per cent of logs
exported to China and India will have generated illegal and undeclared
profits of around US$47.8 million (at US$ 320 per m3 in "Available data
strongly suggest that the invoice prices for logs don't reflect market
value" (SN letter November 30, 2006).

Mr Editor, would it not be better if the GFC focused its attention
where Guyana is losing serious money, through the uncontrolled log
exports which are against all national policies, instead of chasing
lumber yards and small-scale loggers?

Yours faithfully, Janette Bulkan

The industry did not view the Forestry Commission's threats to curtail production as credible

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56539176
The industry did not view the Forestry Commission's threats to curtail
production as credible
Stabroek News, Saturday, February 16th 2008


Dear Editor,

The Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) and the Minister for Forestry have
expressed disappointment at the poor response from the forest industry
to a timed series of reminders about documents to be submitted for 2008
licensing.

We do not know how many sawmills and other processors of forest
products have failed to provide the documents, but the GFC has given
data on the response from the medium- and large-scale loggers.

In January 2008, the GFC recorded 28 long-term large-scale Timber Sales
Agreements (TSAs) and 5 medium-term medium-scale Wood Cutting Leases
(WCLs).

Of the 28 TSAs, 9 had officially expired in December 2007, presumably
those originally issued to citizens of Guyana in 1985. Only 2 of those
9 had submitted adequate documents as requests for renewal by January
2008. Leaving aside those older TSAs, there are now 24 active TSAs and
WCLs.

All of these 24 concessions should have submitted annual operation
plans with associated detailed tree counts (100 per cent inventories of
commercial trees) for the areas to be harvested in the following year.

The concessionaires were reminded of this obligation in 2006, for the
2007 harvest year, they did not comply, and the GFC did not prevent
continued logging.

They were reminded again in September 2007. Only 17 of the 24
concessions supplied their annual operation plans and only 5 of the 24
supplied inventory data.

But while 302 blocks of inventory data should have been submitted by
these 5 loggers, only 144 blocks reached the GFC HQ, and 133 of these
144 came in January rather than before the end of the previous
November.

Why did the major loggers, who have over 4.4 million of the 6.2 million
hectares allocated for harvesting in State Forests, mostly ignore the
GFC advice and instructions? Why also were these major operators
allowed an extension until May 2008 for submission of the outstanding
forest inventory data, meanwhile being allowed to continue logging even
though they are still massively indebted to the GFC for taxes and
penalties?

One reason may be that the GFC's threats to curtail logging were not
viewed as credible. After all, the GFC has been ignored by the major
loggers with impunity for years until the penalties levied on
Presidential instruction in late 2007. Why is the GFC viewed as not
credible?

Inventory data on commercial trees in the following year's harvest
areas should be submitted by the end of November in the previous year.
The GFC allows itself just one month to check and approve those data.
As December is not a full working month for government agencies in
Guyana, this is quite a self-imposed challenge.

Here is the calculation - 5 loggers should have submitted data on 302
blocks each of 100 hectares. If all 24 active concessions had submitted
data in the same proportion, that would have meant (24 concessions x
302 blocks x 100 hectares / 5 concessions =) 144,960 hectares to be
checked. From the pilot inventory exercise in 2000, the GFC indicates
2.5 per cent sample as a consistency check and a work rate of 10
hectares per day. 2.5 per cent of 145,000 hectares is 3624 hectares. So
20 crews working flat out for 18 days at 10 hectares per crew per day
would be needed to make even this low percentage check for all the
concessions. The GFC does not have such capacity, and the concession
holders know this very well.

In chapter four of Lewis Carroll's "Alice through the looking glass",
Tweedledum says to Alice,

"If you think we're wax-works,

You ought to pay, you know.

Wax-works weren't made to be looked at

for nothing. Nohow."

And perhaps that is the problem in Guyana.

Yours faithfully,

Mahadeo Kowlessar

GFC has to implement guidelines to meet environmental standards

GFC has to implement guidelines to meet environmental standards
Guyana Chronicle, 16 February 2008
GUYANA Forestry Commission (GFC) refers to an article published on page
23 of the Sunday, February 10, 2008 edition of Kaieteur News under the
caption “FPA lashes out at GFC over new regulations”.

This article is as equally misleading as a letter published on pages 4
and 5 of the Saturday, January 26, 2008 edition of Kaieteur News by one
Anthony Lim under the heading “ The Guyana Forestry Commission is
crippling the forestry sector” since it is in essence, a repetition of
the misinformation peddled by Mr. Lim.

The GFC submitted a comprehensive factual response to the letter penned
by Mr. Lim on Sunday, January 27, 2008 to the print media. To date,
Kaieteur News has not seen it fit to publish the GFC response; instead
it chooses to publish yet another article that is unjustly critical of
the GFC without giving the GFC an opportunity to set the record
straight.

As the regulatory agency for forestry in Guyana, the GFC is duty bound
to let stakeholders be aware of what the real issues are, and GFC will
therefore address this matter again, hopefully for the last time.

The state forest estate of Guyana is the patrimony of all stakeholders
and GFC has a responsibility to promote Sustainable Forest Management
(SFM) in Guyana. In order to achieve this, a system of guidelines to
govern the state forest estate must be in place starting from the
allocation of concessions, to harvesting, processing and export of
forest produce.

These guidelines such as those for conducting Forest Inventories,
preparation of Forest Management Plans and Annual Operational Plans
(FMP’s; AOP’s); the Code of Practice for Forestry Operations etc. have
been in existence for at least seven (7) years, and were arrived at
through a thoroughly consultative process, involving all
stakeholders, especially those directly linked to the sector.

Over the last six (6) years, GFC embarked on an aggressive
sensitization campaign aimed at further educating stakeholders on these
guidelines, so that implementation could be done in a phased manner
with full compliance in 2006.

Pre harvest inventory gives a clear picture of the commercial trees
present in the blocks to be harvested, and therefore facilitates better
operational planning for harvesting, marketing etc. It is an essential
aspect of planning if companies are serious about doing efficient
business and maintaining competitiveness.

Contrary to the claims of the Forest Products Association (FPA), the
Government has not issued a recent ultimatum to the Industry to submit
complete pre harvest inventory as outlined below.

Since 2006, the GFC held meetings with all companies that had
active Timber sales Agreements and Wood Cutting Leases (TSA’s and
WCL’s) to remind them that they had to be operational under a five (5)
year Forest Management Plan (FMP) and that the

100 % inventory for all blocks to be harvested in 2007 had to be
included as an integral part of the Annual Operational Plan (AOP) for
the calendar year 2007. This information was also formally sent to
concessionaires by way of individual letters, and also via public
notices in the media, and posted at forest stations country wide.

To further assist companies, the GFC offered to provide technical
support on a cost recovery basis, based on written requests. Only a few
companies took up this offer.

A comprehensive audit of field activities in the latter part of 2007
indicated that whilst many companies identified the blocks to be
harvested in 2007 and actually harvested in these blocks, all of the
required 100 % inventory information was not submitted. Several
companies were penalized because of this non compliance.

In September 2007, the GFC again sent notices to concessionaires
reminding them of their obligation to submit AOP’s by November 30,
2007, inclusive of the 100 % inventory information for the blocks
proposed for harvesting in 2008. Companies were again offered technical
assistance by the GFC, based on written requests.

