SUMMARY
The project “Log–Tracking–System (LTS)” provides an intelligent combination of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags and database software with the practical tasks in a forestry operation. This system is able to ensure a comprehensive documentation of all labour and transportation processes - from the forest, where the wood is harvested, to sawmills, where it is processed.
APPLICATION
In Germany, approximately 60 million m3 solid measure of timber is harvested (i.e. felled) each year, before the material is transported to sawmills, veneer manufacturers, chipboard mills and paper mills, where it is processed. Based on an average mass per round timber of approx. 0.20 m3 solid measure, this corresponds to a total number of more than 300 million pieces. As a service provider, the Cambium forestry company cultivates a forest area of 32,500 acres located in Odenwald, a forest region in Southern Germany, close to Heidelberg.
This forest area is owned by eightdifferent parties, primarily private owners as well as municipalities. Each year, the Cambium forestry company harvests approximately 80,000 m3 solid measure of timber on behalf of the owners and transports the material(aprox. 400,000 pieces) to sawmills etc..In the past, the company relied on the following process: In the first step of the harvest process, the trees are felled either manually or using a harvester machine. After this, the tree is measured exactly and the tree-top and the branches are cut off and sorted on the basis of various quality criteria. Using a small hammer, the forest worker attaches a numbered plastic tag to the cut area of the tree log.
The number of the plastic tag and the data of the tree log are manually recorded in a note book. When all harvest work in the forest area is complete, the forester enters the data into his computer using specialised forestry software. After the trees have been felled, a skidder pulls the tree logs out of the forest to pile them up near the forest road. Sometimes this is done several days after the trees have been felled. In the third step, the piled logs are loaded onto a truck which transports them to the sawmill. In the fourth and final step, i.e. at the sawmill, the logs which are delivered by a truck are compiled in a list, and the price specified in the contract is paid to the supplier, e.g. to the Cambium forestry company. Different problems arise, such as quantity and quality losses which are caused by the fact that some of plastic tags which have been attached to the logs get lost, or are damaged or become unreadable on their way from the forest to the sawmill. As a result, there is not a 100% capability to ensure a complete identification and control of the tree logs harvested in the forest.
The new LTS based process: LTS makes it possible to close this information gap and to ensure a complete transfer of data for each individual log from the forest to the plant where the material is processed. After felling the tree, the worker or the harvester machine knocks an RFID nail tag into the log. The only information contained in this nail tag is an ID number which is wirelessly transmitted to a central database using a hand-held computer, along with the specific data of the tree log (species, length, diameter, quality).After the skidder has pulled the logs to the forest road, he uses a scanner to scan the tag numbers of each log and transmits the data to the central database by wireless communications.
There, the data transmitted by the forest worker is compared to the data scanned by the skidder, resulting in a list which makes it possible to check whether all tree logs felled have been pulled to the forest road or whether some of them have been left in the forest. The skidder must continue to pull the tree logs to the forest road until he has removed and scanned all logs with ID tags which have been attached by the forest worker. This process is repeated when the logs are transported by truck. After the logs have been loaded onto the truck, the truck driver uses a scanner to collect the ID numbers of the loaded logs and transmits them to the central database via wireless communications. Once again, a real-time list is generated which shows any differences between the logs piled up at the forest road and the logs loaded onto the truck. The truck driver must continue to transport the timber until all the logs on the pile have been transported to the sawmill.
At the last stage of the wood harvesting process, i.e. at the entrance to the sawmill, the same process is carried out a third time. The ID numbers of the logs delivered are scanned by a scanner installed in the mill before they are transmitted to the central database. By comparing the data of the individual process steps (felling,skidding, transport), it is possible to verify the completeness of the consignment or to identify any differences. In addition to specific timber data such as species, length, diameter and quality, LTS can also be used to collect additional information generated in the course of the process chain, e.g. personnel data, geographic data, date, time, weather conditions as well as other data.
BENEFITS
LTS is currently in a pilot study phase; the first process studies were initiated during the past few months. The results of these studies will be incorporated into future test runs and evaluated. During the first half of 2005, further planning and development of project components for both hardware and software will be carried out. The test version will be developed in such a way that it can be used by selected timber customers by the beginning of the felling season in the winter of 2005/2006. Has your project helped those it was designed to help?•
The idea of LTS was to designate individual logs in such a way that they can be unambiguously identified at all subsequent processing points. Provided the technical components of the RFID system and the software function in an error-free way, such an identification system will be possible and guaranteed.• The new identification system will result in numerous benefits for forest owners, for timber-processing companies and for sawmills. These are briefly described below:•
Prevention or minimizing the loss of timber; currently, this is estimated to be 5 – 10% on average. The use ofLTS should reduce this to practically 0%.•
Prevention or minimizing quality loss; long periods of storage lead to loss of moisture and/or change in colour. For special processing methods (e.g. wood pulp = moisture; building timber = colour), maintenance of these parameters is essential. Such losses mean loss of income for the forest owners and lower yields for the sawmills. Quality losses average between 10 and 20 % as storage in the forests is usually too long. LTS should be capable of reducing these losses by half.•
Process optimization during storage in the forest and at the sawmill. If adequate data is available, resources(workers, capital) can be optimally organized and utilized.•
Process optimization of the logistics chain for the transport companies involved. Losses frequently occur here as logs are left in the forests due to the transport trucks being full.•
Lowering of warehouse inventories and hence improvement of liquidity due to less and shorter periods of advance financing.
Control mechanism for measurement and evaluation of performance of the companies involved, e.g. forestry workers and skidders. •
Control mechanism for the maintenance of sustainability for particular forest areas.•
Control mechanism for the maintenance of criteria necessary for the certification of forest areas.•
Unambiguous allocation of sales income from small quantities to individual forest owners. Up to now, individual logs from a particular forest could not be identified amongst logs from other owners. Individual logs, regardless of their particular data, have to be evaluated based on the average values of a particular truck load. In your opinion, how has this affected them?• Practice employed to date, has prevented unambiguous identification already during the second process step(skidding). Once the log has been stacked in the forest, it is often no longer possible to clearly identify the data and quality of this log. Control is mostly limited to simply checking the total number of items involved. • As working procedures are frequently interrupted for days at a time (e.g. due to inclement weather), it is practically impossible to maintain a precise overview of all the processes involved. •
However, with LTS, each log is clearly identified at the point where it is felled. Identification is by means of a unique worldwide RFID tag; misidentification is thus not possible.• The RFID tag can be read with an appropriate reader at any point during the process chain, hence enabling individual logs to be traced throughout the process chain.
