Guyanese and non-Guyanese have voiced their concerns

Guyanese and non-Guyanese have voiced their concerns
Guyana Chronicle, 8 September 2007

Ms. Lalita Stevenson, alleges that there are no other Guyanese who are
concerned about the poor administration of our State Forests, with its
worrying long-term implications (“What is Bulkan trying to do” GC
07.09.04). I respectfully submit that few patriotic Guyanese who have
been reading the newspapers in Guyana over the past year would agree
with Ms Stevenson.

Others - Guyanese and non-Guyanese - have voiced concerns in the
newspapers and in consultancy reports to the Government of Guyana about
the trends in natural resources allocation and administration. During
the last year, from November 2006, I counted at least 22 people as
having expressed concerns about the management of our forest resources,
in letters, feature articles and regular columns; in addition to
significant editorials in all three national newspapers. The GFC
reported that 350 persons attended the Consultation on a National Log
Export Policy held in February 2007 and voted overwhelmingly in favour
of phased bans of named commercial species in log form. The President
himself has also indicated recently a concern about the need for
application of formal processes in the forest sector, echoing
consultants who have observed procedures incompletely and
inconsistently implemented.

I offer to readers three snippets which show that such concerns are of
long standing: from Vicente Molinos (1995 report for Ministry of
Finance), from Gary Girdhari of the Guyana Journal in 2000, and from
Dr. Bishnodat Persaud, formerly of the Commonwealth Secretariat, in
2003.

1.Under the heading ‘Clear and consistent enforcement of policies, laws
and regulations’, Molinos advised:

“If Guyana wants to attract non-speculative and longer-term investors
to their forestry sector and to be able to negotiate better terms with
future concessionaires, it will have to establish a climate which
reduces political and regulatory risks to investors. In addition to
better coordinating the different agencies operating in a given
territory, Guyana will benefit from streamlining and making more open
and transparent rules, conditions and decision processes for granting
or revoking concessions and tax exemptions. In this regard, it would be
very important to publish the terms of all forestry concessions,
including required levels of royalty payments, and make available maps
that clearly delineate all the concessions” (page 45).

And “Given Guyana's aggressive concession policies to foreign
investors, appropriate provisions must be made to ensure that whatever
ownership concentration does occur is in the country's best interest.
The take-over of Papua New Guinea's private producer organisations by
large foreign investors and their overwhelming effect on public
policy-making provides a lesson which Guyana should study closely”
(Considerations for the development of Guyana's wood products industry,
p. 46-7).

(This warning is especially significant as one of the Asian-owned
loggers currently uses staff including camp managers who have
previously worked for the notorious Malaysian-owned Rimbunan Hijau in
Papua New Guinea.)

2.From Guyana Journal in 2000: “Guyana does not benefit much from this
form of exploitation and desecration of extensive forest flora and
fauna. Carefully planned and detailed assessment would have made it
clear that Guyana has one of the last reserves of hardwoods in the
world. The fear that these companies would go elsewhere is ludicrous.
They have no place to go; hardly any one wants them. Better deals for
less acreage in more controlled forest management settings would have
separated us from other nations, who in hindsight, realized the
benefits of their rainforests. One should remember that in the equation
of development, it is not the amount of dollars spent in the country,
but the amount of real benefits accrued to the society.

“It should be noted that large companies do not fuel the engine of
growth, technological change, or ultimately development in developing
countries. Multinationals do not come with a commitment to maximize the
wealth of these nations. They come for the holy grail of profits. They
will do everything to minimize capital expenditures, and opt for every
creative accounting strategy to produce negative returns on paper so as
not to pay their dues. Gains to developing countries (and developed
countries) come from their small local companies that are innovative,
and fill competitive niches. These companies are connected to the
community; hence the owners are in sync with community needs, and do
not act contrary to it. We should be circumspect of multinational
companies, and focus more on developing our ability to grow small
native companies serving niche community needs: (Gary Girdhari, Guyana
Journal ‘Think Tank’ paper, January 2000. URL
=http://www.guyanajournal.com/Deals_gg.html).

3.Dr Bishnodat Persaud flagged another “embedded longer term issue that
pose[s] such great danger for Guyana… In Guyana’s current desperate
state, the attention it attracts from Guyanese expatriate and foreign
‘adventurers’ who provide little beyond encouraging corrupt practices;
and the large concessions that must be offered to attract investors in
the current very unattractive investment climate, which becomes more
worrying still, where concessions for natural resource exploitation
must be of a long-term nature” (‘The postponement of the Wilton Park
conference is a great disappointment’. Letter to the Editor, Stabroek
News, June 29, 2003).

Janette Bulkan