The facts reveal that by January 31, 2008 (two months after the
deadline of November 30,2007), only seventeen (17) of the twenty four
(24) companies submitted their AOP’s (70.8 %). However, only five (5)
companies (20.8 %) had provided partial 100 % information. The
remaining companies are still to provide the GFC with this information.

The GFC has to do field verification of the inventory information
before it gives approval for harvesting to commence. This field
verification is not a 100 % exercise as the FPA tries to imply, but
rather a 2 % quality control sampling to give assurances that it meets
the GFC’s standards. More detailed sampling intensities would only be
needed if a lot of variation is observed in the initial 2% sampling.

The total acreage under TSA’a and WCL’s is approximately four million
hectares (4,000,000) hectares of productive forest. This corresponds to
a total annual allowable acreage of approximately fifty thousand
hectares (50,000 ha) on a sixty (60) year cycle or a maximum of five
hundred (500) blocks to be inventoried by all the TSA’s and WCL’s
combined. To further elaborate on this, Barama Company Limited (BCL)
accounts for more than 50 % of this total annual allowable acreage. The
combined inventory required to be done by all of the other
concessionaires (TSA’a, WCL’s) is less than two hundred and fifty
blocks (250).

This debunks the example of the FPA that larger concessions (other than
BCL) have to inventorise three hundred (300) blocks in a calendar year.
Also, pre harvest inventory is expected to be an ongoing exercise; it
is a requirement of the planning process, and an obligation that all
concessionaires were aware of when they applied for their forestry
concession lease. It is not an optional exercise.

As part of his ongoing meetings with stakeholders, the Hon. Minister of
Agriculture invited the FPA to a meeting on January 8, 2008. The
Commissioner of Forests was also in attendance. At that meeting, the
FPA members accepted that they were delinquent in their inventory
submissions, and requested additional time to submit this 100 %
inventory information. The Minister and the GFC agreed to facilitate
this request on the conditions that:

* All 100 % inventory information must be submitted on or before May
31, 2008

* No harvesting would occur in any block unless the 100 % inventory
information was submitted to, and approved by the GFC.

The GFC wrote to the individual concessionaires after that meeting,
clearly outlining that once 100% inventory was submitted for specific
block(s), those block(s) would immediately be verified by the GFC, and
based on that exercise, a decision would be taken whether approval
would be granted for harvesting. There was never any conditionality as
is stated by the FPA that the 100 % inventory information for all
blocks in the AOP had to be submitted together to the GFC before any
verification was done. What was explicitly stated was that all 100 %
inventory information has to be submitted by May 31, 2008.

After careful review, approval has now been granted by the Government
for the renewal of some of the leases which expired in 2007. Contrary
to the FPA’s statements that these companies must complete their FMP
and AOP before harvesting is allowed to begin, the GFC met with these
concessionaires on Thursday February 7, 2008. At that
meeting, companies were informed that they had to submit at least one
(1) block of 100 % inventory information to be verified; once the
results of the verification was acceptable, then permission would be
granted for harvesting to commence.

The companies were further advised that the AOP was to be submitted to
the GFC by February 29, 2008, and the FMP by June 2008. All companies
represented at that meeting were in agreement with the timelines
established for AOP and FMP submission, and the decision taken with
respect to the 100 % inventory.

On the issue of standards for the wood processing industry, again the
FPA is misinforming the public. The GFC had made several presentations
in 2007 to remind stakeholders of the standards to be implemented in
2008, and emphasized the fact that these standards were publicized
since 2005, with the objective of full implementation in 2006. During
these outreach meetings in 2007, stakeholders made several submissions
which were all discussed at joint meetings of the FPA and GFC.
Agreement was reached on a final document, and this document is now
being publicized throughout the sector with the implementation date now
set for April 1, 2008. This is completely contrary to the assertion of
the FPA that the GFC chose to ignore the recommendations of the
sub-committee and that saw millers and timber dealers who are unable to
confirm to these standards will be shut down.

Companies that manage sawmill /lumber yard operations were advised in
2007 that they had to have approvals/no objections from several
agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Central and
Housing Planning Authority, the Neighbourhood Democratic Council before
the GFC could issue a licence for 2008. These operators were advised
that this documentation was essential and that it would take some time
to acquire all. However, most companies have not provided the GFC with
all of the required documentation, even though applications for
renewals should have been made since 2007. The GFC has extended the
renewal process up to February 29, 2008.

The above facts clearly show that the GFC is in no way culpable for the
lateness of renewals and for the inactivity in the forestry sector
during January/February 2008. The GFC in the interest of the sector
commits itself to processing documentation as soon as it is received.
However, in keeping with GFC’s motto of “Ensuring Sustainable
Forestry”, all procedures must be applied in a consistent, transparent
and credible manner. It must be stressed too, that these are not new
rules being imposed overnight on the sector; these guidelines were
developed in a consultative manner with all stakeholders several years
ago. The GFC has spent considerable time and resources to publicize
these guidelines, and also train stakeholders on how to interpret and
implement same. Constant reminders were sent out in 2007, in addition
to the outreach meetings.

To state then that “The GFC is unduly focused on implementing punitive
measures on an already regulated industry, rather than working in
partnership with the industry to foster, encourage and facilitate
growth and development of the industry” is most unjustified.

Without the continued implementation of the guidelines for SFM by the
sector and the rigid enforcement and monitoring of the GFC, maintaining
access to the current overseas markets would be in jeopardy. Entering
new niche markets would be practically impossible. It is a fact that
forestry is now a significant contributor to the national economy. To
further improve on this contribution, the FPA and non-FPA stakeholders
must appreciate that the GFC has to enforce implementation of these
collaboratively formulated and agreed on guidelines so that we meet the
environmental standards expected of us in order to achieve Sustainable
Forest Management.
JAMES SINGH
Commissioner of Forests

Int'l tour operator highlights Guyana's birdwatching potential

http://www.kaieteurnewsgy.com/news.html

Kaieteur News news item, Sunday 10 February 2008

Int'l tour operator highlights Guyana's birdwatching potential

Eagle Eye Tours, a Canadian tour operator that specializes in worldwide bird
watching trips, recently completed its first group tour to Guyana.
The tour was added to the company's roster of destinations after co-owner
and tour guide, Richard Knapton, came to Guyana as part of a bird watching
product familiarization trip sponsored by the Guyana Tourism Authority (GTA)
and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) / Guyana
Trade and Investment Support (GTIS) project Birding Tourism Programme.
The North American participants spent eleven days in Guyana, with
birdwatching stops at Georgetown's Botanical Gardens, Iwokrama Field
Station, Iwokrama Canopy Walkway, Surama Village, Rock View Lodge, Wowetta
Village, Karanambu Ranch, Kaieteur Falls and Shanklands Rainforest Resort.
Knapton, who has led tours to more than 20 countries in his 20 years as
guide, led the group along with several Guyanese bird watching guides.
Reflecting on the recent trip, Knapton said that Guyana may not have the
same number of species as other South American countries such as Ecuador and
Peru, but "there are superlative groups of birds in Guyana, with standouts
like the Cock-of-the-Rock and Harpy Eagle."
Knapton also added that, "many birdwatchers want to see Guiana Shield
species...and this makes Guyana a highly competitive [birding] destination."
Of the birds seen in Guyana, he said his clients were very pleased with the
variety of species they saw on their trip, with too many highlights to list.

