Petitioners support legislative reform which conform to international best practice

http://www.guyanachronicle.com/letters.html

Petitioners support legislative reform which conform to international
best practice
Guyana Chronicle, 24 August 2007

In her letter printed in your newspaper (Guyana Chronicle, August 23,
2007), Ms Samantha Griffith charges that ‘petitioners have their own
devious and clandestine agenda’ in drawing the attention of the
National Assembly to the unilateral replacement of the draft Forests
Act 2004 with the Forest Bill 2007, without explanation and with scant
justification for the deliberate removal of some, and insertion of new,
clauses which taken together weaken the Draft Forests Act 2004.

The Commissioner of Forests, Mr. James Singh, has stated with regard to
the draft Forests Act that “the real consultation period only ended in
2004” (‘The figure quoted as being earned by the country from forestry
investors does not take into account the employment provided and other
important spin-off activities’, Letter to the Editor, Stabroek News,
November 17, 2006).

This is the crux of the matter – the substitution of a Forest Bill 2007
in place of the earlier drafts on which stakeholders were consulted.

Neither the 2004 nor the 2007 version conform to best international
practice which has advanced as greater understanding of forest
criminality has developed (an excellent guide was recently published in
the Law, Justice, and Development Series of the World Bank/FAO, titled
Forest Law and Sustainable Development: addressing contemporary
challenges through legal reform by Lawrence Christy, Charles E. Di
Leva, Jonathan Lindsay, and Patrice Talla Takoukam).

Petitioners, including me, support legislative reform but that should
conform to best international practice as regards a fully participatory
process, and contents which use the simplest possible language and are
precise, transparent, equitable and reduce administrative discretion to
a minimum; administrative discretion being one of the key features
indicated by the World Bank and Transparency International as being
associated with government corruption and regulatory capture. As much
of the 2007 draft of the Forest Bill does not have these
characteristics, and so would not be conducive to implementation of
Article 36 of the National Constitution or of the National Forest
Policy 1997 or the National Forest Plan 2001, sending it back to the
participatory drawing board is in the best interests of Guyana.

Janette Bulkan

Logger seeks $74 million in damages from Barama

http://www.kaieteurnewsgy.com/news.htm

Logger seeks $74 million in damages from Barama
Kaieteur News, 24 August 2007

A local holder of a timber concession, who claimed that two large
logging companies have trespassed on his land, erected buildings and
wharfs and destroyed his trees in the process, is claiming millions of
dollars in damages.

In a complex case that involves the Guyana Lands and Survey Commission
(GLSC), it was disclosed that permission was granted by that body for
the two timber companies to use the land, although the rights belonged
to Michael Cordis.

In a twist earlier this year after intense lobbying by an irate Cordis,
GLSC, as a form of settlement, opted to grant him 50 acres of land a
stone's throw from the one that was taken away.

Cordis is claiming $74 million in damages. He said Barama made an
initial $5 million offer, which he rejected.

The story started in 2001 when Cordis left his Cuyuni River farm in the
hands of his brother and went abroad for a while. In 1983, ten acres of
land, located about three quarters of a mile from Kartabu Point, Cuyuni
River , was granted to the Cordis family. According to Cordis, he is
not surprised that Barama was interested in the land. It is
strategically located around a semi-bend on the Cuyuni River , perfect
to build a wharf.

After leaving Guyana in 2001, Cordis said that he returned in 2005 and
went to Bartica to pay his land tax. However, to his surprise, he
learnt the land was being occupied by Barama and Guyana Sawmills.

On a visit to the place, he was shocked at the destruction. Almost all
his trees were gone and in place were offices, heavy duty equipment and
a wharf.

Asked why he was not made aware of the fact that Barama was on his land
while he was abroad, Cordis indicated that his family did not have his
address and he was confident that his brother whom he had left in
charge was taking care of things.

After several meetings with GLSC and an attempted settlement with
Barama and Guyana Sawmills, an agreement for settlement was reached in
February. GLSC agreed to lease 50 acres as a form of compensation.

