Vested Interests

Kaieteur News, Saturday, 27 January 2007


Are powerful vested interests operating in the forestry sector?

Dear Editor,

I have read, with interest, recent letters to SN (on the 18th January
2007) relating to Barama - “Guyana's forestry resources are being
plundered for little gain”, “Barama's certificate for ‘good
forestry'
suspended,” and finally, “Barama introduced modern techniques of
forestry management to the declining forest industry in Guyana”.

I would like to offer an international perspective, responding in
particular to some of the inaccuracies and contradictions in that final
letter by Trevor Atkinson.

Firstly, it is frankly incredulous that Mr. Atkinson can suggest that
Barama has helped to develop ‘modern techniques of ...personal
development...and community relations'. He goes on to say that
‘Barama's contributions to Port Kaituma and surrounding Amerindian
communities, as part of its corporate responsibility, are outstanding and impressive'.

Brave statements, but perhaps a little premature in view of the
suspension of Barama's FSC certification! Corrective actions have been
published that confirm that Barama is not in compliance with FSC
Principle 4 on the basic health and safety requirements, and
accommodation for workers in the camps, their training, etc.

My own observations in the not too distant past were of shockingly
different treatment of national and foreign workers.

Why does Barama still attempt to justify the importation of foreign
workers to do ‘skilled jobs' when it could have trained local staff
over the 14 years in which it has been operating?

Why is Barama accused at the SGS stake holder meeting of preventing
local people from harvesting Kufa and Nibi vines, upon which they rely
for their livelihoods? Why, at that same meeting, are questions raised
about Barama still having harvesting contracts with SFP operators (e.g.
Barakat Timbers)?

Such SFPs are under little pressure to abide by FSC principles on
workers' health and safety. Subcontracting, if confirmed, would be in
breach of national legislation.

Why does Barama stand accused of deliberate subcontracting of Interior
Wood Products Incorporated (IWPI) to operate with impunity in the
Akawini Indigenous community area, about which there are reports of
serious Indigenous concerns?

Hardly the stuff of exemplary personal development and community
relations, or outstanding and impressive contributions!

We will soon know the truth when the reports of the SGS audit and the
FSC annual surveillance of SGS are made public.

Secondly, Mr. Atkinson makes light of Barama failing to pay taxes. Yet,
I cannot think of another equivalent example of so large a proportion
of a country's national territory being ceded to an expatriate company
with so little return to the national purse. Is it not legitimate for
the Guyanese citizen to object when his or her forest wealth is shipped
overseas to line foreign pockets without even the recompense of tax
revenues to be reinvested in the sector?

Is it not fair that Guyanese citizens at the SGS stakeholders' meeting
should question the GFC Report to its board of directors in March 2006
- stating that the Barama Company was negotiating directly with
Guyana's President, requesting to be exempted from payment of the 2%
commission on logs harvested outside its direct concession?

A report by the Guyana Forestry Commission itself pointed to the
absurdity of the situation in which small and medium enterprises
(mostly Guyanese owned) have access to

only 25% of the production forest, but employ 50% of the forestry
sector workforce, and contribute 75% of the government revenues. Such
reports certainly cannot be dismissed as ‘outdated and irrelevant
information,' as is Mr. Atkinson's practice. For further details, see:

http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/9540IIED.pdf

http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied/docs/flu/SME_pubs/Guyana SME.pdf

Thirdly, Mr. Atkinson, by implication, made much of the technology
injection that the Barama investment offers'. Why then is this view not
shared by the International Tropical Timber Organisation, who stated in
a 2003 report: “The use currently being made of Guyana 's extensive,
diverse, and complex forest resource is not satisfying many, if any, of
the stakeholders”?

A more recent analysis of the sector suggests that a more appropriate
response to Guyana 's low densities of desirable timber would be
through the much more modern and mobile sawmilling practices being
introduced by a number of small and medium firms. These allow much
higher recovery rates in volume and grade.

Innovative new practices take the means of timber conversion close to
the tree, where they can cut for grade, and so reduce transport costs
and sawmilling inefficiencies in one stroke. These new technologies
make more efficient use of each tree, and can therefore be run
efficiently on smaller concession sizes. What is more, they are more
affordable by Guyanese citizens, not relying on huge foreign
investments. Is it not legitimate for the Guyanese citizen to object
when huge chunks of territory are ceded to foreign control while
national operators are starved of forest land which they could use more
efficiently, and which could contribute to local, not foreign, wealth?
For further information see:

http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/13523IIED.pdf

It is, of course, commendable that Barama has sought to move towards
better forest management by attempting (and currently failing) to
comply with FSC standards. But much bigger political issues are at
stake here. Why should a foreign company be allowed to manage such a
large portion of the national production forest with so few national
benefits? Why is the government siding with a foreign company in
failing to collect the same taxes that are

imposed on Guyanese nationals? Why have international auditors seemed
so tardy to respond to many different concerns by Guyanese citizens?
Why does WWF dismiss as ‘minor deficiencies' and Mr. Atkinson dismiss
as ‘personal axe grinding' what to many Guyanese citizens seem such
major concerns?

As an outsider, I would hazard a guess that powerful vested interests
are cheating the average citizens of their national wealth - whatever
Mr. Atkinson thinks.

Duncan Macqueen

Senior Researcher in Responsible Forest Business

International Institute of Environment and Development