What new advantage or opportunity does your project provide to people?• The decisive advantage of LTS is the fact that all data (including GEO data and any possible further information such as storage) concerning a particular log are complete and available at all times.• Thus, for all participants in the production chain, there are clear benefits in obtaining spontaneous and precise control of all processes. The forest owner e.g. is able to fell precisely the amount of logs required by his customer.•
The forestry workers and skidders also know precisely the amount of timber that has been processed and are able to establish records quicker and more accurately.• The processing company, e.g. the sawmill, can adjust its timber requirement to the amount of timber available in any particular forest; supplementation or reduction of an order is then possible. In this way, unnecessary inventory at different points can be avoided, hence improving liquidity. Has your project fundamentally changed how tasks are performed?• LTS has a dramatic effect on the organization and management of forestry and the production of timber. Exchange of data via a specific interface (ELDAT) enables information that can have immediate effects on production to be obtained on quantities and qualities on an international basis. Production can thus be better attuned to the specifics of processing than was previously the case with corresponding positive effects on the financial results obtained.•
Those owners of small areas of forest who themselves may not have the necessary know-how tend to leave their forests unattended, thus dispensing with potential income from the timber. LTS enables these small owners to partake of a service that documents comprehensively all the processes in their forests including the sale of any of the timber. This would be unambiguously identified and provided with GEO data.• In the special cases of catastrophes (e.g. hurricanes), processing and marketing can take place considerably better as there is spontaneous access to the production status via the database.
How might that change take place?• LTS is currently undergoing a pilot study in a forest near Cambium. As soon as the tests have been completed, scheduled for the end of 2005, and a stable hardware and software system is available, the results will become available at various locations for reference.• Further development of the LTS system is also being carried out in cooperation with one of the leading sawmills in Germany that has expressed considerable interest in this particular application. It is also planned to utilize the LTS data obtained for further processing within the sawmill; this will enable data to be obtained on origin, quality and yield of the various batches. This will be of advantage to the sawmill in its purchasing policy. •
As soon as the effects of LTS have been made known to a wider circle of customers, the internationally networked purchasing areas will have a positive effect on the growth potential of the sawmill far above what has been possible up to now.
Does your work define new challenges for society? If so, please describe what they may be?• For the population in general and forestry in particular, the principle of sustainability and maintenance of ecological standards for the forests (air, water, recovery) in Germany and neighbouring countries will continue to play an increasing role. Fears about the state of health of the forests and the effect on habitat are also becoming increasingly important. Society is placing more and more value on what is occurring in the forests and in forestry and is particularly interested in ensuring that nature protection is taken fully into account.• LTS provides the necessary instruments to fully document and control the production of timber at all times. The applications of LTS in forestry are almost infinite, e.g. documentation of new plantations, monitoring of the distribution and marketing of plants, the documentation of particularly valuable trees, the description of certain biotopes etc. In all of these areas, the identification and documentation of particular conditions and any changes are of significant importance for society.
The importance of technology How has information technology contributed to this project?• The IT used in LTS is of essential importance for the success of the project. As production in forestry takes place under natural conditions with no control over electricity supply, temperature or moisture, we have to be absolutely certain that the IT used is capable of transferring the data in the proper way. True real-time documentation can only be achieved by having data for the individual production steps transferred in the wireless mode. The software must be adapted to the conditions and to the know-how of those involved so that, even under extreme conditions, there will be no errors. The conditions must be clear, unambiguous and suitable for off-road use.
In your opinion, have you developed a technology that may lead to new ways of communicating or processing information?• The special aspect of the IT components used in LTS is their being able to be used under extreme conditions and being processed centrally. The individual components of the hardware and software have to be defined and developed a new. The hardware components are not yet available on the marketplace. In addition, the system concept is of considerable importance as IT solutions already exist for individual working steps but not necessarily following the logic of the production chain nor adapted to an international data system.
Describe any new technologies used and/or cite innovative uses of existing technology. For example, have you found new ways of using existing technology to create new benefits for society? Or, have you identified a problem and developed new technology to solve it?• Both the use of RFID tags and the transfer of data in conjunction with the ID number of the tag are already being used in various branches and companies. These components must now be combined to form an intelligent LTS system. The necessary hardware has to be developed, however, as in the forestry sector only stand-alone instruments rather than system solutions are being used.
What are exceptional aspects of your project?• The special aspect of LTS is the use of recognized IT technology in forestry applications that can be applied not only locally, e.g. in Germany, but worldwide. The production steps involved in forestry are essentially identical worldwide; hence, LTS can be used in all cases.• This can be the documentation of forest reserves in South America but also the control of production cycles of Eucalyptus trees for the paper industry. LTS can be developed for various applications on a worldwide basis.
Is it original? How? Is it the first, the only, the best or the most effective of its kind?• Within the forestry and timber sectors, LTS is a completely new and innovative process. In our opinion, there is no other technology available capable of combining high-tech components with the extreme conditions of the forest and where a complete system has been developed with the capabilities described above. The effects resulting from the successful application of LTS are unique and revolutionary.
How did your project evolve? What is its background?• LTS is currently in the pilot phase. The schedule is for a 2-year development period after which a professionally designed product will be available.
Has your project achieved or exceeded its goals?• The degree of achievement of the set goals of LTS cannot be fully assessed at this point in time. Is it fully operational?• The functions of LTS have been assessed during the test phase of the pilot study. Under the working conditions met up to now, the LTS system can be said to be fully functional.
How many people benefit from it? If possible, include an example of how the project has benefited a specific individual, enterprise or organisation. Please include personal quotes from individuals who have directly benefited from your work.• In Germany alone there are more than 60,000 forestry enterprises comprising more than 10 hectares of forest. There are over 200,000 enterprises and forest owners with less than 10 hectares.• In the timber trade in the widest sense (wood processing, wood craftsmanship, cellulose and paper manufacture), some 500,000 people are employed.• For a forest owner with only a few hectares e.g., LTS can enable him to utilize his property much more than ever before and generate benefits both for himself and for society.
How quickly has your targeted audience of users embraced your innovation?• We are convinced that LTS will find a wide variety of users and that these will be enthused as LTS quickly shows its effect due to its being extremely practice-oriented. The problems that LTS can solve are well-known in the industry. The effective, economic and practice-proven solution using complete and comprehensive system technology will soon find a wide range of users.
Describe future plans for the project.• LTS is currently undergoing pilot study testing in a company using standard technology. In the course of the coming year, it will be further developed with both hardware and software modules to such an extent that it will be able to be put into operation in the winter of 2005/2006. Full unlimited use is then scheduled for the summer of 2006. From this point, marketing is scheduled to begin via the Cambium forestry.
What are the most important obstacles that had to be overcome in order for your work to be successful? Technical problems? Expertise? Organisational problems?• The main difficulties that faced LTS during its development were connected with the external application of the system, i.e. electricity supply under extreme weather conditions and poor light.• First, an RFID tag had to be developed that could be attached to a log without causing damage, even under extreme conditions such as frost. It should not get lost even when being manoeuvred by the skidder. It also hasto remain legible and undamaged after being loaded onto the truck by crane and stacked with other logs.• The forest worker requires an instrument with which he can attach the RFID tag to the log. This instrument must be light and easy to use but it must also be stable enough to attach the tag firmly to the log.• An instrument is also required for entering and transferring data. This must also be easy to use and be able to function over longer periods outdoors without electricity and subject to cold, moisture and vibrations. • The same conditions apply to the reader; this has to be used by the skidder, the truck driver and by those sawmill people who require the data.• The software must be of the wireless type and be able to convert the data, without loss, into an international format and transfer it onwards for further use. Often the most innovative projects encounter the greatest resistance when they are originally proposed.
