Petitioners of Forestry Bill have devious and clandestine agenda

http://www.guyanachronicle.com/letters.html

Petitioners of Forestry Bill have devious and clandestine agenda
Guyana Chronicle, 23 August 2007

I read with surprise, a recent article in the print media, where it is
stated that concerned Guyanese are taking a petition to block the
passage of the revised forest bill in Parliament.

Some of the architects of this petition are persons who have
persistently attacked the Guyana Forestry Commission and the Government
of Guyana in the public media, accusing them both of not ensuring
adequate measures to maximize the benefits arising from the use of the
forest resources, to Guyana .

I have had the liberty of looking at the revised forests bill 2007, as
well as several drafts dating back to 2000. What I have observes is
that these previous bills were very bulky in terms of content, and
included many issues which could easily be addressed in the
regulations. For example, the current bill talks about the need to
prepare codes of practices for many operational aspects of forestry,
and actually detailed what these codes should contain.

The latest version (draft 2007) simply mandates the GFC to prepare the
codes of practices, without going into the specifics. This is left to
be addressed in the regulations. Legislation is not intended to be
bulky and go into minute details. These issues are better addressed in
the formulation of the regulations.

Forestry in today's environment is a very dynamic sector. Issues which
are relevant today, may be deemedto be irrelevant or even detrimental
in a few years. If everything is spelt out in great detail in the
legislation, then, how does one address the need to revise procedures
enshrined in the law which may be in need of updating, or even
deletion?

Will the GFC and Government have to go every month to Parliament to
seek changes in the legislation: isn’t it better addressed in the
regulations which are much easier to change based on informed
consultation and accepted best practices?

The “petitioners”also state that the revised legislation reduces the
powers of the Minister, but increases the power of the Commission. It
would be instructive to note that the GFC was made a semi-autonomous
commission in 1979, delinking it from the Ministry so that it, as a
semi-autonomous body, could function more efficiently away from any
perceived political interference.

Also, at the passing of the GFC Bill in July 2007, a major criticism
levelled by the opposition was that the powers of the Minister were
increased, whilst that of the Commission was reduced. How then can the
petitioners now state that the Commission’s powers are increased and
object to that? Isn’t this what the opposition was promoting?

The bottom line is that the petitioners have their own devious and
clandestine agenda. It has nothing to do with forestry or any other
sector in Guyana. It is simply opposition at all costs, opposition
which will continue to fund their travels, and scholarships. The public
is smart enough not to be fooled or misled.
Sincerely,
Samantha Griffith