The petition against the forest bill 2007 contains misleading statements

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56527616
The petition against the forest bill 2007 contains misleading statements
Stabroek News, Sunday, August 26th 2007

Dear Editor,

I have been able to get access to a petition by some stakeholders,
under the caption "Appeal to the national assembly from Citizens of
Guyana."

I have also had the opportunity of accessing the Forests Bill 2007,
which is misrepresented by this group as an unsuitable bill.

Firstly there is a section "the special hazard of the current draft."
This section deals with general statements and absolutely nothing
specific and of substance. It is again an attempt to malign the
integrity of the government, and the reference to the level of
functional literacy of the forest dependent people in Guyana is most
insulting. It suggests that some citizens still have the erroneous
impression that our forest people are a bunch of illiterates, who must
be spoon fed.

The comment "We note the simplicity and clarity of the forests act
1953 in comparison with the convoluted and unclear wording in the
forest bill 2007" is really unacceptable. Surely these concerned
citizens must be aware that the 1953 act is completely inadequate to
address the tremendous developments that have occurred in the forest
sector over the past 50 years.

The petition has statements such as "unlike the 2004 draft, there are
few safeguards in the Forests Bill 2007 against a bureaucracy captured
by special interests."; "we must ensure that the bureaucracy does not
take to itself discretionary powers without public oversight." In that
same petition there is also the statement "the over 30 references to
the Minister in the draft forests act 2004 have been reduced to fewer
than 5, thereby eliminating even the nominal control by elected
Ministers." Isn't this rather contradictory?

The statement that the forests bill 2007 transfers and enlarges broad
powers to the Commission without criteria for their use is inaccurate.
The Forests Bill has to be taken in the context of the GFC Act. The GFC
Act clearly states in section 8 that the commission is responsible to
the Minister for the discharge of its functions.

The section dealing with "Amerindian customary rights in state
forests" gives the impression that the commission can grant a
concession on claimed Amerindian land. This is another attempt to
misguide the public. What the law clearly states is that a person may
in relation to state forest, exercise or perform any right, power,
duty, or privilege held by any Amerindian Commu-nity under custom
immediately before the commencement of this act if the right, duty,
power, privilege is exercised or performed sustainably in accordance
with the spiritual relationship of the group with the land. So rather
than preventing access to the land, the act allows for customary rights
to be continued.

The part of the petition dealing with private trading of public forest
assets is again misleading since the argument presented conveniently
avoids referencing to clause 16 on Transfer of state forest
authorization or change in effective control. This clause clearly
spells out that except with the prior written consent of the
Commission, no holder shall engage in anything that can result in
change of effective control of the holder, or transfer of any
concession.

On the issue of payment of money to the consolidated fund, the petition
seeks to misinform that only revenues coming from the small
concessions, or current state forest permissions will be paid into the
consolidated fund. The forest act actually states "a charge payable by
the holder of any state forest authorisation on forest produce take
under the authorization, shall be paid into the Consolidated fund. The
term authorisation includes all types of concessions, large and small.

Contrary to what the petition tries to portray to the general public,
the GFC has paid in substantial money to the Consolidated fund in
accordance with the necessary procedures.

It is hoped that these few comments would serve to provide the general
public with the real facts on the new legislation, which is sorely
needed to take the sector further along in the positive direction it is
going; and to expose the petitioners for what they are- persons who
seek to sensationalize, misinform, manipulate, and distort the real
facts to satisfy their narrow agendas.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Taylor