If you had to fight for approval and/or funding, it would be useful to include a summary of the objections you faced and how you overcame them.• The greatest obstacle encountered for the application of LTS was the basically conservative attitude of the forestry industry. Projects incorporating a high degree of IT components are traditionally met with much scepticism.• The positive effects of LTS only appear once basic changes have been made to current control systems and once processes are running. However, this means that users have to be open to innovation and ready to adopt new working structures. For this to happen, much mistrust has to be counteracted on the part of those who have to restructure processes and implement a new system.• Most of the objections encountered were in connection with the safety aspects of data transfer and the use of readers and transmitting instruments in a forest environment. Prejudice against the use of such instruments in a forest and the idea that they are too sensitive and unsafe for such an environment first had to be eliminated by the use of practice-oriented results already obtained.
Did you encounter any unanticipated challenges?• One particular technical problem encountered was the nature of the RFID tag. The tag had to be stable enough to be attached to wood but had to be extremely economical as it could only be used once.• One additional difficulty was fulfilling the requirements of the cellulose and paper industries with respect to the RFID material. As the tags should not be able to enter the production process involving paper mills(possible damage to the rolls of paper), they have to be removed prior to entering the production process. To date, the problem has not been solved with respect to whether this removal should be mechanical (e.g.magnetic), chemical (dissolution) or other type of removal.
Link
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Timber Tags: The currency of illegal logging
uly 17, 2006, with additions at end 20Jul2006 and 27Jul2006
This briefing note for the Chatham House FLEGT Update Meeting in July 2006 reports interim findings from fieldwork in Suriname (June-July 2005) and Guyana (June-July 2006). The study on “Slippage” between Government law/regulation/policy/strategy/procedures and actual practices shows widespread failures and extensive corruption. Findings reported here are based mainly on confidential, semi-structured interviews, triangulated (cross-checked) amongst many stakeholders.
Necessarily, much of what is here summarized is in the nature of allegations, unsupported by civil or criminal court proceedings; although some clearly should be the subject of prosecutions and would be if there was political will and if corruption was not so pervasive and interlocking.
Countries and enterprises seeking to demonstrate that their timber production is entirely legal will wish to avoid the situations mentioned below. The following list is by no means exhaustive; we anticipate finding yet more kinds of problems as the fieldwork continues.
Outright illegality
1.1. “Landlording concessions”. This means renting out forest harvesting concessions when the original concessionaire finds it technically impossible to operate a log harvest or financially more profitable to get someone else to do the work. Landlording differs from contracting in that all effective management decisions are taken by the renter. This practice is illegal in most countries, because unworkable concessions should be returned to the national forest service for re-allocation according to transparent and competitive procedures, or returned to the strategic forest reserve.
1.2. Logging outside the boundary of an allocated concession. Sometimes this may be accidental because procedures for boundary demarcation have not been followed.
1.3. “Washing” illegally felled logs through special areas to avoid area-related fees. Examples are using areas under mining leases (where all the residual forest will in due course be bulldozed and burned) and areas free of area charges because they are titled to indigenous communities. The illegal logs may not physically be moved through such areas, only the records manipulated to imply that they come from these areas.
1.4. Mis-declaration of timber names to avoid specific bans on felling protected species, and to reduce royalties by “baptizing” the logs with the name of a less expensive timber.
1.5. Declaring logs of protected species to have originated from road construction clearing when actually they have come from interior compartments.
1.6. Re-using timber tags which have not been properly cancelled, retrieved or destroyed by national forestry authorities.
1.7. “Freshening the stump”: cutting a slice off the top of a tree stump together with the original timber tag, and fixing another timber tag so as to “wash” logs actually felled elsewhere.
Against policies and strategies
2.1. (Arbitrary) allocation of forest harvesting concessions in the absence of a Strategic Allocation Plan, even when the latter is required in the National Forest Plan.
2.2. Uncontrolled raw log exports by enterprises which enjoy Foreign Direct Investment concessions, such concessions having been granted on the promise of local processing of logs, training of nationals and purchase of local services.
2.3. Uncontrolled or under-taxed raw log exports when government policy favours value-adding national secondary and tertiary timber processing.
2.4. Brokering by government agencies of timber harvesting contracts in small scale concessions and on indigenous lands for the benefit of larger scale enterprises.
Against procedures
3.1. Offering forest harvesting concessions without public advertisement and open competition.
3.2. Delaying the issue of the actual licences for forest harvesting concessions even though all formal procedures have been satisfactorily completed.
3.3. Mis-allocation of timber tags and timber transport permits such that timber appears to have come from one area when it actually originated in a different area and (possibly) was illegally felled anyway.
3.4. Failure to issue sufficient transport permits for timber originating free of area charges from indigenous titled land. This implies that a “bank” of transport permits (and/or timber tags) is built up secretly to aid the washing of illegally logged timber.
3.5. Using timber tags outside the original designated period. Sometimes this occurs because of months-long weather-induced delays in extraction from stump to mill.
3.6. Arbitrary assignment of numbers of timber tags to mixed loads of chainsawn lumber from scattered trees.
3.7. Under-invoicing of timber volumes for internal transport, to reduce freight charges and taxes.
3.8. Under-invoicing of timber exports which are subject to export duties and taxes.
3.9. Use of duty free or reduced duty concessions under Foreign Direct Investment for areas outside the forest area to which the FDI agreement applies.
3.10. Underuse of barcode readers of timber tags, so concealing the actual marketing chain from stump to mill or export, and potentially failing to record the passage of quantities of illegal timber.
3.11. Failure to have enough functioning barcode readers to permit the intended computer-assisted reconciliation of forest production records from stump to mill or stump to export.
3.12. Failure by government agencies to monitor field use of timber tags on stumps and logs, and of transport permits; so allowing tags and permits to circulate as currency for illegal logging.
Commentary
Our interviews were remarkable in revealing how many stakeholders were deliberately engaged in doubtful or illegal practices. Our interviewees felt that the ways in which the government systems actually worked made legitimate business uncompetitive with forest piracy. Several stakeholders regretted the prevalence of illegalities. They were insistent that government agencies should be more transparent and should be held more accountable.
However, in the Guiana Shield countries, Parliamentarians have weak or no relation to geographic constituencies; Parliamentary Select Committees do not have a Westminister ability to scrutinize government agencies; and civil society is relatively weak and powerless to force remedial action from the political “party-in-power”. Secretive political parties provide cover for venal and corrupt practices. Non-transparent FDI agreements negotiated at Cabinet level and unpublished, poorly monitored and not held to account, tilt the business playing field against legitimate operators.
Some of these illegal operators volunteered strong feelings about the need for sustainable forest harvesting and the provision of forest-based livelihoods for their children and future generations. The same illegal operators acknowledged that at least some of the problems were caused by the high rate of staff loss from government agencies through migration to Canada and the USA (for Guyana) and to The Netherlands (for Suriname). Training programmes are not sufficient in volume or continuity nor are salaries sufficiently competitive to compensate for this high turnover.
If forest resource access charges (forest pricing) were raised to Malaysian levels (they are about one-twentieth of Malaysian charges) and if fees and taxes were actually collected in full by the government agencies, then government salaries could be raised to competitive levels. One may speculate why large FDI-supported forest concessionaires are allowed to remain hugely indebted to government while small-scale operators are fiercely pursued for small debts.