However, getting Barama and Guyana Sawmills to pay compensation for
damage which in the first place they acknowledged proved difficult.
Earlier this year he managed a meeting with top officials of Barama in
which an offer of $5 million compensation was laid on the table. In
addition, a rent of $200,000 per month for the 28-plus acres was
promised.

“I tell them tek back the 50 acres and give me back my old land because
that offer mek no sense. Dey come in, tek over my land, destroy my
plants and offering that chicken feed.”

So Cordis countered with $25 million and a $400,000 per month rent.
Barama promised to get back to him after seeking approval from the head
office. A week passed and no word.

Cordis said that he returned to his 50 acres in the Cuyuni and a few
days later received a call from Barama. “Dey ask me where I was and
said hold on, they coming, that they get the approval from they head
office.”

Instead, three men came out of a boat later and met the farmer. “All
dem had guns in dey hands. Dey said that if I trespass on Barama land
again they will deal with me. Dem say also that I lost my court case
and I am not to mek any trouble.”

According to Cordis, he has no court case pending. All he has is a
settlement document that has to be approved by the court with the
parties present before a judge. However, it is impossible for this
phase to become a reality without all the parties agreeing to what is
to be settled.

Shortly after the incident with the gunmen, Cordis filed a report with
the police and while in Georgetown last month, saw one of the alleged
gunmen. He followed the man and on noticing two policemen, he alerted
them to the fact that the alleged gunman was wanted by police for
questioning.

This suspected gunman was arrested and then released about two days
later after denying that he had any gun in his possession. The alleged
gunman claimed that a lawyer (name given) had sent him.

Speaking with this newspaper, the lawyer indicated that he was acting
as a mediator. He flatly denied sending any gunman to Cuyuni River to
confront Cordis. Rather, the man was there to help Cordis come to an
amicable settlement with Barama.

The lawyer later explained that Cordis accused the man he sent of
having three guns, one of which was said to be a high-powered rifle.

The lawyer explained that the police have since abandoned the arms
charge.

Yesterday Kaieteur News spoke with Attorney Neil Boston of the Boston
and Boston law firm, which is representing Barama. Boston refuted
Cordis's claims that there was any kind of agreement to settle. Rather,
Barama is prepared to contest the matter in a court trial. The lawyer
declined to discuss specifics.

Penalising the small man while letting the large fish go free

http://www.kaieteurnewsgy.com/letters.htm

Penalising the small man while letting the large fish go free
Kaieteur News, 24 August 2007

Dear Editor,

With reference to your recent reports on the intention of the Guyana
Forestry Commission (GFC) to crack down on illegalities, will the zeal
of the GFC and the Customs Administration for checking exports, as
promised by the Minister for Forestry on December 8 last year, extend
also to the much greater volumes of log shipments by Asian-owned
companies?

In 2006, 45,000 cubic metres of sawn lumber were exported but 191,000
cubic metres of unprocessed logs were declared as exported also, logs
which could have been milled in Guyana . Who has been checking on those
shipments?

It is a sideshow to penalise the small-scale Guyanese operations, and
selectively also, while letting the big fish go free.

The law must be fairly applied, especially as the losses from the
large-scale illegalities dwarf the small-scale fiddles.

Janette Bulkan

Better enforcement of forest laws hoped for following seminar

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56527422

Better enforcement of forest laws hoped for following seminar
Stabroek News
Friday, August 24th 2007

The participants and facilitators pose for a photograph at the end of
the course yesterday. (Photo courtesy of US Embassy, Georgetown)

A number of persons from various Government agencies, NGOs and business
entities yesterday completed training in environmental compliance and
enforcement run by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
and held at the Guyana Forestry Commission, Kingston, over the course
of three days.

The training course, entitled 'Principles of Environ-mental Compliance
and En-forcement' was conducted by Susan Bromm, Director of the Office
of Site Remedia-tion Enforcement in the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Karin Leff, Deputy Director Regional Support Division,
also of the US EPA.

The course was facilitated by the Embassy of the United States in
Guyana, the US Department of State's South America Regional Affairs
Office and the US EPA, in collaboration with the Ministry of
Agriculture and the Guyana Forestry Commission.

