FSC certification

FSC certification and subsequent FSC

decertification processes raise questions
Kaieteur News, 29 January 2007

Dear Editor,

Generally, today's world no longer supports, or wants to be seen
supporting, the old destructive forestry practices (to the environment
and to the forestry peoples, animals, plants, etc).

This change of consumers' attitudes has been brought about largely
because of the work of various environmental and cultural survival
groups (local and international), modern science, better business
practices, and common sense, etc.

The market places of consumers (e.g. North America and Europe ) are
demanding that the forestry products (‘green products') comply with
environmentally friendly and sustainable practices. Hence, sensible and
adaptive forestry businesses that want access to these more lucrative
but informed consumers must confirm to certain new industry standards.
Hence international companies try to get and maintain FSC
certification.

SGS is an independent Swedish company that certifies compliance with
the principles of the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC). SGS did an
audit (Feb, 28th 2005 - March 4th and Aug 29th – Sept 3rd, 2005) and
granted the Barama Company Ltd temporary FSC certification (17th Feb,
2006 to 16th Feb.2011. It is usually valid for five years.) Certain
recommendations (Corrected Action Requested (CAR)) were made, that were
to be implemented in a limited time frame. The validity of this FSC
certification was questioned by certain groups. The full report (60
pages) can be found online at:
(http://www.sgs.com/9205-gy_-_barama_ma2005-10_-_ad36a-03_gm.pdf) found
referenced on a WRM bulletin:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/105/Guyana.html.

This report has some interesting points (page 57): One stakeholder
questioned - (1) The legality of the Barama contract with the
Government of Guyana “…it was a deal with an official who probably
didn't have the legal right to grant the concession at all, because it
was during the hiatus between the dictatorship and the democratic
government taking charge.” The SGS Investigators were told: “Barama
Company Ltd has a legal contract of tenureship over the concession
area, and a legal investment contract with the Government of Guyana.

This was confirmed with both the Prime Minister, Samuel E. Hinds, and
the Commissioner of Forests, James Singh, personally in a meeting with
the SGS team on 2nd September, 2005.”

My Commentary: The PPP (in opposition) was saying that the deal was
illegal, and rightly condemned it. Now, we have His Excellency, Prime
Minister Mr. Sam Hinds, saying that the deal was legal. Does this view
reflect legal advice and/or the judgment of a court? I am not aware
that the PPP Govt. contested the legality of this matter in any court
(local and foreign) and lost.

Where, or by whom, was that decision rendered both legal and binding on
the Guyanese Govt.? If the legality of the deal was not contested, then
what changed? Do we have to live with this immoral and obscene deal for
another three further decades? Would His Excellency Mr. Samuel Hinds
please explain?

Mr. James Singh, in a letter (SN, Nov 17 th, 2006), said that they had
no choice but to accept the Barama deal which was inherited from the
PNC Govt. Mr. Singh therefore implied that the deal was bad, but it was
what they inherited. If this is true then it is more puzzling why the
Barama concessions were increased and the deal was re-negotiated even
moreso in favour of the Barama Company Ltd by the GFC and the PPP Govt.
Is this not making a bad deal worse? Is this not rewarding those who
practice unfavourable business practices in Guyana ?

Mr. Mohamed Yusuf (SN, Jan 11 th 2007 - Bad investment deals are still
made.) was kind enough to point this out to the public and me (“Mr.
Beharry would recall that the PPP re-negotiated investment deals
inherited from the PNC. It is under the PPP Government that Barama was
given more Forestry concessions).

Today, Barama owns more than one tenth of Guyana 's soil…”). Mr. M.
Yusuf's statement is substantiated by the dire warning of a letter
writer in SN, March 12 th, 2006 in which the writer calculated that, in
effect, Barama controlled 1/3 of the State's forest. This raises
questions of what really transpired outside the public view.

Have our Govts. (PNC and PPP) created a state within the State of
Guyana? Would the Commissioner of Forestry (GFC) please enlighten us?