Knapton also pointed out that many were pleased to see such healthy
populations of Macaws in the interior, as "it's an indication of pristine
forest that is un-fragmented."
Continuing on this note, Knapton added that, "One of the real beauties of
Guyana is to fly south over the forest and see it unbroken from horizon to
horizon. That is extremely reassuring."
Knapton first came to Guyana in November 2006 on a familiarization trip with
several other international tour operators and media. When asked if this had
an impact on his company's decision to create a tour to Guyana, he said,
"Absolutely.
It's our policy to be [personally] familiar with a destination." Eagle Eye
Tours began designing and selling a Guyana tour immediately after the trip,
and while the normal turnaround time to advertise and sell a new destination
is one year, Knapton reports that he was very pleased with how quickly the
Guyana tour sold out. Noting that Eagle Eye has already received interest in
their next Guyana tour planned for January 2009, he said this "speaks
volumes for the destination."
Knapton then clarified it by adding, "There is a darn good chance of Guyana
becoming a hot Neotropical birdwatching destination."
The Birding Tourism Programme is receiving support from GTIS, a joint
project of the Government of Guyana and the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID).

Discord in timber industry continues... FPA lashes out at GFC over new regulations - says production will drop by 50%; jobs threatened

http://www.kaieteurnewsgy.com/news.html

Kaieteur News news item, Sunday 10 February 2008

Discord in timber industry continues...
FPA lashes out at GFC over new regulations
- says production will drop by 50%; jobs threatened

The Forest Products Association (FPA) has accused the Guyana Forestry
Commission (GFC) of unduly implementing punitive measures on an industry
already over-regulated, rather than working to encourage development in the
industry.
In a strongly worded press statement, the FPA, which represents several
major logging companies, said that production is expected to drop by 50%
with substantial job and huge revenue losses.
According to FPA, the government, through the GFC, has now issued an
ultimatum to the industry demanding that concessionaries submit "complete
pre-harvest inventory (100% commercial species) for all blocks to be
harvested in 2008" and that "formal written approval must be obtained from
the GFC before harvesting commences in any block, during the year 2008,
commencing January 2008".
"This is an arbitrary and capricious decision. It is a complete departure
from established practice. If this policy is enforced, it will result in the
shutdown of all major forestry production and the consequential
unavailability of downstream materials for manufacturing."
Already, as 2008 begins, the majority of the major companies have been
unable to commence operations and export their produce while being forced to
wait on the GFC to approve licences and Annual Operational Plans (AOPs),
said FPA.
"The result will be a dramatic reduction in production and in the exports of
both primary and downstream product and a significant loss of international
market share for Guyana."
The FPA noted that the statement was in response to a letter from James
Singh, Commissioner of Forests, published in the Guyana Chronicle on January
31, 2008, which makes a number of assertions with regard to the performance
of the forestry sector in 2007 and in regard to the granting of licences to
foresters for 2008.
"The Association is surprised and disappointed at the Commissioner resorting
to the use of highly intemperate language inappropriate for a professional
public servant. The FPA wishes to point out that the forestry sector is now
a significant contributor to the national economy, earning in excess of
US$60 million annually and employing over 20,000 persons, exceeding even the
contribution of the rice and fisheries sectors."
According to the Association, exports have increased from US$42 million in
2004 to US$62 million in 2007.
"This growth and viability of the industry is mainly as a result of the
investment of the private sector with little or no Government financial
support. The industry's survival, however, is dependent on the government's,
through the Guyana Forestry Commission, commitment to work in collaboration
with the industry and to give due consideration, attention and effect to the
needs and concerns of the industry's stakeholders."
Instead, the FPA stressed, GFC is unduly focused on implementing punitive
measures on an already over regulated industry, rather than working in
partnership with the industry to foster, encourage and facilitate the growth
and development of the industry.
The body explained that at a special FPA meeting in November last year,
attended by a wide cross section of the industry, ranging from major
producers operating Timber Sale Agreements (TSAs) to small producers,
sawmillers and timber dealers, there was a review of outstanding issues
between the industry and the GFC. The meeting was unanimous in its call to
the Commission to consult more closely with the Association.
"The meeting registered its concern with regard to a host of proposed
changes being rushed into implementation without adequate consultation. The
meeting noted the GFC's determination to enforce wholly impractical
standards and conditions for wood processing without due consultation which
would result in significant harm to small producers and sawmillers
especially."
The FPA said that the Commission had agreed to meet with the FPA's Technical
Sub-Committee on this matter but has chosen to virtually ignore the
recommendations of the Committee and has now issued a warning of closure by
January 31st to all timber dealers and sawmillers who are unable to conform
to these standards.
"This will result in small producers and sawmillers shutting down," FPA
asserted in its statement.
The FPA says it has written to the Commission pointing out that, in fact,
the submission of inventories as a requirement of harvesting has always, as
a practical matter, been implemented and accepted by the Commission in
conjunction with harvesting taking place on a block by block basis, usually
covering a period of 2 to 3 months production at a time.
"The Commissioner is well aware that the granting of AOPs has never been
conditioned by the advance submission of timber inventories. It has always
been the accepted practice to conduct timber enumeration progressively in
batches of blocks, which are endorsed by the Commission for harvesting on
submission of a "notice of intention" by the concessionaire."
FPA said that the Commissioner is also aware that actual on-site inspection
by the GFC of inventorised blocks has been performed on an ad hoc basis by
the GFC and not as a pre-harvest requirement.
"The likelihood of the Commission being able to deliver timely inspection of
all the concessions to meet the pre-harvest inventory requirement is
extremely remote.
"The Association must seriously question whether the Commission has
professionally advised the Minister on this matter."
FPA used as an example, larger concessions which are divided into as many as
300 blocks of 100 hectares each, spread over an area of 30,000 hectares of
virgin forests to be harvested within the year.
"A network of main and secondary roads must, therefore, first be constructed
to provide access for inventorising. In practice, in order to sustain
production, these roads are built in consonance with inventory surveys being
progressively conducted in batches of blocks as we have outlined above. If
these new requirements are to be enforced from now on, the 300 blocks will
increase to 600 blocks to satisfy next year's AOP requirements."
The Association said that it has been the norm and accepted standard
practice in the industry to employ a highly trained team of 7 to 12 persons
in order to complete a 100% species enumeration of 10 blocks in one month at
a cost of $300,000 per block.
"To complete an advanced inventory of a large concession with some 300
blocks would, therefore, take at least 30 months. To shorten this period
would mean employing many more survey teams at a substantial increase in
cost and would make accurate supervision practically unworkable."
According to the FPA, against this background, the government's demands that
all of this must be done prior to harvesting in 2008 and each year
thereafter, requiring that enumeration for 2008 and 2009 would, in fact,
have to be done consecutively, an impossible task, given the availability of
trained personnel, the financial cost and the time involved.
"The GFC has further directed that the Commission must give "formal written
approval...before harvesting commences."
What this means in practical terms is anyone's guess. The process, the
format, the timelines for receiving this approval are yet to be explicitly
set out by the Commission. In any event, the process of inspection by the
Commission would take many more months before the concessionaire can
commence harvesting," FPA said in its statement.
The association said it is worried since already it is the second month of
the year.
"A number of companies have not yet received renewal of their TSAs. These
companies cannot be expected to make the huge investment of conducting an
advance inventory in order to be granted their AOPs without first having the
renewal of their TSAs confirmed."
The FPA pointed out that even if it were possible for the industry to triple
its capacity to complete pre-harvest inventories, harvesting for many
companies could not begin for another four months, as they must now complete
their FMPs and AOPs.
"For those companies still without TSAs, the year would be all but lost. As
we have stated, the number of trained personnel available and the cost of
financing precludes such an undertaking."
FPA claimed that the insistence by the government on imposing these punitive
requirements has already resulted in a virtual shutdown of the timber
industry.
"Two months production and revenue to the country have been lost. The
industry has been presented with an ultimatum, which is completely
impossible to implement in practice."
In 2007, 33 Timber Sales Agreements (TSAs) were granted, of which 12 were
not operating.
"It is probable, that with the increasingly thoughtless and impractical
regulations being imposed on the industry, perhaps 15 companies will survive
in 2008. The high annual production of over 380,000 cubic metres is likely
to fall by as much as 50% in 2008 with a huge loss of revenue to the country
and substantial loss of employment."

