Guyana and the wider world (Part 5)

Extracted From :
http://guyanaforestry.blogspot.com/2007/03/guyana-and-wider-world-part-5.html


Guyana and the wider world (Part 5)
By Janette Bulkan
Stabroek News
Sunday, March 4th 2007

Today's column continues the discussion of the relation of interior/forestry roads to development within the context of the third cause singled out by the PRSP as contributory to endemic poverty: the absence of non-complementing growth-oriented infrastructure (PRSP 2001, p. 7). This analysis is undertaken in the context of the question: Why is there persistent poverty in the interior alongside the parcelling out of Guyana's best endowed forests in large-scale forestry concessions?

In November 2006, the General Secretary of the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA) addressed the issue of the blocking of timber roads to free passage. "Enquiries, Shields told the miners, revealed there was no such thing as a private road. No one can stop
another from using a road. However there is a road protocol, which says that if one is maintaining a road that person would have some authority but blocking of roads with trucks 'must be made a thing of the past'"(Stabroek News, November 11, 2006). Some logging companies charge a toll for the right of passage on a road through their concession; for
example, Guyana Sawmills Limited, charges between G$5,000 and G$10,000 to vehicles on the Itaballi Trail. Permissions are also given in the Public Lands (Private Roads) Act Cap 62:03 - Article 3 (1) permission to construct; Art 3 (2) possible public compensation for that
construction/maintenance; Art 5(1) power to levy a toll set by the minister; Art 6, grantee of a permission deemed to be owner and hence can control vehicular but not pedestrian access.

Section 6 of the act addresses the issue of trespass on roads and provides that the grantee of a permission under the act is deemed to be the owner of the land occupied by the road only for the purposes of any law dealing with wilful trespass on lands. Thus there is no 'ownership'
in an absolute sense but only for the limited purpose of wilful trespass which has a special meaning in law. The grantee of the permission is only deemed to be the owner if someone wilfully trespasses on the said land. Wilful trespass in this sense means activities such as entering and cutting or destroying any wood, or by digging or carrying away, etc. without the permission of the owner… basically any entering on the land by anyone with the intent to injure or destroy. It would seem therefore that if wilful trespass cannot be proven, then no one can claim 'ownership' or to be deemed an owner. It would seem therefore that once passage is innocent and the contrary is not proved, then the grantee cannot block the road if the toll is paid
(in relation to vehicles).

In Region 1, small-scale Guyanese loggers and millers express regret at the failure to link roads built by private concessionaires and public roads. In Region 10, large-scale concessionaires have had public roads closed indefinitely and caused fines to be levied against small-scale loggers who have tried to use those public roads to access their concessions. It is unclear to the loggers that the regulatory agency has any power under law to close public roads or to impose penalties.
Also in Region 10, it is unclear which government agency has approved a road network now being built through logging concessions from the Corentyne River to the Berbice River.

Another telling indicator, related by any number of Guyanese drivers in the interior, is the hooliganism displayed by Asian truck drivers towards other road users. Their unspoken attitude is: 'We built this road; you get off'; 'My truck is larger than your puny vehicle, look out.'

The absence of effective road regulation arguably hurts local communities much more than peripatetic miners. A significant number of households in the Upper Pomeroon River (from Jacklow to Karawab) depend on harvesting or processing nibbi and kufa, tree-growing vines used in manufacture of 'cane' furniture. Yet local people are prevented from travelling along timber roads in order to carry out their traditional harvesting. The GFC code of practice for timber harvesting (second edition, November 2002, section 2.2 forest use zoning, page 7) says
that "Consultation with local stakeholders during the planning process is required to identify whether and where certain tree species are in demand for their use as NTFP-producers (non-timber forest products). Species to consider are… Similarly, consultation should take place in
relation to harvesting of Kufa and Nibi. The Code of Practice for Kufa and Nibi Harvesting [a separate GFC document] sets standards on the felling of host trees and sharing of information on the planned coupe six months in advance to allow harvesting of these NTFPs before logging." The expatriate forest workers destroy all the nibi and kufa in their path while Pomeroon nibi and kufa harvesters have had to re-locate to less productive forests along the Linden to Kurupukari Road.

I shall end with a quotation from the NDS which is still applicable: "Although the RAD has the responsibility for road maintenance and rehabilitation… it is unable to discharge this mandate due to institutional incapacity. One way to overcome this disadvantage is to work closely with other institutions …In the interior and hinterland areas, it could work with the GGMC, GFC, PFA, GGDMA, and Amerindian councils to achieve the same objectives. Collaborating with other institutions should be a policy consideration for the RAD in its current and future road planning and development programmes" (NDS, chapter 38).