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)
No comments:
Post a Comment