Guyana Forestry Commission Bill passed

http://www.guyanachronicle.com/topstory.html#Anchor-Present%20a-45001

Guyana Forestry Commission Bill passed
By Chamanlall Naipaul
Guyana Chronicle, 27 July 2007

The Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) Bill was passed in the National
Assembly yesterday, after going through its second and third readings.
But it came under heavy fire from the opposition who charged that its
provisions entrust too much control in the hands of the minister.

There were also two amendments with respect to Article 16 of the bill.

Agriculture Minister Robert Persaud, who piloted the bill, said it
seeks to revise the GFC Act of 1979 to create a dynamic, appropriate
and modern act that will enable the GFC to better execute its mandate
of promoting sustainable forestry management for social, environmental,
and economic benefits to all stakeholders.

“The new bill will provide an enabling environment for the GFC to
better perform its functions. The GFC will be given an enhanced ability
to monitor, develop and regulate forestry activities in keeping with
new environmental best practices established for forestry management.
The new legislation also allows for compliance with international
policies which have been driven by the European Union (EU) and the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF), specifically the voluntary partnership
agreement through the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade
Regime (FLEGT) and the Global Forestry Trade Network (GFTN),” Persaud
informed the House.

According to the minister, the bill also recognises and acknowledges
the valuable role being played by Amerindian communities with respect
to forestry development and the forestry sector as a whole.

The new law is seen as important because it allows for the realistic
evaluation of forests and forestry products which are regarded as great
assets to the state, and in accordance with this, the GFC bill seeks to
capture the value of the forest reflecting the true value of the
resource, the minister explained, adding that the bill sets the
framework for the GFC to undertake the required assessments that would
allow for this.

Among the features contained in the legislation are an entire new
section on rules for financial operations to improve financial
accountability and management, a section on human resources policy for
the GFC, and stiff penalties for violating the confidentiality of
business related information.

The new Act, when it comes into effect, will also allow for greater use
of entities such as the Forestry Training Centre and the Forest
Products Marketing Council (FMPC).

“Basically, the revised GFC Act sets the enabling mechanism for the
sector to achieve greater economic, social and environmental
development,’ Persaud reiterated.

Persaud was supported by colleagues Pauline Sukhai and Odinga Lumumba,
the former contending that unlike the GFC Act of 1979, which came into
being during a period when the heavy hand of the state was being felt,
the revised Act gives greater independence to the GFC.

Giving an example to support her contention, Ms. Sukhai noted that the
new legislation spells out clear guidelines for the employment of
persons by the GFC which were absent in the 1979 Act.

The bill also clearly defines lines of authority and chains of command,
distinguishing the roles of the Commission and the Commissioner of
Forests, thereby preventing the “blame game scenario.”

Lumumba argued that the bill seeks to remove political influence of the
GFC.

However, Winston Murray of the People’s National Congress Reform-One
Guyana (PNCR-1G) and his colleagues Lance Carberry and Aubrey Norton
and Co-leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC), Khemraj Ramjattan
launched scathing attacks on the bill, charging that it provides for
too much power being in the hands of the minister, and that the bill
was not availed to the opposition early enough to give them adequate
time to study it.

In addition, they argued that the closely related Forest Bill 2007
should have been tabled simultaneously because of the interdependency
of the two pieces of the legislation.

Murray who led the attack on the bill, described the approach by the
government as contemptuous, claiming that the opposition was in receipt
of it a mere 24 hours before it was scheduled to be debated, disputing
Persaud’s claim that it was submitted to the National Assembly.

He expressed disappointment that in an era which he thought was one of
building cooperation, the government has acted with such contempt.

At this stage, Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran
intervened and informed the House that the records of the Parliamentary
Office will be checked to clarify the matter.

Murray said that while his party agrees that the minister should be a
representative of government’s policy, there should be a balance
between independence of the GFC and political involvement, avoiding at
all cost the “oppressive hand of politics.”

He also conceded that there has been improvement in the forestry
sector, though much more needs to be done.

However, he criticised the provision for the minister to appoint
members of the GFC and setting remuneration for them.

Persaud countered that this provision was in the 1979 Act, but the bill
adds a provision for clear criteria and guidelines governing
appointments, which was absent in the preceding Act which left
appointments solely on the opinion of the minister.

Persaud further pointed out that these guidelines specify that persons
appointed must have the relevant knowledge, experience and other
relevant requirements.

Murray expressed dissatisfaction with the provision whereby accounts
must be kept to the satisfaction of the minister.

On this issue, Persaud retorted that the bill clearly states that they
must be kept to the satisfaction of the minister and the Auditor
General.

With respect to Clause 13 of the bill, which deals with the matter of
privileged information, Murray expressed misgivings that it could be
used to gag members of the GFC and also expressed concern that penalty
for person who did not appear to answer charges of wrong doing was
extremely harsh.

According to him the penalty of a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for
six months do not compare to any similar penalty in the judicature.

He also advocated that while it is important to protect the leaking of
business information, the legislation should have provided for a
declassification of information after a specified period, as is the
case in the U.S.

The minister assured that the provision is aimed exclusively at leaking
of business information because it will be highly unfair for such
information to be leaked to the competitor of one investor.

Murray expressed concerns too about the proposal contained in the bill
to have financial commitments which cannot be met by the GFC to be
charged on the Consolidation Fund, arguing that this violates financial
regulations. However, this matter was resolved amicably after an
interval during the consideration of the clauses in committee after a
short interval to facilitate back room discussions.

On resumption of the National Assembly, Persaud moved that the
objectionable words be removed and replaced with money appropriated by
Parliament which was accepted by both sides. Another minor amendment
predicated on the previous amendment was also made and carried.

Norton charged that the bill should be withdrawn as it has a sinister
and authoritarian motive, and declared that it makes the minister
“omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.”