Death of Barama employee…Clear case of industrial action - PM

Death of Barama employee…Clear case of industrial action - PM
Kaieteur News, 10 February 2008

A post mortem examination performed on the remains of 39-year-old Mark
Pollard revealed that the Barama employee died as a result of shock and
haemorrhaging, and have caused police to rule that the death occurred
as a result of an industrial accident.
The post mortem was performed yesterday at the Georgetown Public
Hospital by Dr. Nehaul Singh.
Police have been carrying out a thorough investigation at the request
of the dead man's relatives, who were adamant that Pollard's death was
not the result of an accident but that foul play might have been
involved.
However, a police source told this newspaper that the results of
investigations to date, coupled with the results of the post mortem,
indicate that it was a clear case of an industrial accident.
However, the source said the police will continue to investigate.
The police have since admitted to receiving reports from relatives
which stated that Pollard had a misunderstanding with another
colleague.
Relatives also indicated to this newspaper their disbelief that
Pollard’s death was an accident.
Meanwhile, Chairman of Barama, Girwar Lalaram, in an invited comment,
said that the company has since launched an internal investigation.
Mark Anthony Pollard, of Ice House Road, Timehri, died while receiving
treatment at the GPHC after reportedly being crushed by lumber.
Initial reports had stated that Pollard and other colleagues left
their Land of Canaan work site on board a vessel for a mining
concession in the Cuyuni, last Friday. The incident reportedly occurred
sometime around 07:00 hours on Monday.
Reports stated that Pollard and his co-workers were loading lumber
onto their vessel via a crane, which was on land.
It was during this exercise that a colleague recalled hearing Pollard
screaming for help. This newspaper was told that upon checking, Pollard
was found sprawled by a stanchion of the vessel. Sources said the
injured man had blood gushing from a wound on his thigh. Pollard was
picked up and rushed to Parika in a speedboat, after which he was
transported to the city in a company ambulance. A short while after,
Pollard succumbed while receiving treatmen

Barama employee dies following freak accident …Police launch investigation

Barama employee dies following freak accident …Police launch
investigation
Kaieteur News, 8 February 2008
A father of three who is also an employee of Barama Company Limited
died Monday at a private city hospital following a freak accident at a
mining concession in Cuyuni.
Reports are that 39-year-old Mark Anthony Pollard, of Ice House Road,
Timehri, died while receiving treatment at the hospital after
reportedly being crushed by lumber. Kaieteur News was told that Pollard
and other colleagues left their Land of Canaan work site on board a
vessel for a mining concession in the Cuyuni, last Friday.
The incident reportedly occurred sometime around 07:00 hours on Monday.
Reports stated that Pollard and his co-workers were loading lumber
onto their vessel via a crane, which was on land.
It was during this exercise that a colleague recalled hearing Pollard
screaming for help. This newspaper was told that upon checking, Pollard
was found sprawled by a stanchion of the vessel. Sources said the
injured man had blood gushing from a wound on his thigh. Pollard was
picked up and rushed to Parika in a speedboat, after which he was
transported to the city in a company ambulance. A short while after
reaching the hospital, Pollard succumbed while receiving treatment.
Meanwhile when contacted, Pollard’s elder brother, Ray, said that the
family received a phone call from the company around 09:00 hours on
Monday informing them of the incident and they were also told to go to
the hospital.
Ray Pollard said by the time they got to the hospital, they were told
that their brother had already died. He said the family was told that
his brother was crushed by a large piece of lumber while loading the
ship. The brother said a detailed account of what really transpired in
the Cuyuni was not given to the family. The elder Pollard said he has
since visited the Police Headquarters at Eve Leary, and they informed
him that they are investigating the matter.
“I asked the police to do a thorough investigation because we were
told that he and another person on the boat had a problem and to date
(yesterday) we haven’t got a proper account of what really happened. My
mother even told me that he was not supposed to go on the last trip,
and we need to know what really happened,” Pollard said.
Meanwhile, Pollard added that Barama has since promised to stand all
of his brother’s funeral expenses. Pollard said the family also made
enquires about long-term support for the dead man’s wife and three
children.
“The company also said they will give assistance to the wife for the
children and they (Barama) told his wife to apply to NIS for his
benefits,” Pollard added.
Mark Pollard had been employed with Barama for the past three years
and leaves to mourn his wife, three children aged 7, 9 and 12, along
with other relatives.
Meanwhile a police source has since confirmed that they are in receipt
of the report and investigations are ongoing.

The Forestry Commission seems to be making a long overdue attempt to restore its operational mandate

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56538616

The Forestry Commission seems to be making a long overdue attempt to
restore its operational mandate
Stabroek News, Friday, February 8th 2008

Dear Editor,

I would like to clarify some of the arguments between the Guyana
Forestry Commission (GFC) and the wood processing industry. After five
years of minimal effective activity the GFC appears to be recovering a
sense of its responsibilities for administration of the 13.7 million
hectares of State Forests and the economic products from those forests
as shown in its responses to letters in the newspapers.

Communications

The GFC website contains some documents but not others which the
industry should be able to access readily. Now available are the Code
of Practice on Timber Harvesting (second edition 2002) and a sufficient
set of guidelines for pre-harvest inventories and all required forest
management and annual operational plans, all important for the logging
concessionaires.

The processors are served by the Wood Processing Standards and
Procedures (September 2007). Missing from that website are the existing
forest law and regulations (from 1953), the forestry chapter 14 of the
National Development Strategy (1996), the national forest policy (1997)
or the national forest plan (2001). Also missing is any background
document to explain and rationalise the new standards for "sawmills,
sawpits, lumberyards and timber depots".

The claim by the Minister for Forestry of public consultation appears
to mean only set presentations to GFC-selected stakeholders without
meaningful feedback and revision from non-government stakeholders. The
absence of record of such public consultations is also disappointing,
as the GFC's claim to have responded cannot be demonstrated.

Legislation

In letters to and a column in the press during 2006-7, Janet Bulkan has
shown that the GFC has mainly adequate legislation and regulations to
administer the State Forests, does have the right to direct the
loggers, and has publicly-available guidance for them, although not
publicising the law and regulations themselves. The GFC undermines its
authority by claiming administrative discretion when no such latitude
is contained in the law: GFC Public Relations Officer Jaime Hall "said
that the Commission does have a degree of flexibility with some
concessionaires"

(Kaieteur News January 16, 2008). In contrast, the Minister has
reiterated that concessionaires will be treated alike, especially as
members of the Forest Products Association have already been favoured
with extra time to fulfil their obligations and cancel their huge
debts. Note that there are some 300 small-scale loggers (with 2-year
State Forest Permissions), some 58 members of the FPA, and only 24
active large-scale logging concessions.

