Barama penalty raises more questions

Barama penalty raises more questions
Kaieteur News, 25 October 2007

The issue of Barama Company Limited being accused and penalised for
under-invoiced and undervalued timber products harvested from the
concessions of three major timber producers in Guyana has reached the
stage where one must now ask whether Barama has been the only culprit.

Because of an entrenched system, anyone familiar with the forest and
with logging operations could go to any part of the forest and identify
the location from which a particular tree was harvested. It has to do
with some form of tagging.

In days gone by, long before there was talk about global warming, men
walked the forest for choice trees, which they felled. They brought
them out either by floating them downriver, and later, by hoisting them
onto trucks, which then travelled to the sawmills.

Over time, forest activities became more sophisticated and it became
easier for the firms to access even the most remote part of the
forests. And as the demand for Guyana 's wood grew, particularly in the
growing economies of India and China , so too did the local drive to
harvest an increasing volume of timber. We had long suspected that
there would be attempts to maximize profits, and one of the ways is to
under-invoice. We are not saying that Barama did this intentionally,
but surely, even if that was the case, there had to be people in the
Guyana Forestry Commission who acted in concert with the shipper.

It is rather surprising that the Forestry Commission opted to mount an
investigation when it did. To begin with, there was disquiet among some
staffers who were dismissed for irregular dealings. They had begun to
leak bits and pieces of information to the media, and one could only
imagine the fear of embarrassment that lurked in many breasts.

Some were sacked and each claimed that there were people high up in the
Commission who may have been complicit in the dealings. And while each
refrained from naming those involved, there was always the threat that
they would spill the beans.

Barama has been operating here for more than a decade, and it is
strange that it is only now that the Commission has seen it fit to
mount an investigation. Assuming that over the years Barama has been
operating within the confines of the law, it is surprising that the
government would fail to see this slip up as a genuine mistake. If, as
it seems at this time, there was no mistake, then one must wonder at
the length of time that the under-invoicing has been going on. We note
that Barama specifically stated that the logs were duly counted and
passed by members of the Guyana Forestry Commission. The inference is
clear: any illegality was conducted by the Guyana Forestry Commission.

Of course, when the necessary invoices were produced, Barama had to be
aware of the under-invoicing, unless it would argue that it left the
checking to lesser individuals who were entrusted with the affair of
shipping the logs.

Then there is the furore of the timber company accessing timber from
concessions operated by other timber producers. Surely, one cannot
assume that Barama, on its own, went into these concessions and
harvested the logs. One concessionaire has gone public with the report
that the authorities of the arrangement between his company and Barama.
One would expect that people who own concessions may be free to operate
the concessions in their best interests. Therefore, if one of them opts
to allow Barama to work the concession, it should be plain sailing
unless there are stipulations about the management of the concessions.
And if there are such stipulations, they have been hidden from the
public.

Barama's plea that the penalty would affect its operations should not
be allowed to influence any decision. Instead, the company may wish to
challenge the penalty in court. It has already spoken about involving
international auditors and the like. Such comments suggest that the
company believes that it has done nothing wrong. Therefore, rather than
quibble about the impact on the company, it should move to have the
issue resolved in a manner that is neither unilateral nor tainted by
bias.

Whatever the case, we feel that there is more to be done before we
accept that the Forestry Commission is operating in the interest of
all.