Guyana rated a poor 2.5 out of 10 on the corruption perception index of Transparency International in 2005. This rating ranks Guyana at 117 out of 158 countries surveyed.
A more detailed interim report will be offered to the FLEGT website of Chatham House/RIIA later this year after more fieldwork.
[27Jul2006]
Extract from GoG brochure “Statement on sustainable forest management in Guyana”, February 2006
QUOTATION
Also in year 2000 the GFC introduced the Log Tracking System to verify the origin of raw material and to control the level of harvesting within State Forests.
Guyana is probably the only country in the world with a complete national log tracking system. Forest produce originating from Guyana and used in any part of the world can be traced directly to the stump of the tree the wood was taken from.
The log tracking system provides detectable evidence on the legitimacy, location and magnitude of forest operations and is currently applied to all forestry operations including State Forests, Amerindian Reservations and Private Properties. It is linked to a Quota System which is an initiative to control the volume of produce harvested. The log tracking system is regulated by the use of Log Tags which are assigned to all concessionaires at the commencement of each year operations free of charge. An operator’s quota is calculated based on the sustained yield of the forest area which considers variables such as felling cycle, felling distance and minimum girth. The quota is equated to the number of standing trees which will yield the volume and the number of trees computed indicates the number of tags to be issued (one tag is equivalent to one tree). Each operator is allocated a number of tags equivalent to his sustained yield and is recognized by a unique sequence of numbers assigned to that operations. Log tagging is done at stump where half of the tag is affixed to the stump at the time of felling and the other part bearing the same sequence of numbers as recorded on the stump tag is affixed to the produce being conveyed. All forest produce including logs, lumber piles, poles and posts are tagged. It is the unique number of tag assigned that indicates who the operator is and therefore is able to indicate the geographic origin of the forest produce within the forest estate.
Buyers of timber and other forest products from Guyana can be assured that these products originate from forests that are being managed sustainably utilizing the best forest management practices supported by quality scientific information. Etc.
END OF QUOTATIONS
Once I was on a flight to Asia from the US and I ran into a couple of people on their way to Asia to buy logs for Kmart's furniture making department. I asked them why go all the way to Asia and why not to South America - countries like Guyana. They stated the log tracking system in Guyana was not up to standard and Kmart refuses to do business with countries that do not have proper accounting systems. Although I wonder if they were on their way to Malyasia to buy logs which were originally felled in Guyana?
This briefing note for the Chatham House FLEGT Update Meeting in July 2006 reports interim findings from fieldwork in Suriname (June-July 2005) and Guyana (June-July 2006). The study on “Slippage” between Government law/regulation/policy/strategy/procedures and actual practices shows widespread failures and extensive corruption. Findings reported here are based mainly on confidential, semi-structured interviews, triangulated (cross-checked) amongst many stakeholders.
Necessarily, much of what is here summarized is in the nature of allegations, unsupported by civil or criminal court proceedings; although some clearly should be the subject of prosecutions and would be if there was political will and if corruption was not so pervasive and interlocking.
Countries and enterprises seeking to demonstrate that their timber production is entirely legal will wish to avoid the situations mentioned below. The following list is by no means exhaustive; we anticipate finding yet more kinds of problems as the fieldwork continues.
Outright illegality
1.1. “Landlording concessions”. This means renting out forest harvesting concessions when the original concessionaire finds it technically impossible to operate a log harvest or financially more profitable to get someone else to do the work. Landlording differs from contracting in that all effective management decisions are taken by the renter. This practice is illegal in most countries, because unworkable concessions should be returned to the national forest service for re-allocation according to transparent and competitive procedures, or returned to the strategic forest reserve.
1.2. Logging outside the boundary of an allocated concession. Sometimes this may be accidental because procedures for boundary demarcation have not been followed.
1.3. “Washing” illegally felled logs through special areas to avoid area-related fees. Examples are using areas under mining leases (where all the residual forest will in due course be bulldozed and burned) and areas free of area charges because they are titled to indigenous communities. The illegal logs may not physically be moved through such areas, only the records manipulated to imply that they come from these areas.
1.4. Mis-declaration of timber names to avoid specific bans on felling protected species, and to reduce royalties by “baptizing” the logs with the name of a less expensive timber.
1.5. Declaring logs of protected species to have originated from road construction clearing when actually they have come from interior compartments.
1.6. Re-using timber tags which have not been properly cancelled, retrieved or destroyed by national forestry authorities.
1.7. “Freshening the stump”: cutting a slice off the top of a tree stump together with the original timber tag, and fixing another timber tag so as to “wash” logs actually felled elsewhere.
Against policies and strategies
2.1. (Arbitrary) allocation of forest harvesting concessions in the absence of a Strategic Allocation Plan, even when the latter is required in the National Forest Plan.
2.2. Uncontrolled raw log exports by enterprises which enjoy Foreign Direct Investment concessions, such concessions having been granted on the promise of local processing of logs, training of nationals and purchase of local services.
2.3. Uncontrolled or under-taxed raw log exports when government policy favours value-adding national secondary and tertiary timber processing.
2.4. Brokering by government agencies of timber harvesting contracts in small scale concessions and on indigenous lands for the benefit of larger scale enterprises.
Against procedures
3.1. Offering forest harvesting concessions without public advertisement and open competition.
3.2. Delaying the issue of the actual licences for forest harvesting concessions even though all formal procedures have been satisfactorily completed.
3.3. Mis-allocation of timber tags and timber transport permits such that timber appears to have come from one area when it actually originated in a different area and (possibly) was illegally felled anyway.
3.4. Failure to issue sufficient transport permits for timber originating free of area charges from indigenous titled land. This implies that a “bank” of transport permits (and/or timber tags) is built up secretly to aid the washing of illegally logged timber.
3.5. Using timber tags outside the original designated period. Sometimes this occurs because of months-long weather-induced delays in extraction from stump to mill.
3.6. Arbitrary assignment of numbers of timber tags to mixed loads of chainsawn lumber from scattered trees.
3.7. Under-invoicing of timber volumes for internal transport, to reduce freight charges and taxes.
3.8. Under-invoicing of timber exports which are subject to export duties and taxes.
3.9. Use of duty free or reduced duty concessions under Foreign Direct Investment for areas outside the forest area to which the FDI agreement applies.
3.10. Underuse of barcode readers of timber tags, so concealing the actual marketing chain from stump to mill or export, and potentially failing to record the passage of quantities of illegal timber.
3.11. Failure to have enough functioning barcode readers to permit the intended computer-assisted reconciliation of forest production records from stump to mill or stump to export.
3.12. Failure by government agencies to monitor field use of timber tags on stumps and logs, and of transport permits; so allowing tags and permits to circulate as currency for illegal logging.
Commentary
Our interviews were remarkable in revealing how many stakeholders were deliberately engaged in doubtful or illegal practices. Our interviewees felt that the ways in which the government systems actually worked made legitimate business uncompetitive with forest piracy. Several stakeholders regretted the prevalence of illegalities. They were insistent that government agencies should be more transparent and should be held more accountable.
However, in the Guiana Shield countries, Parliamentarians have weak or no relation to geographic constituencies; Parliamentary Select Committees do not have a Westminister ability to scrutinize government agencies; and civil society is relatively weak and powerless to force remedial action from the political “party-in-power”. Secretive political parties provide cover for venal and corrupt practices. Non-transparent FDI agreements negotiated at Cabinet level and unpublished, poorly monitored and not held to account, tilt the business playing field against legitimate operators.