As regards forest products, the law enables the Minister to prescribe
standards for forest produce from State forests (Article 42 (f)),
provide for the grading of forest produce from State forests and
[prohibit or regulate] the sale of forest produce falling below
prescribed standards (Article 42 (g)), prohibit or regulate the
construction, erection or operation of sawmills and the importation of
sawmilling machinery (Article 42 (j)) and register premises wherein
timber is stored or kept for the purposes of a sawmill (Article 42
(k)).

In addition, under Regulation 26 (4) for sawmills, the Minister may
issue a permit subject to such conditions as he may think fit.

The guidelines for sawmills on the GFC website consist of a
presentation dated 18 September 2007. This presentation is a
photographic comparison between the physical conditions apparently
representative of sawmills in Guyana and conditions representing best
practice in one or more mills at Belém, Brazil. The photographic
comparison is followed by imperative instructions and some
recommendations.

No justification is offered in this document for the detailed
prescriptions about sawing specifications, lumber dimensions or timber
stack rules, nor for restricting chainsaw milling.

No tests are offered in this document for judging compliance with the
instructions, some of which are ambiguous. The document appears to
prescribe for lumber processing as if only a single market is being
supplied, and this has been reasonably challenged by Anthony Lim and A
Tahal.

It is unclear if this unsigned GFC presentation is an expression of the
Ministerial authority granted under Article 42 of the forest law. It
would be reasonable for the forest industry to seek legal advice and to
request the rationale behind the details. Presumably the Forest
Products Association and the Guyana Manufacturers and Services
Association will be combining to make such request to the Minister, in
accordance with the Minister's reiterated intention to cooperate with
industry?

Limit of GFC authority

The GFC appears to have overlooked or concealed from the public that
the authority to prescribe standards and to grade forest produce (for
the local market) is limited to output from State forests. Produce from
private lands or titled Amerindian Village Lands is not subject to GFC
rules. How can the various sources be differentiated?

The bar-code tags introduced partially since 1999 can reliably indicate
the source of the timber only if someone physically verifies that one
part of the tag is attached to the stump of the tree in an authorised
coupe (tree felling area). But the GFC has physically lacked the
capacity to make such verifications, because it does not devote enough
resources to objective and transparently administered field monitoring.

It cannot claim to be short of money for such purposes because it is
required to value and tax the resource access rights for the benefit of
the nation, and I have demonstrated the huge excess profits being
obtained by the under-taxed loggers and log exporters.

So timber tags are widely traded in the hinterland as a form of
currency, and in practice the GFC cannot be definite that any one log
or board comes from inside or outside State forest. Thus the GFC
appears to have no effective authority to impose its September 2007
guidelines as legal prescriptions on the forest products industry.

The GFC delay in issuing mill licences for 2008 appears to be
unjustified and worth legal challenge.

Legality Assurance System

In order to comply with its legal mandate and having prudent regard for
the possibility that Guyanese timber without proof of legality of
origin may be barred from government procurement contracts in EU
countries, the GFC has begun to re-develop the stalled timber tagging
scheme. External donors provided the funds for ProForest Oxford to
devise an EU-compatible legality assurance system, and the
International Tropical Timber Organization is funding the second phase.
This phase includes the long-delayed installation of a country-wide
distributed database on forest production and the integration of the
database with bar-code hand-held readers. I hope that the GFC is not
relying on technology to compensate for a shortfall in field presence.
That has not worked in other countries, nor does GFC control of the
database match international best practice.

Moreover, the GFC proposal to ITTO indicates that this control is
explicitly for restraining illegal operations by small-scale operators,
apparently leaving the economically much more significant large-scale
loggers in their long accustomed freedom from GFC supervision.

The token penalties imposed through Presidential insistence in October
2007 and January 2008 are hardly likely to deter loggers who are making
super-profits.

In summary, the GFC appears to be making a long overdue attempt to
restore its operational mandate for State forests but is ineptly
drafting unworkable and apparently illegal rules outside its mandate.
Given the super-profits which the Asian-owned loggers and exporters
have been making, Guyana deserves better from the GFC and from the
Minister for Forestry.

Yours faithfully,

Mahadeo Kowlessar

Nascimento appointed FPA public relations consultant

Nascimento appointed FPA public relations consultant
Guyana Chronicle, 7 February 2008
THE Forests Products Association of Guyana (FPA) has announced the
appointment of Mr. Kit Nascimento, Managing Director, Public
Communications Consultants Limited (PCCL), as Public Relations
Consultant to the Association.

Mr. Nascimento’s company will advise the Association on its public
communications policy and public relations practices and he will serve
as the official spokesperson for the Association.

The organisation said, in a pres release, that it has also appointed
Mr. Garfield Lambert as Executive Secretary (acting) of the
Association. Mr. Lambert has been seconded to the Association from
Toolsie Persaud Limited.

Meanwhile, the services of former Executive Director of the
Association, Ms. Mona Bynoe, will continue to be available as an
adviser to the Association.

Migratory birds new pests in Essequibo rice industry

Migratory birds new pests in Essequibo rice industry
Guyana Chronicle, 7 February 2008
RICE farmers in Region Two (Pomeroon/Supenaam) need help to get rid of
thousands of birds which are attacking their cultivations.

A report, to the Drainage and Irrigation, Agriculture and Works
Sub-Committee of the Regional Democratic Council (RDC), said the birds
are sucking out the milk from young grains.

A member of that group, Mr. Saywack Lall, said the flocks are on the
attack in thousands at Golden Fleece and Perseverance on Essequibo
Coast and he called for the intervention of the Agriculture Ministry.

Some 32,500 acres are currently being cultivated in the 'Cinderella
County' and Lall said the plants are in the flowering stage.

Senior Extension Officer of Guyana Rice Development Board, Mr. Cyril
Lochan, told Regional Vice-Chairman, Mr. Vishnu Samaroo and the other
members of the sub-committee that the birds have become a new pest.

Another member, Mr. Ayube Khan, said the situation is very serious
because farmers depend on the crop for their livelihood and the birds
are creating havoc in the Pomeroon, too.

He said the birds are migrating to Essequibo Coast because of large
scale mining and forestry operations in the hinterland.

Export allowances are only available on certain conditions

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56538566

Export allowances are only available on certain conditions
Stabroek News, Thursday, February 7th 2008

Dear Editor,

Following our criticism of his earlier article, your business columnist
Mr. Christopher Ram has taken up the challenge to justify his position
on the issue of export allowances. Readers will judge for themselves
whether he has done so adequately and come to their own conclusions as
to the desirability, or not, of this feature.

Permit us please though the opportunity to offer readers a broader view
than that proferred by Mr. Ram which in our opinion is simplistic,
misleading or erroneous.

He begins by saying that this allowance "gives substantial tax relief
to all but eleven products (not services) exported to non-Caricom
countries". He was comfortable in making such a bold claim even though
he later admits that "tax data in Guyana are impossible to come by" and
that with regard to who may be beneficiaries, admits that "such
information simply is not publicly available." Mr. Ram should have
pointed out that the incentive does not "give substantial tax relief",
it merely offers it. The distinction of course is central to the issue,
given that in order to enjoy the benefits, companies have to meet
certain demanding criteria. As we see later, it is not happening.

Cost and benefits.


