Let Barama arrange some open days for inspection of its forest operations

Tuesday, March 20th 2007
Stabroek News.

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56516456

Dear Editor, I welcome the intentions expressed in Sunday Stabroek on March 18, by the General Manager of the Barama Company Limited (BCL) for an improvement in that company's standards of forest management ('Barama corrects forest management deficiencies - expects reversal of suspension'). As Girwar Lalaram says, the requirements of the international Forest Stewardship Council are more wide-ranging and rigorous than the Code of Practice for Timber Harvesting of the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC), but currently BCL is a long way short of complying with the GFC requirements. I recall that WWF had by early 2005 paid at least US$ 160,000 to help BCL improve its performance to the FSC standard, so I am not convinced by a WWF inspection "showing that the company has fulfilled most of the corrective actions required"; and the inspection report is not available on the website of WWF Guianas. Also, the major faults noted by Accreditation Services International GmbH in the public summary of its report issued in January could not possibly be corrected in such a short time. It is not enough for BCL to make promises of good behaviour in future. For FSC certification, BCL needs to demonstrate that it is actually complying with the FSC ethos all across its legally and illegally operated forest concessions, and putting into practice all the FSC required actions in the area proposed for partial certification. If BCL is indeed confident that it can show these actions in the field, and would not that be truly wonderful, then let BCL arrange some open days so that we can all have a look? And by "open days" I do not mean closely shepherded tours of its Land of Canaan or Buck Hall operations. It is about a year ago that the GFC commissioned the consultancy Proforest to develop a legality verification system for Guyana. One of the requirements of the European Union for voluntary partnerships agreements to allow timber to be exported into the EU in future is independent forest monitoring, with no censorship of the reports. Is BCL up to this challenge? Yours faithfully, Janette Bulkan

Barama slams Akawini over discontent with forest pact

- says willing to discuss options

Stabroeknews

Wednesday, March 21st 2007
http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56516537

Barama Company Limited has lashed out at the Akawini Village Council for its criticism of an agreement it has with one of Barama's sub-contractors in Region Two, Interior Wood Products Inc (IWPI), but is willing to discuss options with the village. General Manager of Barama Girwar Lalaram told Stabroek News on Friday that he is willing to intervene and work on the issues that the village is concerned about. He is convinced that the agreement signed has the best interest of all the parties at heart. But the village is calling the agreement with IWPI exploitative, and said that it was made in bad faith. With the help of the Amerindian Peoples' Association, the village is trying to get out of the agreement even if it means taking legal action. Villagers said the Barama operation is destroying their way of life and that they are facing the destruction and loss of their forest resources "that have sustained our people for generations." In response, Lalaram said that the company it sub-contracts cuts 99 per cent of the peeler logs in the concessions. "How can you destroy a forest by cutting 99 per cent of one species?" he asked. He said although Barama put in the infrastructure for the harvesting to take place, people have gone "behind the scenes" and have given the villagers chainsaws and have cut all the Greenheart and Purpleheart at Barama's expense. He said Barama has put in roads, bridges and other infrastructure which will benefit the communities long after it would have left. On the other hand, the community said IPWI enticed it with the prospect of good employment and the promise that at least 80 persons from the village would be doing skilled jobs for salaries as high as $80,000. In reality only 12 persons were employed to do menial work for very little reward. In some cases, persons earn as little as $17,000 per month, it said. To this, Lalaram said that through IWPI, Barama is employing 51 persons as tree fellers and in other positions. He said too that the company is directly employing 40 persons at Buck Hall on the Essequibo River. Further, the Council also accused Barama of going back on a commitment it made to donate $300,000 per month to the village. But Lalaram refutes this. He said because of "accounting irregularities" within the village council the money goes directly to the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs.

Akawini villagers want out of logging deal

Stabroek News

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56516165

The Amerindian People's Association (APA) and the Akawini Village Council are protesting what they call an "exploitative" logging agreement that they were made to sign with a company calling itself Interior Wood Products Inc (IWPI), which is a sub-contractor to Barama Company Incorporated.

