Several persons have spoken out about the management of our forests resources.

Several persons have spoken out about the management of our forests
resources
Kaieteur News, 10 September 2007

Dear Editor,

Your correspondent 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 (“Let's concentrate
on issues worth highlighting”, Kaieteur News 07.09.05).

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 Guyana Forestry Commission (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 recently indicated 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 realised 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. Multi-nationals 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 them. We should be circumspect of
multi-national 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 poses 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, SN, June
29, 2003).

Janette Bulkan