Some of these illegal operators volunteered strong feelings about the need for sustainable forest harvesting and the provision of forest-based livelihoods for their children and future generations. The same illegal operators acknowledged that at least some of the problems were caused by the high rate of staff loss from government agencies through migration to Canada and the USA (for Guyana) and to The Netherlands (for Suriname). Training programmes are not sufficient in volume or continuity nor are salaries sufficiently competitive to compensate for this high turnover.
If forest resource access charges (forest pricing) were raised to Malaysian levels (they are about one-twentieth of Malaysian charges) and if fees and taxes were actually collected in full by the government agencies, then government salaries could be raised to competitive levels. One may speculate why large FDI-supported forest concessionaires are allowed to remain hugely indebted to government while small-scale operators are fiercely pursued for small debts.
Guyana rated a poor 2.5 out of 10 on the corruption perception index of Transparency International in 2005. This rating ranks Guyana at 117 out of 158 countries surveyed.
A more detailed interim report will be offered to the FLEGT website of Chatham House/RIIA later this year after more fieldwork.
[27Jul2006]
Extract from GoG brochure “Statement on sustainable forest management in Guyana”, February 2006
QUOTATION
Also in year 2000 the GFC introduced the Log Tracking System to verify the origin of raw material and to control the level of harvesting within State Forests.
Guyana is probably the only country in the world with a complete national log tracking system. Forest produce originating from Guyana and used in any part of the world can be traced directly to the stump of the tree the wood was taken from.
The log tracking system provides detectable evidence on the legitimacy, location and magnitude of forest operations and is currently applied to all forestry operations including State Forests, Amerindian Reservations and Private Properties. It is linked to a Quota System which is an initiative to control the volume of produce harvested. The log tracking system is regulated by the use of Log Tags which are assigned to all concessionaires at the commencement of each year operations free of charge. An operator’s quota is calculated based on the sustained yield of the forest area which considers variables such as felling cycle, felling distance and minimum girth. The quota is equated to the number of standing trees which will yield the volume and the number of trees computed indicates the number of tags to be issued (one tag is equivalent to one tree). Each operator is allocated a number of tags equivalent to his sustained yield and is recognized by a unique sequence of numbers assigned to that operations. Log tagging is done at stump where half of the tag is affixed to the stump at the time of felling and the other part bearing the same sequence of numbers as recorded on the stump tag is affixed to the produce being conveyed. All forest produce including logs, lumber piles, poles and posts are tagged. It is the unique number of tag assigned that indicates who the operator is and therefore is able to indicate the geographic origin of the forest produce within the forest estate.
Buyers of timber and other forest products from Guyana can be assured that these products originate from forests that are being managed sustainably utilizing the best forest management practices supported by quality scientific information. Etc.
END OF QUOTATIONS
Once I was on a flight to Asia from the US and I ran into a couple of people on their way to Asia to buy logs for Kmart's furniture making department. I asked them why go all the way to Asia and why not to South America - countries like Guyana. They stated the log tracking system in Guyana was not up to standard and Kmart refuses to do business with countries that do not have proper accounting systems. Although I wonder if they were on their way to Malyasia to buy logs which were originally felled in Guyana?
Guyana's log tracking system
The Log Tracking System in Guyana
The mechanism used by the Guyana Forestry Commission to perform legal verification and enhance tracking of the chain of custody.
During Year 2000 the GFC introduced the Log Tracking System to verify the origin of produce and to control the levels of harvesting within State Forests. Guyana is probably the only country in the world with a complete/national log tracking system. Forest produce originating from Guyana and used in any part of the world, once properly documented, can be tracked directly to the stump of the tree that the wood was taken from.
The Log Tracking System in Guyana provides detectable evidence on the legitimacy, location and magnitude of forest operations. The Log Tracking System currently applies to all operations – including those on State Forests, Amerindian Reservations and Private Properties and is linked to the State Forest Permit (SFP) Quota System - an initiative to control the volume of produce harvested. The Log Tracking System is regulated by the use of Log Tags which are assigned to legal operators at the commencement of an operator’s annual renewal of his SFP licence and are available to the operator free of charge.
Log Tracking and the Quota System
An operator’s quota (forest produce volume) is first calculated by a formula estimate of the sustained yield which considers the size of the forest area and captures the minimum log harvesting variables of felling cycle, felling distance and minimum girth. The quota is equated to the number of standing trees which will yield this volume; and it is the number of trees computed that indicates the number of tags to be issued (one tag is equivalent to one standing tree). Each operator is allocated a number of tags equivalent to his sustained yield and is recognised by a unique sequence of numbers assigned to that operation.
Log tagging is done at stump where one half of the tag is affixed to the stump at the time of felling and the other part bearing the same sequence of numbers as recorded on the stump tag, is affixed to the produce being conveyed. All forest produce including logs, lumber, piles, poles and posts are tagged.
It is the unique numbers of each tag assigned that indicates who the operator is and therefore is able to indicate the geographic origin of the forest produce within the Forest Estate.
Administrative
The GFC has had to set new internal controls and procedures to ensure the success of the Log Tracking Initiative. Log Tag assignment is a controlled process facilitated by a simple database. Printouts of the database reports in the form of a Register of Log Tag allocations is available to at all Forest Stations and Forest Officers are now better able to verify the origin and capture the royalties due on any forest produce being conveyed.
Environmental
The Guyana Forestry Commission through its Log Tracking System has developed a procedure to ensure good forest management on all operations. Volumes of forest being harvested by all operators are based on a sustained yield estimate of the forest resources on any given parcel of forest land.
Social
By far the most significant findings and implications are those from a social perspective. The Log Tracking System has exposed and hence reduced the number of illegal operations especially the chainsaw operations.
Link
The mechanism used by the Guyana Forestry Commission to perform legal verification and enhance tracking of the chain of custody.
During Year 2000 the GFC introduced the Log Tracking System to verify the origin of produce and to control the levels of harvesting within State Forests. Guyana is probably the only country in the world with a complete/national log tracking system. Forest produce originating from Guyana and used in any part of the world, once properly documented, can be tracked directly to the stump of the tree that the wood was taken from.
The Log Tracking System in Guyana provides detectable evidence on the legitimacy, location and magnitude of forest operations. The Log Tracking System currently applies to all operations – including those on State Forests, Amerindian Reservations and Private Properties and is linked to the State Forest Permit (SFP) Quota System - an initiative to control the volume of produce harvested. The Log Tracking System is regulated by the use of Log Tags which are assigned to legal operators at the commencement of an operator’s annual renewal of his SFP licence and are available to the operator free of charge.
Log Tracking and the Quota System
An operator’s quota (forest produce volume) is first calculated by a formula estimate of the sustained yield which considers the size of the forest area and captures the minimum log harvesting variables of felling cycle, felling distance and minimum girth. The quota is equated to the number of standing trees which will yield this volume; and it is the number of trees computed that indicates the number of tags to be issued (one tag is equivalent to one standing tree). Each operator is allocated a number of tags equivalent to his sustained yield and is recognised by a unique sequence of numbers assigned to that operation.