At a press conference held at the Raddisson Suites Hotel in Queenstown yesterday, the Village Council said that with the support of the APA, it is considering legal action.

Stabroek News sought an explanation from IWPI and Barama but was not able to establish contact with the former or elicit a response from the latter.

"We the residents of the Akawini Amerindian Village, Pomeroon in Region Two are facing the destruction and loss of our forest resources that have sustained our people for generations," Rudolph Wilson, Deputy Captain of Akawini said.

He said the villagers are calling on the President, the Minister of Amerindian Affairs, the Government and the citizens of Guyana to support them in their effort to end the agreement, which they say was negotiated in bad faith.

Wilson explained that in 2004, representative of IWPI Basdeo Singh told the villagers that he wanted to enter into an agreement with the village to harvest logs. "He showed us a draft agreement which he said had the blessings of the Minister of Amerindian Affairs," he said.

Also present at this meeting were Peter Persaud who said he represented the Amerindian people, Luvindra Sukraj, who said he was a representative of the Guyana Forestry Commission, Wesley Bell, a Region Two RDC representative and Lloyd Perreira, Community Development Officer of Region Two, "who said that he was representing the ministry."

According to Wilson, the village agreed to sign the pact based on the representation made to them by the officials present. "We were placed into groups and given about five minutes to study the agreement though we did not understand the legal language in the agreement," he said.

Wilson said shortly after the meeting and the signing of the agreement, the Minister of Amerindian Affairs sent the Council a letter stating that she had never seen the agreement that Basdeo Singh claimed had her approval. "The minister also made contact with the GFC which said that they also had never seen that agreement," Wilson said.

He said that in July of 2005 Singh returned to the community accompanied by Ovid Williams of the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, and stated that they had brought an amended version of the agreement. "At this meeting we told Singh … we would not be signing any agreement. He threatened us that if we didn't sign the agreement he would go ahead and work with the old agreement and the royalties paid directly to the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs."

According to Wilson, he also threatened to take the Village Council to court. The Village Council said that because of the threats and the position they found themselves in, they yielded and signed the agreement.

According to the group, as soon as the agreement was signed, heavy equipment arrived on the village land. "After some time we learnt that the heavy-duty machinery belonged to Barama Company and that Basdeo Singh took out a sub-contract with Barama Company. This he did without consulting with the Council as required by the agreement," the group said.

They said that when they confronted Singh for a copy of the sub-contract he promised to send one but never did. Further, the APA and the Akawini Village Council stated that small-scale loggers, mainly villagers, were stopped from logging by IWPI by means of an injunction. They said GFC tags and removal permits were being withheld from the village and given to IWPI only. "These tags and permits allow us to cut and ship and now we are unable to do so," the statement from the joint press conference said yesterday. It added that many people have no means of income and cannot provide for most of their basic needs.

Toshao of Akawini David Wilson said the community was enticed with the prospect of good employment that the company presented to them. He said that employment was promised by IWPI for at least 80 persons from the village, but that turned out to be only 12 persons doing the most menial jobs in the industry for very little recompense. In some cases, persons earn as little as $17,000 monthly. They were promised, he said, that the 80 persons would be doing skilled jobs for salaries as high as $80,000.
(Johann Earle)

The President should attack the problems not the messenger

Stabroek News
Thursday, March 15th 2007
http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56516112

Dear Editor,

I am grateful to the Stabroek News for printing the website address where I was able to read the full Human Rights Practices report on Guyana by the US Department of State. I found the report quite illuminating and was surprised to read later in SN about the President of Guyana ranting and raving before army top brass against the US for publishing the report. In his typical "in your face" style, he seems to have put on quite a performance before this group who were apparently either too loyal or too polite, though I rather suspect the former (although there could have been another reason - intimidated) not to clap and laugh at the appropriate times.