The PPP had rightly condemned the secret deals. However, on gaining
political office, it emulated its nemesis. Why were/are these deals
still being conducted in secret, without public scrutiny and/or input?
State property was not the personal possession of the then unelected
PNC Government. nor is it now the personal property of the elected PPP
Govt. It is to be managed in the best interests of the state and people
of Guyana .

In that same report (page 57), we are told that: “Barama has paid
US$147,000 as royalties for logs harvested in year 2004. In 2005, the
estimated royalty payment is about US$330, 000.” On page 58, we read:
“On 2 September 2005, SGS met with His Excellency the Guyana Prime
Minister and questioned him about the tax concessions (given to
Barama). He stated emphatically that this was the responsibility of the
GRA. The stakeholder needs to address this issue with the GRA. The SGS
cannot intervene further in this issue, for it is a decision taken by
the Guyanese Government, and not in conflict with the FSC P&C. The same
applies to the export tax.”

My Commentary: Surprisingly, here we see that His Excellency, Prime
Minister Mr. Samuel Hinds, is in effect saying that if the stakeholder
has problems, he/she should go to the GRA. The team from SGS apparently
rightly concluded that if the Govt. of Guyana does not care about
revenue collection, then why should the SGS?

Why was the GRA not asked by the PPP Govt. to look into the situation
at Barama? This suggests that no one is auditing the accounts at Barama
and that only Forestry practices are probably being minimally monitored
by the FSC.

It seems strange that the biggest forestry company in Guyana has no
financial monitoring by the GRA, or that the GRA has not been directed
to do so. Why? (Most Western Democratic Govts. release their best blood
hounds after possible revenues for the Govt's coffers.)

Perhaps someone in Govt. will be kind enough to explain to us the
intricacies of the situation. I have the utmost personal respect for
His Excellency, Prime Minister, Mr. Samuel Hinds, therefore I am asking
him to please clarify the situation with regard to his statements. Or,
would someone from the President's Office please address this issue?

What is striking is that the PNC opposition also has been silent on
this forestry issue. Why? Is it because some of the generous
concessions were also granted to PNC officials and former PNC Govt.
ministers? Is it that these operations know that it is only a matter of
time before the spotlight shines on their own questionable deals and
practices? The forestry workers at Barama are represented by the GLU,
with Mr. Robert Corbin as Honorary Head. Yet even their plight is not
raised in Parliament. Why?

The People of Guyana are still waiting to see the much vaunted rewards
of forestry harvesting trickle down to their outstretched begging
bowls. How long can they hold on, waiting for the crumbs from their
masters' tables (foreign and local)? Where are the profits? Who are
profiting from this plunder?

Where are the people who were elected to serve Guyana and the interests
of the people?

International aid agencies or donors of gifts (Govts.- e.g. Britain,
Brazil, Canada, China, Cuba, India, Germany, Holland, Japan, USA,
Venezuela, etc. or other agencies –UN) and private individuals (
Non-Guyanese and Guyanese (e.g. especially those in Canada (Toronto),
USA (New York, Florida,) and Britain (London), Trinidad, Barbados,
etc.)) should please ask His Excellency President B. Jagdeo (Honorary
Chair of the IDB):

Why does the PPP Govt. allow a foreign company to harvest Guyana 's
forests without any serious revenue contribution to the state's
treasury? What will you say, Your Excellency? Why does the President
seem content to visit other places with his begging bowl when Guyana is
a resource-rich country? Who respects beggars?

Why is His Excellency not collecting revenues from the exploitation of
the state resources to: feed his underfed populace; properly educate
his undereducated young people; fund his underfinanced heath-care and
social programmes; build sports and cultural facilities; repair his
dilapidated infrastructure; pay livable wages to his underpaid
teachers, civil servants, police, judiciary, and army; fund his
understaffed environmental programmes; and properly fund his scientific
research institutions, Universities, colleges, etc?

Why must the children suffer? Would His Excellency, President Mr. B.
Jagdeo, and the PPP Govt. please tell us why?

Seelochan Beharry