Log tagging is done at stump where one half of the tag is affixed to the stump at the time of felling and the other part bearing the same sequence of numbers as recorded on the stump tag, is affixed to the produce being conveyed. All forest produce including logs, lumber, piles, poles and posts are tagged.
It is the unique numbers of each tag assigned that indicates who the operator is and therefore is able to indicate the geographic origin of the forest produce within the Forest Estate.
Administrative
The GFC has had to set new internal controls and procedures to ensure the success of the Log Tracking Initiative. Log Tag assignment is a controlled process facilitated by a simple database. Printouts of the database reports in the form of a Register of Log Tag allocations is available to at all Forest Stations and Forest Officers are now better able to verify the origin and capture the royalties due on any forest produce being conveyed.
Environmental
The Guyana Forestry Commission through its Log Tracking System has developed a procedure to ensure good forest management on all operations. Volumes of forest being harvested by all operators are based on a sustained yield estimate of the forest resources on any given parcel of forest land.
Social
By far the most significant findings and implications are those from a social perspective. The Log Tracking System has exposed and hence reduced the number of illegal operations especially the chainsaw operations.
Link
The Barama Deal
How could the deal with Barama Company Ltd. be favourable to Guyana ?
Dear Editor,
I am very glad that Mr. Trevor Atkinson (SN Dec 16th, 2006) pointed out the harsh/cruel and difficult circumstances under which the Barama deal was negotiated with the Hoyte/PNC Government.
Under the Burnham/PNC regime, the economy had collapsed, educational and health services had severely deteriorated, and people were fleeing to wherever they can, in search of a livelihood, etc.
This dire situation existed all over the country. And, as Mr. T. Atkinson so graphically pointed out, the situation was even worse in the interior communities. Subsistence living was the norm of our people. We were in dire poverty, for the first time, comparable to the chronic poverty situation in Haiti . (The staggering national debt was $2 billion, a sum equal to 10 times Guyana 's gross domestic product.)
When Mr. Desmond Hoyte took over the reins of government, he was, therefore, faced with enormous problems - economic, social, crime, political, loss of trained personnel etc. He probably moved to secure his position by granting large concessions to his PNC cronies (Ministers, Members of Parliament, and supporters of the PNC), in the absence of other financial perks.
The political situation was still unstable. There was jostling for leadership within the party, and the angry voices of the extremists and those who grew up with the ‘culture of entitlements' were demanding their share. Because of the lack of democracy, since his government was not democratically elected, it was difficult to attract desirable foreign investments, as Mr. Atkinson so rightly pointed out.
Therefore, in order for Mr. Hoyte to get any foreign investment or capital here, he had to make major concessions with the less attractive and/or reputable companies. He was faced with some very difficult choices. Barama, knowing the prevailing conditions, had the upper hand, and therefore drove a very hard and ruthless bargain. Mr. Winston King (Mr. Hoyte's negotiator) was totally outmatched, or asleep, or unconscious, or whatever. The bottom–line was that Guyana got sucker-punched. Dr. M Colchester ( Guyana , Fragile Frontiers. Pub.1997, page 102) said: “The Barama agreement grants the company a 25-year lease – automatically extendable for a further 25 years… the Company also enjoys a ten-year tax holiday, including income tax, corporation tax, withholding tax, consumption tax, property tax, and income duties on just about everything, including machinery, fuel, building materials, office equipment, and medical supplies. Export taxes are only payable on greenheart, while royalty payments have been fixed in Guyanese dollars, over the first 20–year period, a gift to the company as the currency devalues.”(In 1991, G$112.00 = US$1.00; and in 2006, G$205.00 = US$1.00. This means that Guyana only gets about half as much of the original bargained rate).
“Yet the company is also permitted to hold external accounts, foreign currency accounts within Guyana, employ 15 percent foreign workers (more if local labour with the right skills is unavailable), and, in the event of disputes with the Government, have recourse to the arbitration of the ‘International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes' in Washington DC, in which case the company ‘shall be deemed as a national of a State other than Guyana' (basic Agreement 1991: article 21).”
It is as if the company has diplomatic immunity status. (No wonder the NGOs and the British Government thought that the contract was too generous and should be revised.)
Mr. Hoyte was counting on receiving this limited finance to fund the restoration and re-development of the country and his people. Despite being given all that it wished for, Barama claimed that it has not made a profit over the past 15 years; and therefore does not have to pay the measly 2% tax. The company did not act in good faith and did not meet its side of even this most flawed bargain (totally in Barama's favour) to Mr Hoyte's Govt. and the Guyanese people.
Mr. D. Hoyte and the Guyanese people were learning the hard way that most international business enterprises are not good corporate citizens. They find every way and means to avoid paying, unless they have to do so. With no functioning corporate law and/or agency to enforce compliance and impose penalties to defaulters, the payment/collection of negligible dues/penalties is left up to the whims of the members of the ruling party. The Govt. politicians (current and past) and officials are seduced, duped, and led by the Company (or the mini-state within the state). The political opponents (current and past) are probably silent for similar reasons, or reasons best known to them.
What is most interesting is that even Bookers in the sugar industry did not have such a generous deal in the years just preceding nationalisation. Bookers paid what was due into the National coffers.
The Union leaders (e.g. Mr. Richard Ishmael (MPCA), and Mr. Harrilal (GAWU)) knew the finances of the company, so that they compute the bonuses ‘owing' to the membership, and also know how much of a raise to bargain for. The Govt. also knew when it will receive a windfall - when sugar prices went up.
Bookers was not accused of defrauding the Govt., so mistreating its workers, displacing indigenous people, etc. (The unions were also strong.) Bookers was not involved in environmentally questionable industrial practices in its business. Yet, both PPP and PNC went after Bookers with a vengeance. (The forestry giveaways' situation makes the sugar and bauxite companies look like corporate angels. Most of us know that the benefits received and improvements in working conditions were the result of hard work by “agitators”.)
Guyanese Govts. (Both PNC and PPP – under Presidents: Mr. D. Hoyte, Dr C. Jagan, Ms J. Jagan, Mr. S. Hinds, and, Mr B. Jagdeo) have tolerated the Barama deal. In all cases, the Company did not contribute to the National coffers. As British Columbian workers said: “XXXXX got the coal, and we got the hole;” Guyanese may say: “They got the lumber and we got hunger.” (Or for mining: “They got the gold and we got the spills that kill.”) Could you imagine what Guyanese labour icons like Mr H. N. Critchlow, Mr R. Ishmael, Mr Harrilal, or Mr Ashton Chase, etc. would say about this deal and other forestry deals?
Why were/are these deals negotiated in secrecy? Why are they not going through Parliament, where we can have public scrutiny? (As is now done in Suriname .)
If the PNC State/Govt., with all its intellectual power, business acumen, legal resources, etc, could not both negotiate a fair and equitable deal, and ensure enforcement of the deal with the Company, then the overwhelming question is: How reasonably can we expect Barama to fulfill its obligations to relatively formally uneducated, legally unrepresented, financially impoverished, and isolated Guyanese?
We must also ask: Did the people have any legal representative looking after their interests? Were the people given the same secret ‘fair deal' and public non-compliance given to the Govt. by Barama?