Almost sounding like Venezuela's Chavez, he lambasted the US for having the audacity to "lecture" him or his government. But from reading the report unless I am missing something, it seemed more like straight facts and reads as if the authors were trying to be as fair and balanced as possible. I did not see any parts of the report where the US even suggested much less lectured Guyana on what they should be doing. In any event, remember that although Chavez stood up at the UN and called Bush the devil, he turned right around and shipped oil (even if just to embarrass Bush) to the various regions of the US in need of such assistance. The most Jagdeo would probably do after criticizing the US is turn around and stretch his hand out to the US. That's pitiful!

I take note that the President did not seem to directly refute most of the major findings, except perhaps the part that said Roger Khan was given a timber concession and he said that he would pass legislation to screen future investors.

While not refuting most of the real findings he rants and raves that the US government itself was also committing many of these same evils. But before reading the report on Guyana specifically I took the time to read the introduction to the issue, which reported on all the countries of the world. In this the state department acknowledged that the report was being published "at a time when our own record, and actions we have taken to respond to the terrorist attacks against us, have been questioned," and stated their commitment to continual improvement. They then went on to state that although their democratic system of government was not infallible, it was accountable and they lauded their "robust civil society … vibrant free media … independent branches of government, and a well-established rule of law" that work as correctives. To me this is the most that any citizen of a country can ask for (especially accountability) and are indeed principles and realities I think every country should strive for.

While I am no defender of the US (they can do that themselves very well) and I am certainly no fan of this current administration (in fact I consider both the president and vice president of the U.S. to be war criminals and think they should be tried as such or at the very least, impeached and forced to resign respectively) I find Mr Jagdeo's comparing of the atrocities in Guyana with the atrocities in the US ridiculous given the difference in size and wealth of the two countries.

As far as the smuggling of drugs is concerned, the US congress has numerous times acknowledged that the enormous resources required for them to deal with the massive influx of illegal aliens pouring across the borders every day, weakens their ability to fully confront the drug smuggling across those same borders. What is impeding Mr Jagdeo from securing his borders from smugglers, just financial aid from the US? Also, is he saying that because no one lives on his borders he cannot have them patrolled?

Mr Jagdeo made the statement that anyone can walk into the US and invest. This is not true. As far back as 1991 the Institute for International Economics stated that in the US high-tech and defence industries, foreign direct investors have to comply with special regulations and they "may face even stricter restrictions in the future". In today's post 9/11 era, I am certain a lot more screening is being done. Just last year the US congress blocked a deal where a company based in the United Arab Emirates sought to purchase port management businesses in six major US seaports. Mr Bush argued vigorously for the approval of the deal claiming that denial would send the wrong signal to US allies, but the congress prevailed and the deal never went through.

Anyway, if screening would be a deterrent to laundering and other crimes why would an honest investor object to it? Airlines screen passengers everyday, yet serious travellers realise this is something they have to live with if all are to feel safe.

Is Mr Jagdeo in criticizing the report for pointing out a perception of corruption in Guyana saying that there is none? What planet has he been living on? And please Mr Jagdeo, remind me why local media should care more about who the US is detaining than they should care about who their own government is detaining unlawfully.

In the executive branch of the US government, Colin Powell resigned on his own volition and Condi Rice is still on the payroll.

President Jagdeo ignored major areas of the report. Unlawful killings by police, no development in allegations of police killings in previous years. The Russian made AK 47s still out there, which by the way seem to have resurfaced in certain recent robberies.

Criticising the US for publishing a report on Guyana that points out its negatives is not going to solve Guyana's problems. Even if the report were not published the problems would still be there. The truth stands. It needs no formulation. It is plain for all to see. Attack the problems not the messenger.

Yours faithfully,

Stafford Wills

Is BCL up to this challenge?

Kaieteur News, 20 March 2007

Dear Editor,

I welcome the intentions expressed in SN on March 18, by the General
Manager of the Barama Company Limited (BCL) for an improvement in that
company's standards of forest management (‘Barama corrects forest
management deficiencies - expects reversal of suspension').

As Girwar Lalaram says, the requirements of the international Forest
Stewardship Council are more wide-ranging and rigorous than the Code of
Practice for Timber Harvesting of the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC),
but currently BCL is a long way short of complying with the GFC
requirements.

