Guyana's timber now gaining recognition

Some of Guyana's timber is now gaining international recognition
Saturday, December 30th 2006
Stabroek News

Dear Editor,

I write in response to Mr Mahadeo Kowlessar's letter captioned "The GFC and the Guyana Revenue Authority need to tackle the prima facie case of the falsification of the export records for logs" (06.12.25). I would like to congratulate Mr Kowlessar for acknowledging to the 'vigilant' public that he indeed used one of the highest valued species in the timber market with which to compare Guyana's species. This very important point was conveniently left out of his earlier "analyses" of forest sector issues, one of which dealt with transfer pricing. Mr Kowlessar needs to be extremely careful in utilizing information from the ITTO timber trade report as analyses of these complex issues, may very well be misrepresented by his simplistic interpretation.

Mr. Kowlessar is clearly not au fait with the mechanical and technical properties of Guyana's timbers. He as-sumes that the species quoted in my previous letter published in the Guyana Chronicle on December 21, cannot be compared with Guyana's species. This is simply not the case. Also, Mr. Kowlessar and readers need to be cognizant that Guyana is not yet as well established in the timber market as he would lead us to believe. In actuality, Guyana's timbers are now gaining international recognition and as such, now gaining market share. Prices are therefore, now beginning to be competitive. Species such as Merbau have been on the markets for a significantly longer time than Guyana's species and as such have established market share. A discussion with any forest producer in Guyana will endorse this point. Please do not forget that Guyana is still in the process of developing the full potential of these species, both from a marketing perspective and from a technical perspective. The recently established Forest Products Marketing Council is testimony to this. Some countries have had such councils established for decades to assist them to build market share for their timber species. Mr Kowlessar continues to address these complex issues from a simplistic perspective. This only serves to mislead the public and cause confusion.

In addition, Mr Kowlessar was quick to criticize the quoted timber exporting countries. Please note that these producing countries are some of the largest tropical timber exporting countries in the world. Why not quote these countries? If we are considering this macro issue from a macro perspective then we must examine these countries.

Mr Kowlessar has now extended his criticism to countries such as Malaysia, Gabon, Ghana, Papua New Guinea and Myanmar stating that three of these are notorious for transfer pricing. The Governments of these countries would be happy to have this "very useful information" from Mr Mahadeo Kowlessar. He may even be able to assist them in their economic analyses with re-gards to transfer pricing.

Mr Kowlessar can continue to delude himself but it is my hope that the nation at large is vigilant enough to recognize the mischief makers amongst us who attempt to use the power of the media to wield non-factual information and sheer assumptions. I hereby reiterate that I stand firmly by my analyses of transfer pricing especially in light of the lack of any convincing evidence (inclusive of Mr. Kowlessar's attempt), in this area.

Yours faithfully,

Samantha Griffith

Gaining recognition becuase other sources are becoming depleted?