With no functioning corporate law in place, who ensured compliance of any promised deals? How could the people defend their homes, means of livelihood, sacred cites, their natural heritage, and national interest, etc. against a big multinational company without any legal/lawful/constitutional representation? Their own Govt. had abandoned them. The Barama Company also had the legal and law enforcement agencies (Police and Army) on its side. From the above referenced documentation ( Colchester , 1997), the people had to accept their fate, there was no choice - Barama was now their landlord – the residents' status changed from owners to tenants. Who defines/determines fairness under such conditions?
Incidentally, it was not what I said about the treatment of the Amerindians, I quoted the findings of Dr Marcus Colchester and the APA. May I add that there was a joint NGO statement to the Caribbean Group for Cooperation in Economic Development, in which points #3 and 7 were: “Renegotiate disadvantageous logging and mining contracts entered into by the previous administration. Establish forthwith the promised Commission of Enquiry into the Land claims of the Amerindians affected by the Barama Company limited.” That was signed by the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA), Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), World Rainforest Movement (WRM), and Friends of the Earth (FOE) ( UK ). (See Colchester , page 112).
We must ask: “Is the APA not one of the internationally recognised voices of the Amerindians? Was the GHRA not a recognised and powerful voice for human rights violations in Guyana during the PNC years? Are WRM and FOE not internationally recognised organisations for the environment and the affected peoples?”
In addition, the British NGOs and World Bank environmentalists, and the PPP under Dr Jagan, The Guyanese Council of Churches, Trade Unions, Greenpeace, Survival International, and Forest Producers Association were against this deal. ( Colchester , page110).That is a very formidable and reputable array of diverse groups questioning Barama's past conduct.
So how could this ‘negotiated' deal (see above), (and other forestry giveaways) be so good for Guyana and Guyanese, especially since it took advantage of our greatest vulnerabilities and needs? We should be too experienced to be taken for a ride by now.
Seelochan Beharry
The Contributions sighted as evidence of corporate goodness are just minimum modern survival business practices or strategies.
Mr Trevor Atkinson (SN 16th Dec., 2006) sought to justify the deal and presence of Barama, by also citing the ‘good deeds' or ‘fringe benefits' of the Company to the local Community. This is an old corporate/business strategy – of offering a few crumbs to the locals while the company takes the loaves and all the drinks.
Kaietur News
Dear Editor,
I am very glad that Mr. Trevor Atkinson (SN Dec 16th, 2006) pointed out the harsh/cruel and difficult circumstances under which the Barama deal was negotiated with the Hoyte/PNC Government.
Under the Burnham/PNC regime, the economy had collapsed, educational and health services had severely deteriorated, and people were fleeing to wherever they can, in search of a livelihood, etc.
This dire situation existed all over the country. And, as Mr. T. Atkinson so graphically pointed out, the situation was even worse in the interior communities. Subsistence living was the norm of our people. We were in dire poverty, for the first time, comparable to the chronic poverty situation in Haiti . (The staggering national debt was $2 billion, a sum equal to 10 times Guyana 's gross domestic product.)
When Mr. Desmond Hoyte took over the reins of government, he was, therefore, faced with enormous problems - economic, social, crime, political, loss of trained personnel etc. He probably moved to secure his position by granting large concessions to his PNC cronies (Ministers, Members of Parliament, and supporters of the PNC), in the absence of other financial perks.
The political situation was still unstable. There was jostling for leadership within the party, and the angry voices of the extremists and those who grew up with the ‘culture of entitlements' were demanding their share. Because of the lack of democracy, since his government was not democratically elected, it was difficult to attract desirable foreign investments, as Mr. Atkinson so rightly pointed out.
Therefore, in order for Mr. Hoyte to get any foreign investment or capital here, he had to make major concessions with the less attractive and/or reputable companies. He was faced with some very difficult choices. Barama, knowing the prevailing conditions, had the upper hand, and therefore drove a very hard and ruthless bargain. Mr. Winston King (Mr. Hoyte's negotiator) was totally outmatched, or asleep, or unconscious, or whatever. The bottom–line was that Guyana got sucker-punched. Dr. M Colchester ( Guyana , Fragile Frontiers. Pub.1997, page 102) said: “The Barama agreement grants the company a 25-year lease – automatically extendable for a further 25 years… the Company also enjoys a ten-year tax holiday, including income tax, corporation tax, withholding tax, consumption tax, property tax, and income duties on just about everything, including machinery, fuel, building materials, office equipment, and medical supplies. Export taxes are only payable on greenheart, while royalty payments have been fixed in Guyanese dollars, over the first 20–year period, a gift to the company as the currency devalues.”(In 1991, G$112.00 = US$1.00; and in 2006, G$205.00 = US$1.00. This means that Guyana only gets about half as much of the original bargained rate).
“Yet the company is also permitted to hold external accounts, foreign currency accounts within Guyana, employ 15 percent foreign workers (more if local labour with the right skills is unavailable), and, in the event of disputes with the Government, have recourse to the arbitration of the ‘International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes' in Washington DC, in which case the company ‘shall be deemed as a national of a State other than Guyana' (basic Agreement 1991: article 21).”
It is as if the company has diplomatic immunity status. (No wonder the NGOs and the British Government thought that the contract was too generous and should be revised.)
Mr. Hoyte was counting on receiving this limited finance to fund the restoration and re-development of the country and his people. Despite being given all that it wished for, Barama claimed that it has not made a profit over the past 15 years; and therefore does not have to pay the measly 2% tax. The company did not act in good faith and did not meet its side of even this most flawed bargain (totally in Barama's favour) to Mr Hoyte's Govt. and the Guyanese people.
Mr. D. Hoyte and the Guyanese people were learning the hard way that most international business enterprises are not good corporate citizens. They find every way and means to avoid paying, unless they have to do so. With no functioning corporate law and/or agency to enforce compliance and impose penalties to defaulters, the payment/collection of negligible dues/penalties is left up to the whims of the members of the ruling party. The Govt. politicians (current and past) and officials are seduced, duped, and led by the Company (or the mini-state within the state). The political opponents (current and past) are probably silent for similar reasons, or reasons best known to them.
What is most interesting is that even Bookers in the sugar industry did not have such a generous deal in the years just preceding nationalisation. Bookers paid what was due into the National coffers.
The Union leaders (e.g. Mr. Richard Ishmael (MPCA), and Mr. Harrilal (GAWU)) knew the finances of the company, so that they compute the bonuses ‘owing' to the membership, and also know how much of a raise to bargain for. The Govt. also knew when it will receive a windfall - when sugar prices went up.
Bookers was not accused of defrauding the Govt., so mistreating its workers, displacing indigenous people, etc. (The unions were also strong.) Bookers was not involved in environmentally questionable industrial practices in its business. Yet, both PPP and PNC went after Bookers with a vengeance. (The forestry giveaways' situation makes the sugar and bauxite companies look like corporate angels. Most of us know that the benefits received and improvements in working conditions were the result of hard work by “agitators”.)