Your columnist claims and would have readers believe that "export
allowances were introduced as an incentive for companies engaged in
foreign exchange earnings". Compounding this misinformation he goes on
to say that when the allowances were introduced in 1988 the black
market for foreign exchange was thriving and now that things have
changed substantially " the economic justification for its retention
seems to have reduced substantially". In other words, abolish it.

What has conveniently been ignored is the fact that the Guyana dollar
has suffered a massive devaluation during this very period, now trading
at 200 to 1 against the US dollar versus 10 to 1 as it was then. This
points to the fact that forex earnings continue to be insufficient and
inadequate.

The argument is being framed incorrectly if focused on forex earnings.
Before that can be realized, a promoter has to come forward, an
investment has to be made, jobs will be created, goods have to be
produced, exports have to be made to non-Caricom countries and if this
happens and if the percentage of such sales in relation to the total
sales of the company reaches 61%, the company will enjoy a tax rebate.
In all of this the economy will benefit in many ways including payment
of PAYE, etc.

Mr. Ram insinuates that this concession was in response to requests. We
are not aware that this was so. This incentive was not lobbied for and
was introduced by Government for a specific and desirable purpose i.e.
to diversify the economy and encourage value-added production for
export. Has it achieved this goal to any significant extent? Let us
look at the export figures.

The Bank of Guyana (BOG) site gives it as follows:

Total exports and imports for the years 2004 - 2006 are as follows:

US$Mln. 2004 2005 2006

Total Exports 589.1 551 601.3

Total Imports 646.9 783.7 885

This shows that exports as a percentage of imports declined from 91% in
2004 to 70% in 2005 and further to 68% in 2006. In other words our
forex earnings are insufficient and considerably less than our imports.
Total value of non-traditional exports (the ones that could qualify for
the tax rebate) is not only static but has even declined marginally
from US$162.7 million in 2004 to US$157.7 million by 2006. If anything
these figures would suggest that existing incentives, such as this
allowance and others are insufficient and that more are needed if we
are to reverse the situation whereby imports are outstripping exports.
One of these we strongly feel is that sales to Caricom markets as well
should qualify for this rebate.

Is Guyana the only country that offers incentives to encourage exports?
The answer is no. All countries do it ; from the mighty to the
lowliest. Just this week an article in the NY Times (February 1, 2008)
had the following to say:

- After years of complaints from the United States and Europe about
China's growing trade surplus, authorities here (China) have removed
incentives that once favoured exporters of cheap goods.

- Starting last June, for instance, China removed or reduced tax
rebates on hundreds of items for export.

- But the actions are also part of Beijing's desire to move China
higher up the global manufacturing chain - away from the least-finished
products, like plastic children's toys, toward more advanced exports
that require skilled labour, like small electronics and even
automobiles.

What is clear from this is that even China still gives its exporters
tax rebates and that it was only as recently as June 2007 that it moved
to "remove or reduce" such rebates but not on all of its exports.
Moreover, this was only done in response to pressure from the US and
EU. Bear in mind that China's annual trade surplus with the USA exceeds
US$250 billion and with Europe it is about the same amount.

Let us look again at Guyana's export performance. In the case of the
wood sector which Mr. Ram singles out for attention in his article the
figures reveal a most disturbing trend. While total exports of timber
rose from US$45 million in 2004 to US$70.3 million in 2006 this was due
mainly to a surge in log exports which is undesirable as it is
value-added exports that are needed. The BOG site has this to say :
"Receipts from plywood exports by Barama (which was the main exporter
of plywood) amounted to US$8.5 million, a decline from US$9.7 million
at end 2005." Ten years prior Barama's exports of plywood were some
four times greater than this and they did not export any logs. Surely
this must point to what an uncompetitive manufacturing destination this
is. Why else would anyone want to send logs halfway around the world?
Again it is clear ; if we want to break the mould of being just a
source of raw materials then the state has to act as the catalyst. We
are convinced that plywood exports alone could reach US$200 million
annually and total manufactured wood products an equal or greater
amount than this. The Vincente Molinos report which was done in 1994
(funded by the Carter Center for the Ministry of Finance) showed that
whereas just 7 jobs are created per 1000 cubic metres of timber if
exported in log form, 111 jobs would be created if the same volume were
exported as architectural millwork, i.e. kiln-dried and machined.
Moving higher up the value chain e.g. pre-finished flooring, doors,
cabinets, furniture etc. would create even more jobs and commensurate
economic activity. The situation is not what Mr. Ram points it to be
i.e. of a private sector seeking handouts from the government. The
famous, almost fabled potential of Guyana that has been spoken about
for the past 50 years has not materalised and will not unless we are
indeed honest with ourselves.

I am not an economist or academic but do know that all countries create
incentives to stimulate development and to create jobs. I also know
that no country, great or small is going to complain about Guyana's
paltry US$160 million of exports which Mr. Ram goes to great lengths to
belittle, even ridicule.

Your business columnist does his reputation as an analyst of some
substance no favour when he allows pettiness and vindictiveness to get
the better of him as is the case in these articles.

There are other fallacies and weaknesses in Mr. Ram's article that we
will address later. The weak grasp of developmental economics that he
displays should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Yours faithfully,

Ronald Bulkan

Precision Woodworking Limited

Lunch-hour adjustment in dispute: Toolsie workers down tools in protest, union rep transferred

Lunch-hour adjustment in dispute:
Toolsie workers down tools in protest, union rep transferred
Kaieteur News, 6 February 2008
Scores of employees of Toolsie Persaud Limited downed tools yesterday
in protest of a management decision to stagger lunch hours.
According to General Secretary of the National Association of
Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Employees (NAACIE), Kenneth
Joseph, the 80-odd employees who embarked on the industrial action are
from three different locations, including the hardware section on
Lombard Street and the bond at the entity’s Princes Street location.
Speaking from the Lombard Street location, where several of the
employees were gathered yesterday morning, Joseph said that there is a
labour agreement for workers to have lunch between 11:00-12:00 hrs, and
it was clear that the company’s decision to adjust the lunch breaks
without consultations with NAACIE is arbitrary.
“It is not that we distrust any changes, but we need to discuss any
changes being made with our members first.”
A meeting was scheduled between the union and members yesterday,
but on Monday, Joseph said, the company met with staff and informed
them that they will stagger the lunch hours.

Pic: Several of the striking workers assembled in front of the Lombard
Street office yesterday.


While NAACIE said that the company has not informed them of the reason
for the decision to stagger the hours, the union is of the opinion that
it is a cost-cutting measure, and employees who had previously worked
through lunch and were paid an allowance would no longer be benefiting,
since there would be a continuous flow of work.
However, the official argued, the company cannot do that, since it may
be in violation of the labour agreement and the law.
According to Joseph, in this respect it may be that the current
agreement is in breach of the Labor Act, since workers are entitled to
75 minutes lunch break.
While Toolsie Persaud is willing to adjust this time from 60 minutes
to 75 minutes, the company still insists on staggering the lunch hours.
If the company insists on implementing its plan to stagger the lunch
hour, NAACIE said, it is not ruling out extending the industrial action
to the Providence location of Toolsie Persaud.
Meanwhile, NAACIE said that it is viewing as discrimination a decision
to immediately transfer the union’s representative at the hardware
section to the Providence location. A letter was issued to the
representative two days ago.
“This is victimization,” Joseph declared. “We cannot allow this. We
are asking them to withdraw the letter and then we will talk about
anything else.”
Yesterday, management of Toolsie Persaud met with the union and asked
that workers return to work while the matter was being discussed.
Workers, however, refuse until the company decides to scrap the
decision to stagger the lunch hours.
Company officials declined to speak on the issue yesterday when
contacted.

