Why is the Forest Products Association opposed to making more timber available now for in-country processing?

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56527278

Why is the Forest Products Association opposed to making more timber
available now for in-country processing?
Stabroek News
Tuesday, August 21st 2007

Dear Editor,

I refer to the letter by the Forest Products Association captioned "The
Forestry Commission's public consultation on log export policy lacked
credibility, the industry is committed to a phased conversion from log
exports" (07.08.19).

It is difficult to understand why the Forest Products Association (FPA)
prefers to delay controls on log exports: either the solution preferred
by economists (government / national capture of excess rent or surplus
value by an export levy), or the ban preferred by the Guyana Forestry
Commission.

At least since 2001, the FPA has had a stated aim to develop the
forest industries of Guyana ("A Profile of the Forest Products
Association of Guyana") so why is it back-pedalling and preferring to
export logs ?

According to the GFC's survey of timber processing capacity, Guyana can
process 504,000 m3 of logs annually, not including the single plywood
mill.

From the GFC's 2006 Forest Sector Information Report (recently
available on its website www.forestry.-gov.gy the total log produc m3,
of which 191,000 m3 (48 per cent) were exported unprocessed. Plywood
(Barama is the only producer, with declining output) took about 75,000
m3 of logs, leaving 126,000 m3 for domestic milling.

Using the FPA's own conversion of 40 per cent log-to-lumber, Guyana's
static-mill output was 51,000 m3. To this must be added 68,000 m3 of
chainsaw-milled lumber making 119,000 m3 total. Of this Guyana exported
45,000 m3 sawn lumber, leaving 74,000 m3 for secondary processing. This
is far below the installed capacity according to the GFC survey.

So again we must ask why the FPA is opposed to making more timber
available now for in-country processing (with attendant employment, NIS
and PAYE taxes, training, jobs in supporting services, etc.).

Regarding my use of merbau as a surrogate for purpleheart, this is
because international data are available on domestic, FOB and CIF
export prices for merbau but not for purpleheart (wake up, the Forest
Products Marketing Council of Guyana). As to their technical properties
and comparable uses, the FPA can check the public domain databases such
as PROSPECT in the UK or Woods of the World in the USA, or obtain
information from laboratories such as the Tropical Timber Information
Center at the State University of New York, Syracuse. As for market
acceptability of purpleheart, it has been in popular demand for
hundreds of years and has been well known since the earliest days of
colour photographs in timber trade magazines (at least since 1936).

Yours faithfully,

Mahadeo Kowlessar