Cannot change status of lease without consent of GFC

Cannot change status of lease without consent of GFC
Guyana Chronicle, 14 September 2007

I refer to a letter “What is Bulkan trying to do?” as carried in Guyana
Chronicle on 4/9/07.

The letter carries the stamp of GINA because of its third-form writing;
the fact that GINA uses inappropriate and sometimes comic ghost names –
e.g. “Lalita” a Hindu name being placed with “Stevenson”; its lack of
credibility because of denial of publicly known facts; and its failure
to fully grasp the government’s policies and positions.

GINA’s choice of ghost names is absolutely hilarious. It couples names
most inappropriatelely e.g “Lalita” coupled with “Stevenson” or
“Mustapha” (Muslim) with “Alphonso” (Portuguese). Or you have numbers
of Chinese names which bear no relationship to demographic or
sociological fact.

The third-form writing reflects the educational and experience levels
of the staff recruited. And the lack of credibility could easily be
seen from the letter under review where the writer, in a very childish
fashion, declares that no individual or agency or concerned group has
supported the facts which were exposed in Ms. Bulkan’s writings when
there are several letters in the press supportive of Ms. Bulkan’s
exposes` and when the media over the months have reported that several
international agencies have also given their support.

But worst of all for GINA, the President has recently come out publicly
in declaring that he is supportive of the position that no forest
concession holder or company could change its status vis-à-vis others
without the knowledge and consent of the Forest Department (GFC) and
that such were not “automatic”. The President was merely reiterating
the Law. Ms. Bulkan had raised the same point in relation to the
contradictory statements being made by DTL (Demerara Timbers Limited)
and Bai Shan regarding a take-over of DTL and the President’s remark
was cognisant of her position.

The policy of the government of Guyana is to develop the country
including the forestry industry. But that policy is also to protect the
forests and other assets of Guyana from wanton exploitation and to
prevent the country’s revenue and wealth being drained off by bribery
and chicanery by vast multi-national companies.

It is clear that the Forest Department (GFC) has not been able to deal
with the new situation of having multi-nationals who have taken over
millions of hectares of Guyana’s forests and who know all the tricks.
The Government of Guyana needs to quickly evaluate the inabilities of
the GFC and to take measures to remedy them before it is too late.

Incidentally, the forest bill which GINA mentions need certain changes
to strengthen it and informed opinion, both here and abroad, are
supportive of such strengthening.

The public and the professional community will now have a clear view of
how the GFC will react in relation to the strengthening of the bill
since such suggested strengthening is known to the informed public as
well as the GFC.
R. Edmonds