Barama makes donation to UG

Barama makes donation to UG
Kaieteur News, 5 February 2008

As the university gears up to host its annual ‘Open Career Day 2008,’
assistance from major entities is already being given.
Yesterday, Chief Executive Officer of Barama Company Limited, Peter
Ho, made a donation of some one hundred and fifteen ply boards to the
tertiary institution.
The ply boards will be utilized for the construction of display booths
for the upcoming Open Career Day, which is slated for February 15 at
the University’s Turkeyen campus. Ho, upon handing over the items, said
he was delighted to be a part of such an initiative, and plans to make
future contributions to the university whenever the need arises.
Deputy Vice Chancellor of the university, Tota Mangar, in his
response, thanked the company for what he described as a timely
donation. Mr. Mangar said he is looking forward to other such
initiatives.
The materials donated were valued at some $115,000.
Meanwhile the university’s career day will be held next week Friday
under the theme “Partnering to enhance the delivery of education”.
According to the university’s public relations officer, Ms. Paulette
Paul, the career day will open with a brief ceremony at 10:30hrs. To
date, some thirty private and public sector organizations have
confirmed their participation in this year’s event.
According to Ms. Paul, partnering with the various organizations will
provide an excellent opportunity to link the university’s programmes
with available jobs. She added that the partnership will also expose
current prospective students to job opportunities and careers within
their fields of study.
Ms. Paul further reiterated that there is also the added advantage of
enabling the employers and potential employees to bridge the labour
market information gap by providing a better understanding of each
other’s expectations.

Over 14% of Guyana now titled Amerindian land

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56538214


Over 14% of Guyana now titled Amerindian land
Stabroek News, Saturday, February 2nd 2008

Amerindian communities, numbering about 92, now control 14 per cent of
the country's landmass after additional land titles were recently
approved by Cabinet.

The communities of Rupanau; Katoka and Parikwarunawa, all in Region
Nine were granted land titles, while the Massara and Yakarinta
communities, also in Region Nine, received extension of titled lands,
Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon said on Wednesday at his weekly
press briefing.

Luncheon noted that within the last three years 22 grants have been
made to Amerindian communities conferring absolute ownership to them.

The export allowance visited

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56538308


Business Page
The export allowance visited
By Christopher Ram
Stabroek News, Sunday, February 3rd 2008


Cost and benefits

Export allowances were introduced as an incentive for companies engaged
in foreign exchange earnings, and looking at the countries where they
are still available several years after their introduction, there must
be some doubt as to whether they have achieved their objective. When
the allowances were introduced in Guyana in 1988, the country was in
desperate financial straights, the black market for foreign exchange
was thriving and America Street was the dominant non-bank foreign
exchange market. Things have changed substantially since then with the
introduction of the Economic Recovery Programme by Hoyte and its
faithful continuation by the PPP/C government. In other words the
economic justification for the export allowance seems to have reduced
substantially. Whether Guyana should have abolished it earlier would
depend on those changing circumstances as well as an analysis of its
contribution, its benefits and its costs.

Tax data in Guyana at sectoral or geographical levels are impossible to
come by which would make tax policy formulation difficult indeed.

Who are the beneficiaries and to what extent does the economy benefit
from the tax foregone? Such information simply is not publicly
available, but from the legislation the furniture sector would surely
be among the beneficiaries in respect of non-regional sales.

The direct cost of the allowance is the tax foregone against which we
should consider whether the incentive was the real cause of the
investment and whether efficient companies would not find it attractive
to invest in, for example, value-added processing of what many consider
to be among the best wood in the world, without both tax holidays and
export allowances. What would be the justification for similar
exemptions for shrimps and minerals (other than gold, diamonds and
bauxite) which are in international demand, when the law already allows
tax holidays of up to ten years, carry-forward of losses till eternity,
initial allowances of up to 40% on qualifying plant and machinery as
well as annual tax allowances? Anything more than those suggests that
the beneficiary business is a state-financed venture in disguise.

In other words, other than for the beggar-thy-neighbour policies on tax
incentives pursued mainly by developing countries, there may have been
little justification for the generous concessions in the first place,
concessions which detracted from the broader issue of generally high
rates of tax. Instead of fixing the whole tax system we consolidated
the high tax rates for some in order to give relief to others - a story
replicated in so many other sectors of the economy.

Incentive rewards evasion

There are two other consequences of the allowance that are worthy of
mention. The first is that it not only discourages sales to the
domestic market which may not only have the same needs as the overseas
market but helps to cover some of the fixed costs, therefore making the
company's export prices more competitive - a different issue from
dumping.

The second in some ways stems from the first, but is also inherent in
the system. Even where such a company serves the domestic market it has
an incentive to 'duck' those sales by not bringing them into the books,
thereby evading the tax which would have otherwise been payable.

Loss of respect

Guyana needs to encourage all its earners - workers as well as
entrepreneurs. It can do so by enlightened policies that do not
discriminate against those who can least afford it and in favour of
those who can. As long ago as 1993, I presented a paper entitled 'Tax
Reform - A Vehicle for Economic Recovery,' in which I pointed out the
unjustness of the tax system and that we were ignoring the experiences
of other countries in a blind pursuit of attracting businesses at any
cost.

Just incidentally that paper was quoted extensively but selectively in
the parliamentary debate on the VAT legislation. Not that we should
underestimate the contribution of businesses in general or exporters in
particular. But in relation to the export allowance, the example of
Trinidad and Tobago would be useful more than just for the fact that
their manufacturing has taken off since its abolition, which may only
be part coincidence and part lower energy costs.

Accompanying the removal of the export allowance, that country
introduced lower rates of income and corporate taxes and very directly
granted 150% allowance for expenses incurred in export promotion. We
should encourage exports but let us do so within good logic, fairness
and international treaty obligations.

This particular column arose out of discussions on the private sector,
its independence and willingness to look the government in the eye. If
our entrepreneurs are unable to compete internationally without undue
reliance on government and subsidies in areas where we have natural
advantages such as rum, forestry and wood products, then their claim to
being world class will be no more than empty boasts.

An attempt to mislead the public by distorting the real facts

An attempt to mislead the public by distorting the real facts
Guyana Chronicle, 31 January 2008
THE Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) notes with concern, a letter by
Anthony Lim that has been published on pages 4 and 5 of the Saturday
26th January 2008 edition of Kaieteur News and captioned “The Guyana
Forestry Commission is crippling the forestry sector”.

This letter appears one week after a press briefing on Forestry by the
Hon. Minister of Agriculture ( 19-1-2008 ) to review the performance of
the sector in 2007 and outline priority activities for 2008. This event
was publicized extensively in both the print and electronic media.

In his briefing, the Hon. Minister emphasized the fact that all
operators in the sector were required to submit essential information
to the GFC by a well publicized deadline of November 30, 2007.He
further advised that compliance with this timeline would have allowed
the GFC to conduct the necessary field inspection and verification
exercises, and operators who satisfied that review process would have
been approved to commence business activities from January 2, 2008.

The Minister then informed that in excess of 90 % of the operators did
not meet that deadline, with the result that inspection and
verification activities are still ongoing for those who have made late
submissions. A large number of operators are still to provide the GFC
with all of the required information.

