Consumer Concerns - We must be on the alert where our forests are concerned

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56528521

Consumer Concerns
We must be on the alert where our forests are concerned
By Eileen Cox
Sunday, September 9th 2007

The month of September is celebrated as Amerindian Heritage Month.
September 2007 is the month when consumers are showing concern about
clause 5 (2)(e)* in the Forest Bill 2007 which permits the granting of
a concession on claimed Amerindian land. Clause 5 deals with
restriction of activities in State forest, According to an e-mail
received from Mr David Yhann clause 5 (2) (e) in the Forest Bill 2007
permits the granting of a concession on claimed Amerindian land,
thereby removing the safeguard provided in the Forest (Amendment)
(Exploratory permits) Act 1997.

There are other clauses in the Forest Bill which will surely cause
concern to all consumers. Mr David Yhann who sent an e-mail message on
the Bill to hundreds of Guyanese has to be commended for the task he
undertook and accomplished. Thanks are naturally due to the author of
the critique on the bill, Janette Bulkan.

The e-mail message not only brings the clauses of the Forest Bill to
our view but calls on us to sign a petition against it. This is what is
said in part concerning the clauses of the Bill.

"The special hazard of the current draft

"Unlike the 2004 draft, there are few safeguards in the Forest Bill
2007 against a bureaucracy captured by special interests. This change,
a reflection of the exceptional profits to be made from a candid Asian
demand for raw materials especially in the booming economies of China
and India deprives Guyana of the opportunities to secure for our
country a greater share in those profits and without detriment to our
long-term productivity. To make that happen, we must ensure that the
bureaucracy does not take to itself discretionary powers without public
oversight. Best international practice is needed in quite the opposite
direction: to capture excess rent through transparently set charges, to
reduce discretion from bureaucrats, to insist on public criteria for
exceptional cases, to increase public oversight especially through
parliamentary process. Public notice has been reduced and highly
circumscribed. The current Forest Bill 2007 was circulated only to you,
the Members of the National Assembly on the 2nd August 2007 and only in
printed format. The draft Forest Act 2004 was freely made available in
print and electronic formats.

"We note the simplicity and clarity of the Forest Act 1953 in
comparison with the convoluted and unclear wording in the Forest Bill
2007. This lack of clarity alone should cause this Bill to be sent back
for a true re-drafting.

"We urge you to examine the systematic culling of all participatory
process, oversight and best practice from the draft Forests Act 2004
including but not limited to the following fundamental revision:

"Systematic removal in the Forest Bill 2007 from the draft Forest Act
2004 (6 February 2004) and possible consequences:

"Vesting of wide discretion and monopoly power in 'the Commission'

a. There are over a dozen references in the draft Forest Act 2004 to
the Board of Directors of the Guyana Forestry Commis-sion (GFC) and
none in the current Bill. In its place, broad discretionary powers are
vested exclusively in the "Commission.'

b, The over 30 references to the Minis-ter in the draft Forest Act 2004
have been reduced to fewer than five thereby eliminating even the
nominal control by the elected Ministers.

c, The Forest Bill 2007 transfers and enlarges broad powers to 'the
Commis-sion' without criteria for their use.

d. The safeguards set out in the Forest (Amendment) (Exploratory
Permit) Act 1997 have been rendered useless as a block on piratical
logging. Articles 9 (1), (9) (2) (b) among others in the Forest Bill
2007 allows commercial logging during the period of an exploratory
award (SFEP) so as to recover a proportion of the investor's

application fee and other non-capital costs associated with gaining and
operating the SFEP. As no criteria are given, the investor can inflate
costs of the point at which the SFEP becomes indistinguishable from
Timbers Sales Agreement.

e. The procedures of competitive bidding set out 16(6) of the 2004
draft have been neutered.

f. The application fee of US 20,000 (in 16 (2) of the 2004 draft) has
been removed.

g. The provisions indexation (against inflation and currency movement)
of volume charges and levies on forest produce and administrative fees
set out in Article 50 (1) and for the charging of interest on arrears
(Article 51) of the draft Forests Act 2004 have been excised.

h. Discretionary power is granted in Article 13 (2) of the Forest Bill
2007 to the Commission to waive security bond, such a bond provides the
State with financial cover against environmental damage and non-payment
of charges.

i. The Commission is empowered to renew long-term large-scale forest
concessions in spite of their non-compliances with the terms of the
concession award (Article 6 (8))"

This critique, as I said, was meant for Members of Parliament. It is
now for all Guya-nese to be on the alert, and understand what the
denudation of our forests will mean in the light of Climate Change.

*NB Clause 5 (2) has been curiously omitted from the copy of the Forest
Bill 2007 available at the Parliament Office.