PPP double standards re Barama

The PPP condemned the Barama deal when in opposition but expanded their concessions when in government
Monday, January 29th 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 consumer's attitude 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.

The market place or 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 conform to certain new industry standards. Hence international companies try to get and maintain FSC certification.

SGS (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 5 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 Barama's 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 tenure-ship over the concession area, and a legal investment contract with the Government of Guyana. This was confirmed with both the Prime Minister H.E. Samuel E. Hinds as well 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?

Mr. James Singh in a letter captioned "The figure quoted as being earned by the country from forestry investors does not take into account the employment provided and other important spin-off activities", 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 more in favour of the Barama Company Ltd by the GFC and the PPP Govt. Is this not making a bad deal worse?

Mr. Mohamed Yusuf in his letter captioned "Bad investment deals are still made" (07.01.11) 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. To-day's 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 12th, 2006 in which the writer calculated that in effect, Barama controlled 1/3 of the State's forest.

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 Govt.; 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.

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: Surpris-ingly, here we see that His Excellency, Prime Minister Mr. Samuel Hinds is in effect saying if the Stakeholder has problems, he/she should go 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?

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 regards 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?

The People of Guyana are still waiting to see the much vaunted rewards of forestry harvesting trickle down. How long can they hold on waiting for the crumbs from their masters' tables (foreign and local)?

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

Yours faithfully,

Seelochan Beharry
http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article_letters?id=56512853