Guyanese Govts. (Both PNC and PPP – under Presidents: Mr. D. Hoyte, Dr C. Jagan, Ms J. Jagan, Mr. S. Hinds, and, Mr B. Jagdeo) have tolerated the Barama deal. In all cases, the Company did not contribute to the National coffers. As British Columbian workers said: “XXXXX got the coal, and we got the hole;” Guyanese may say: “They got the lumber and we got hunger.” (Or for mining: “They got the gold and we got the spills that kill.”) Could you imagine what Guyanese labour icons like Mr H. N. Critchlow, Mr R. Ishmael, Mr Harrilal, or Mr Ashton Chase, etc. would say about this deal and other forestry deals?
Why were/are these deals negotiated in secrecy? Why are they not going through Parliament, where we can have public scrutiny? (As is now done in Suriname .)
If the PNC State/Govt., with all its intellectual power, business acumen, legal resources, etc, could not both negotiate a fair and equitable deal, and ensure enforcement of the deal with the Company, then the overwhelming question is: How reasonably can we expect Barama to fulfill its obligations to relatively formally uneducated, legally unrepresented, financially impoverished, and isolated Guyanese?
We must also ask: Did the people have any legal representative looking after their interests? Were the people given the same secret ‘fair deal' and public non-compliance given to the Govt. by Barama?
With no functioning corporate law in place, who ensured compliance of any promised deals? How could the people defend their homes, means of livelihood, sacred cites, their natural heritage, and national interest, etc. against a big multinational company without any legal/lawful/constitutional representation? Their own Govt. had abandoned them. The Barama Company also had the legal and law enforcement agencies (Police and Army) on its side. From the above referenced documentation ( Colchester , 1997), the people had to accept their fate, there was no choice - Barama was now their landlord – the residents' status changed from owners to tenants. Who defines/determines fairness under such conditions?
Incidentally, it was not what I said about the treatment of the Amerindians, I quoted the findings of Dr Marcus Colchester and the APA. May I add that there was a joint NGO statement to the Caribbean Group for Cooperation in Economic Development, in which points #3 and 7 were: “Renegotiate disadvantageous logging and mining contracts entered into by the previous administration. Establish forthwith the promised Commission of Enquiry into the Land claims of the Amerindians affected by the Barama Company limited.” That was signed by the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA), Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), World Rainforest Movement (WRM), and Friends of the Earth (FOE) ( UK ). (See Colchester , page 112).
We must ask: “Is the APA not one of the internationally recognised voices of the Amerindians? Was the GHRA not a recognised and powerful voice for human rights violations in Guyana during the PNC years? Are WRM and FOE not internationally recognised organisations for the environment and the affected peoples?”
In addition, the British NGOs and World Bank environmentalists, and the PPP under Dr Jagan, The Guyanese Council of Churches, Trade Unions, Greenpeace, Survival International, and Forest Producers Association were against this deal. ( Colchester , page110).That is a very formidable and reputable array of diverse groups questioning Barama's past conduct.
So how could this ‘negotiated' deal (see above), (and other forestry giveaways) be so good for Guyana and Guyanese, especially since it took advantage of our greatest vulnerabilities and needs? We should be too experienced to be taken for a ride by now.
Seelochan Beharry
The Contributions sighted as evidence of corporate goodness are just minimum modern survival business practices or strategies.
Mr Trevor Atkinson (SN 16th Dec., 2006) sought to justify the deal and presence of Barama, by also citing the ‘good deeds' or ‘fringe benefits' of the Company to the local Community. This is an old corporate/business strategy – of offering a few crumbs to the locals while the company takes the loaves and all the drinks.
Kaietur News
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
A forest of unanswered questions
There is not sufficient evidence, based on one eyewitness, to incriminate the govt of massive corruption in the forestry sector. However the collective outcry over the past couple of months is surely worthy of an investigation. Apparently ministers are lining their pockets as usual at the expense of the citizens. This is tantamount to stealing, corruption runs rampant in Guyana as imcompetence and complacency to fraud is the order of the day....Link to Discussion
Not so Transparent an answer
Questioned timber shipment above board - Commissioner Singh
GFC not releasing cargo details
Wednesday, January 3rd 2007
Commissioner of Forests James Singh is maintaining that a shipment of logs which left Guyana in December on the vessel 'Rong Cheng' met all of the regulatory body's requirements for export and that the body is not under any obligation to provide requested details.
Singh was speaking last week in response to a letter to this newspaper, in which Patrick Jackson questioned this particular export of logs.
Jackson said that he called the Guyana Forestry Com-mission (GFC) on several occasions to get answers to questions that he had about the information that he found on a blog. The blog, called Guyana Plunder without Profit, features a number of articles and views on Guyana's forest industry.
On a post dated December 15, 2006, the blog shows four photographs depicting logs being loaded on to the Rong Cheng from a barge while in the Demerara River. The blog can be found at http://guy anaforestry.blogspot.com.
Jackson said in the letter that he tried unsuccessfully for several days to contact the Commissioner of Forests for answers. But speaking to this newspaper, Singh said that the GFC does not give out details of shipments. He said that the GFC didn't wish to engage in a public debate and that the shipment was above board.
Jackson's letter stated: "Through your newspaper, I wish to ask the Commissioner of Forests to name the timber exporter(s) with cargo on the Rong Cheng, what species/volumes/value of logs were being exported, and the names of the consignees."
The letter writer stated that the photos showed no Customs or GFC official present at the loading of the ship, but a GFC official said that officers of the agency don't have to be on hand every minute during the loading of the logs on the ships.
Singh also said that on the matter of transfer pricing, the Forest Products Marketing Council and the Planning and Research section of the GFC are engaged in an investigation and the findings of this will be made known in due course.
Stabroek News
GFC not releasing cargo details
Wednesday, January 3rd 2007
Commissioner of Forests James Singh is maintaining that a shipment of logs which left Guyana in December on the vessel 'Rong Cheng' met all of the regulatory body's requirements for export and that the body is not under any obligation to provide requested details.
Singh was speaking last week in response to a letter to this newspaper, in which Patrick Jackson questioned this particular export of logs.
Jackson said that he called the Guyana Forestry Com-mission (GFC) on several occasions to get answers to questions that he had about the information that he found on a blog. The blog, called Guyana Plunder without Profit, features a number of articles and views on Guyana's forest industry.
On a post dated December 15, 2006, the blog shows four photographs depicting logs being loaded on to the Rong Cheng from a barge while in the Demerara River. The blog can be found at http://guy anaforestry.blogspot.com.
Jackson said in the letter that he tried unsuccessfully for several days to contact the Commissioner of Forests for answers. But speaking to this newspaper, Singh said that the GFC does not give out details of shipments. He said that the GFC didn't wish to engage in a public debate and that the shipment was above board.
Jackson's letter stated: "Through your newspaper, I wish to ask the Commissioner of Forests to name the timber exporter(s) with cargo on the Rong Cheng, what species/volumes/value of logs were being exported, and the names of the consignees."
The letter writer stated that the photos showed no Customs or GFC official present at the loading of the ship, but a GFC official said that officers of the agency don't have to be on hand every minute during the loading of the logs on the ships.
Singh also said that on the matter of transfer pricing, the Forest Products Marketing Council and the Planning and Research section of the GFC are engaged in an investigation and the findings of this will be made known in due course.
Stabroek News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Please Email Comments to guyanaforestryblog@gmail.com