I recall that WWF had by early 2005 paid at least US$160,000 to help
BCL improve its performance to the FSC standard, so I am not convinced
by a WWF inspection “showing that the company has fulfilled most of the
corrective actions required”; the inspection report is not available on
the website of WWF Guianas.

Also, the major faults noted by Accreditation Services International
GmbH in the public summary of its report issued in January could not
possibly be corrected in such a short time. It is not enough for BCL to
make promises of good behaviour in future.

For FSC certification, BCL needs to demonstrate that it is actually
complying with the FSC ethos all across its legally and illegally
operated forest concessions, and putting into practice all the FSC
required actions in the area proposed for partial certification.

If BCL is indeed confident that it can show these actions in the field,
and would not that be truly wonderful, then let BCL arrange some open
days so that we can all have a look? And by “open days” I do not mean
closely shepherded tours of its Land of Canaan or Buck Hall operations.

It is about a year ago that the GFC commissioned theConsulta ncy
Proforest to develop a legality verification system for Guyana. One of
the requirements of the European Union for voluntary partnerships
agreements to allow timber to be exported into the EU in future is
independent forest monitoring, with no censorship of the reports. Is
BCL up to this challenge?


Janette Bulkan

Omai also made no profit

I refer to Seelochan Behary's letter captioned "How is it Barama made no profit?" (07.02.05).

I submit the following in relation to this letter.

1. My comments on Barama's forest management will be reserved until the appeal by the SGS - qualifier is objectively heard and analysed.

2. Without being sinister, "Barama's Guyana" may sound appropriate since Barama is the name of a river which is a tributary of the Waini River in the North West Region of Guyana.

3. when in opposition politicians say anything like bringing down the cost of living, better transportation systems, increased wages etc. but when they are in government they tell you a different story. Yes, Dr Cheddi Jagan acted when he commissioned Dr Nigel Sizer's report - "Profit without plunder". What stopped him from pursuing his action; certainly he had enough time to act. But Dr Jagan did not act against the Barama company because the company's harvesting methods were consistent with sustainable forest management. Even if Dr Jagan had acted the way Mr Beharry wanted him to act, the wrong signals would have been sent out to the international business community that Dr Jagan's government, being the new government at the time, was against foreign investment. This principle still holds today and so it must be.

4. Mr Beharry continues to mislead the Guyanese and international communities that with the presence of Barama in our country our forests will be plundered or are undergoing destruction or depletion. This is a myth, over 80% of our forest cover remains intact and our country continues to be charcterized by vast areas of pristine and undisturbed tropical rainforest, mountain edges and savannahs with a rich diversity of plants and animals. The government and people of Guyana will never allow our country to reach the state of forest plunder like Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, the Solomon Islands and other south East Asian countries.

5. Mr Beharry is not a forrester. He once lectured at the University of Guyana in chemistry and is therefore not in the professional range to tell the difference between non-conformity with FSC principles and forest destruction.

6. Mr Beharry wants to know why the Barama company is not making any profits after 15 years. Before I answer Mr Beharry his question, he will first have to tell me, why Omai Gold Company after carrying on mining operations for over ten years in Guyana did not make any profits and caused an environmental disaster in August 1995 which polluted our Essequibo river and caused devastating effects on our flora, fauna and riverain residents.

7. Mr Beharry's silence on the non-profitability of OMAI is reflective on his dishonest patriotic claims and his pursuance of an agenda on behalf of a cabal that now seeks to monopolise and control the forestry sector by deceitful and unprofessional means.

8. As for payment of contractors, Barama does not owe money to any contractor.

9. The local forestry industry says they are on the brink of bankruptcy.

In 1993 Barama's contract was taken before parliament and debated on. Being the new government at the time it was decided that this action was appropriate.

Barama is not afraid of parliamentary scrutiny but it is no threat to our nation - state, so why parliamentary scrutiny?

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Atkinson

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56516322

Source : Stabroeknews

Testing

Currently under cunstruction