The exploits of Barama in Guyana

Kaieteur News,
26 February 2007

The exploits of the Barama Company Limited in Guyana

Dear Editor,

We have seen that, despite all the extremely generous benefits, tax/duty exemptions, concessions, political connections, winning of awards, etc., the Barama Company Limited (parent company, Samling Group) has claimed that no profit has been made in its 15 years of
operation in Guyana, and that Barama is therefore exempt from the payment of any income taxes whatsoever in Guyana.

Whereas, the local companies, without all the generous deals, are paying their income taxes, and giving better wages to their workers.

This essay shows that the above mentioned giveaways are not all, and that Barama is also fleecing the already impoverished and depleted Guyanese treasury, and in so doing is adding to the financial burden of the already overburdened people of Guyana .

Both Barama and the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) claimed that Barama is good for Guyana , since it provides jobs and infrastructure in hard-pressed communities in the interior of Guyana . But these arguments would crumble under close examination.

The Guyanese workers are in the lower/lowest tier of the income brackets at Barama. Their average wage is approximately G$26,000 (or US$125.00 per month).

Recently, Dr Ashni Singh, the new Finance Minister, decided that G$28,000 is the highest cut-off point, above which a person will pay income taxes. That indicates that wages below G$28,000 are below the poverty line by Government of Guyana's own economic standard. Barama's workers' wages qualify them for the poverty lines, and therefore they are not eligible to pay income taxes. It seems bizarre that a big foreign company would be allowed to pay (full-time) workers below the livable wage guidelines, even by Guyana 's low standard! (This, it must
be remembered, is a profession that is internationally known for having a high amount of accidents, injuries, and fatalities.)

Since the wages are so low that these fully employed Guyanese forestry workers cannot pay income taxes, it means that these employed workers cannot contribute to the national treasury to pay for ‘things' like defence, police, healthcare, education, infrastructure, pension,
Government and social services, etc.

These citizens (unlike others) therefore cannot fulfil their required financial obligations to the State of Guyana. In this light, other workers in the country are subsidising these forestry workers (through no fault of their own). This, therefore, amounts to an indirect subsidy
to Barama.

We can also infer that: (1) The seriously injured (or disabled) workers would have to be supported by the state, and as a result, are making their families dependent on the state. (2) The families of those unfortunate fatalities would also become dependent on the state. The
state shoulders the responsibilities, even though it has received no financial input whatsoever from Barama.

The much vaunted economic benefits to these workers have not been realised, since they are now a captive ‘reserve' labour pool for the even worse Barama subsistence wages. They now even have to get Barama's permission to harvest vines - used to make cane-like furniture on land that was once theirs.

In addition, if Barama's foreign workers do not pay local income taxes and receive the Guyana 's Government services (as the local citizens), then these foreign workers are also being subsidized by the Guyanese workers. (It is almost as if Barama and its foreign workers have diplomatic immunity status in not being subject to the local taxation laws of Guyana .)

At present, Barama's operation does not include any proper protocols or even attempts for reforestation (Also pointed out in ‘Stop the exportation,' Mr Edwards Clarke, Kaieteur News, 14th Feb, 2007); these are regarded as the normal standard in modern forestry practices.

We know that there are no nurseries anywhere (in Guyana ) to grow seedlings of the commercially harvested and much desired species of trees. The biology and ecology, etc., of these trees are also not being studied. There is no relevant research work in these areas being done at UG and/or NARI. So the company's operation is just a matter of how fast and how best (for Barama) these trees can be removed from Guyana . Both Barama and the GFC have no reforestation plans in place. The GFC is not implementing or policing reforestation – it does not seem to be a top priority or concern.

That means that the Guyanese people (already the overburdened and impoverished taxpayers) will be paying the bills for the research, nurseries, replanting, maintenance, reforestation, restoration, and environmental clean-ups, etc. that will have to happen sooner or later.

Any respectable, modern forestry company would proudly ‘showcase' its entire operation to the world in its quest for the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. Barama has only sought FSC certification for two sectors (4 and 5) of its vast concessions, where it is currently harvesting. What happened to its previously held harvested areas? These already exploited and damaged areas were not harvested properly, and were not factored in the SGS review. The ‘environmental and ecological mess' left behind after 14 years of improper exploitation of all these sectors will also have to be paid for by Guyanese taxpayers.

The exploitation message is clear - Guyana pays for the reclamation, after Barama harvests the timber.

It also seems rather like a ‘con-game' that the entire forestry operation of Barama should not be considered in the FSC certification. Secondly, it also seems peculiar that the whole operational history of the company would also not be considered. FSC certification is good for any forestry company (local/international) operating in Guyana .

But the FSC Certification must not be obtained on false or questionable circumstances. It is just a matter of time before the international community finds out that they have been deceived. The image of the country and all companies in Guyana will be tarnished.

This would affect other sectors of the forestry industry, such as the now developing eco-tourism industry, and Non Timber Forestry Products (NTFPs).

It can also affect other non-related industries and the whole economy of Guyana . The prices to pay for deception and/or such attempts at improprieties are not worth it.

Canada has learned the hard way that the international community can strike hard. In the clear cutting harvesting of old growth forests in a particular pristine forest area in British Columbia (BC), the International Community rallied, and yearly bountiful tourists cancelled coming to BC. Both BC and Canadian products were boycotted.

There was also bad international press with the killing of baby seal pups in Newfoundland . What would happen if Europe, Britain , Canada , and USA , etc., decide to boycott Guyana and Guyanese goods (sugar, rice, sea-foods, vegetables, fruits, ground provisions, etc), or a tariff is imposed on Guyanese goods? The overseas governments' aid, grants, loans, etc., to the Government of Guyana can easily be blocked.

Today, the environmentalist lobby is even more very powerful. We should earn our FSC certification the right way and not even attempt, or seen to be attempting, to deceive the international community.

Barama, the big multinational company, even took charitable handouts from the philanthropic WWF to help pay for its FSC certification, as reported by SN (Tuesday, March 1st, 2005 in BCL close to harvesting international forest certificate, See also Jan 10th, 2005) : “The WWF
(World Wildlife Fund, Guianas) has disbursed about US$160,000 to BCL and about US$25,000 to Variety Woods Limited to push for FSC certification.” Supporters of WWF should at least demand a refund.

The crass and crude exploitation of Guyanese hospitality/resources/vulnerabilities by anyone (local or foreign) is no longer acceptable. Why do we continue to allow ourselves to be so
degraded, humiliated, and exploited in the eyes of the whole world? Canada , with its vast land masses, now realises that the forests are not infinite, and has acted to conserve its natural resources heritage. Guyana is a very small country and should manage all its natural resources wisely for the benefit of its own people, today and tomorrow.

The question is: what are the Guyanese people going to do about this state of affairs? These questions must be raised in the homes, schools, work places, colleges, universities, rum shops, etc, and Parliament.

We must re-examine all these giveaways now and take corrective actions, or else future generations will think that we were the stupidest and/or the most irresponsible generation in the nation's history.

What will they say of us? We must remember that our silence or failure to act will also speak volumes of this generation and its leadership. Who will stand up for Guyana ?

Our hope lies in our young people to take on all those who dare to abuse us. We must ensure that we are the masters in our own house - our house, our rules.

Seelochan Beharry