As such, the delay in giving 2008 approvals for sawmills, lumber yards
and forest concessions can in no way be attributed to the GFC.

GFC views this correspondence as an attempt to mislead the public by
distorting the real facts and discrediting the continuing strategic
actions by the Government of Guyana to promote good governance of the
Forestry sector. It is also seen as a malicious attack on the Hon.
Minister who provides excellent policy guidance and support to the
sector through his regular interactions with the Forest Products
Association (FPA), the Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association
(GMSA), other Industry groups, the GFC Board of Directors and GFC
management.

To apprise Mr Lim of the real facts, the GFC would like to make the
following direct comments on his letter:

Puruni Wood Products, and Timber Traders were only granted Timber Sales
Agreements in the latter half of 2007. Prior to that they were State
Forest Exploratory Permits, and no commercial harvesting was allowed.
These companies are now in the ongoing process of conducting 100 %
inventory of the blocks to be harvested in 2008 and onwards.

Unamco has expired and the company has made a request for renewal which
is currently being reviewed by the Government.

Jaling was suspended for some time because the Government of Guyana was
not satisfied with the overall management aspects of the company. This
has now been resolved and the company has been given approval to
re-commence operations. The company is in the process of constructing
its sawmilling and wood processing operations at Port Kaituma.

The activities of Garner Forest Industries were also put on hold
because of unclear management issues within the company. These have now
been resolved and logging activities will commence in 2008.

Baishanlin has made a request to the GFC to establish a wood processing
facility. The GFC is currently reviewing the documentation submitted,
and conducting a due diligence of the Company. After these activities
have been completed, the GFC will then make a recommendation to the
Government of Guyana.

These facts highlight that activities in the forestry sector are not
carried out in an unregulated manner; rather, the ability of companies
to carry out proposed operations are investigated, and if companies
default in some way, appropriate action including suspension or
repossession is taken.

Neither the Minister nor the GFC have any displayed any threatening or
abrasive attitude in their dealings with stakeholders. On the contrary,
the Minister and GFC have both worked with stakeholders to find
acceptable solutions that do not in any way compromise the requirements
of the GFC and other Government guidelines.

The Minister and the GFC have also reminded stakeholders that these
requirements are guidelines that are not new, but have been in
existence for several years now. They are absolutely necessary to
promote and encourage sustainable management and utilization of the
resource, as well as increase the efficiency and profitability of
stakeholder companies.

As mentioned before, the fact that most forestry operations have not
been approved for 2008 is no fault of the GFC. Companies that manage
sawmill /lumber yard operations were advised that they had to have
approvals/no objections from several agencies including the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Central and Housing Planning
Authority, the Neighbourhood Democratic Council before the GFC could
issue a licence for 2008. These operators were advised that this
documentation was essential and that it would take some time to acquire
all. However, most companies have not provided the GFC with all of the
required documentation, even though applications for renewals should
have been submitted since 2007.

With specific reference to the Timber Sales Agreements and wood Cutting
Leases (TSA’s and WCL’s), nine of these expired on December 31, 2007 .
The GFC held a meeting with these TSA and WCL’s holders on August 31,
2007 to advise them on the requirements to be fulfilled on or before
November 30, 2007 if there was to be any consideration of renewal. A
formal communication was sent to these companies on September 3, 2007
reminding them of the requirements to be satisfied. None of these nine
(9) companies met all of the requirements, and even at today’s date,
only two (2) companies have recently satisfied all of the requirements.

The GFC currently has twenty four (24) active TSA’s and WCL’s. These
companies were advised since 2006 that it was compulsory for them to
submit an Annual Operation Plan (AOP) for the next calendar year; this
AOP must include all of the proposed hundred (100) hectare blocks for
harvesting, inventoried at 100 % for all commercial species. Many
companies breached this regulation in 2007 and were penalized by the
GFC.

In September 2007, the GFC again sent notices to concessionaires
reminding them of their obligation to submit AOP’s by November 30, 2007
, inclusive of the 100 % inventory information for the blocks proposed
for harvesting in 2008. Companies were again offered technical
assistance by the GFC, based on written requests.

The facts are most revealing. Of the 24 active companies, only 17
submitted their AOP’s (70.8 %). However, only 5 companies (20.8 %)
provided partial 100 % information. Further, these 5 companies should
have submitted 100 % inventory for 302 blocks, but 100 % inventory data
was submitted for only 144 blocks. Of the 144 blocks, the inventory
information for 133 was submitted only in January, 2008.

The GFC has to do field verification of the inventory information
before it gives approval for harvesting to commence. It is therefore
unreasonable to expect the GFC to give approval for companies to begin
operations in the absence of this 100 % inventory information.

As part of his ongoing meetings with stakeholders, the Hon. Minister of
Agriculture invited the FPA to a meeting on January 8, 2008 . The
Commissioner of Forests was also in attendance. At that meeting, the
FPA members accepted that they were delinquent in their inventory
submissions, and requested additional time to submit this 100 %
inventory information. The Minister and the GFC agreed to facilitate
this request on the conditions that:

All 100 % inventory information must be submitted on or before May 31,
2008
No harvesting would occur in any block unless the 100 % inventory
information was submitted to, and approved by the GFC.

At that meeting, the FPA also made representation on behalf of the TSA
and WCL holders whose concessions had expired on December 31, 2007 and
who had not paid off all indebtedness to the GFC as per one of the
requirements for consideration of renewal.

The Minister and the GFC clarified again, that whilst concessionaires
had previously agreed on repayment plans with the GFC, these were
constantly being breached, and they were now null and void, as
indicated to all at the August 31, 2007 meeting, and by formal
communication of September 3, 2007 .

The FPA agreed to write on behalf of the delinquent companies,
requesting a very short term time period to liquidate all outstanding
amounts. Unfortunately, the GFC was in receipt of a letter from the FPA
the same week, indicating that they had obtained legal advice that
previous repayment plans with the GFC were binding.

The above facts clearly show that the GFC is in no way culpable for the
lateness of renewals and for the inactivity in the forestry sector
during January 2008. Rather, it is tardiness and complacency on the
part of some of the operators who chose not to submit their required
documentation by the specified time. The GFC in the interest of the
sector commits itself to processing the documentation as soon as it is
received. The GFC, however, in keeping with its motto of “Ensuring
Sustainable Forestry”, must ensure that it applies all of its
procedures in a consistent, transparent and credible manner. It must be
stressed too, that these are not new rules being imposed overnight on
the sector; these guidelines were developed in a consultative manner
with all stakeholders several years ago. The GFC has spent considerable
time and resources to publicize these guidelines, and also train
stakeholders on how to interpret and implement same. Constant reminders
were sent out in 2007, in addition to the outreach meetings. To state
then that “The GFC is busy trying to implement new rules and
regulations for forestry operators to comply with, utilizing the big
stick method of threats and intimidation fully aided by the Minister”
is a most uninformed and ridiculous position.

In closing, the attack on the competence of the GFC staff is both
unfortunate and infantile. GFC staff has not only been recognized at
the local and regional levels for their competence and ability, but
also at the International level. The remarkable strides made in the
forestry sector over the past decade, as well as the f

act that Guyanese forest produce has almost unrestricted access to the
very demanding international markets is testimony to the high esteem in
which the forestry practices and the GFC is held.
JAMES SINGH
Commissioner of Forests