The training provided a framework for designing effective environmental
compliance strategies and en-forcement programmes especially with
respect to forestry issues in Guyana.

The training examined case studies that illustrate barriers to
compliance and described ways to bring about positive changes for
environmental compliance.

One of the participants Eustace Alexander of Conservation International
said that the course looked at the principles of environmental laws and
enforcement of those laws should transgressions arise.

He said that the goal of the programme is to train countries like
Guyana in enforcement of the environmental laws.

According to the Conservation International staffer, the participants
are expected to be better equipped and enabled to design and implement
en-forcement programmes. He said that the course also entailed a
training of trainers who are now expected to go back to their
respective workplace and implement what they have learnt.

He said that some of the issues brought up during the training included
illegal trading in wildlife, illegal logging, spills of hazardous
materials into waterways and on land and other environmental issues.

Assistant Commissioner of Forests at the Guyana Forestry Commission
Deonarine Ramsaroop said that the programme was well executed in his
estimation and much came out of it.

Bromm said that the course was a discussion of concepts and she
described it as being very interactive.

She said that the course has been developed in the US and the
Netherlands and has been translated and taken to 24 countries around
the world.

Raising the Profile -- Timber Trade Journal

Petitioners of Forestry Bill have devious and clandestine agenda

http://www.guyanachronicle.com/letters.html

Petitioners of Forestry Bill have devious and clandestine agenda
Guyana Chronicle, 23 August 2007

I read with surprise, a recent article in the print media, where it is
stated that concerned Guyanese are taking a petition to block the
passage of the revised forest bill in Parliament.

Some of the architects of this petition are persons who have
persistently attacked the Guyana Forestry Commission and the Government
of Guyana in the public media, accusing them both of not ensuring
adequate measures to maximize the benefits arising from the use of the
forest resources, to Guyana .

I have had the liberty of looking at the revised forests bill 2007, as
well as several drafts dating back to 2000. What I have observes is
that these previous bills were very bulky in terms of content, and
included many issues which could easily be addressed in the
regulations. For example, the current bill talks about the need to
prepare codes of practices for many operational aspects of forestry,
and actually detailed what these codes should contain.

The latest version (draft 2007) simply mandates the GFC to prepare the
codes of practices, without going into the specifics. This is left to
be addressed in the regulations. Legislation is not intended to be
bulky and go into minute details. These issues are better addressed in
the formulation of the regulations.

Forestry in today's environment is a very dynamic sector. Issues which
are relevant today, may be deemedto be irrelevant or even detrimental
in a few years. If everything is spelt out in great detail in the
legislation, then, how does one address the need to revise procedures
enshrined in the law which may be in need of updating, or even
deletion?

Will the GFC and Government have to go every month to Parliament to
seek changes in the legislation: isn’t it better addressed in the
regulations which are much easier to change based on informed
consultation and accepted best practices?

The “petitioners”also state that the revised legislation reduces the
powers of the Minister, but increases the power of the Commission. It
would be instructive to note that the GFC was made a semi-autonomous
commission in 1979, delinking it from the Ministry so that it, as a
semi-autonomous body, could function more efficiently away from any
perceived political interference.

Also, at the passing of the GFC Bill in July 2007, a major criticism
levelled by the opposition was that the powers of the Minister were
increased, whilst that of the Commission was reduced. How then can the
petitioners now state that the Commission’s powers are increased and
object to that? Isn’t this what the opposition was promoting?

The bottom line is that the petitioners have their own devious and
clandestine agenda. It has nothing to do with forestry or any other
sector in Guyana. It is simply opposition at all costs, opposition
which will continue to fund their travels, and scholarships. The public
is smart enough not to be fooled or misled.
Sincerely,
Samantha Griffith

Was this sale by Demerara Timbers to Bai Shan Lin approved by the Forestry Commission?

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56527399

Was this sale by Demerara Timbers to Bai Shan Lin approved by the
Forestry Commission?
Stabroek News
Thursday, August 23rd 2007

Dear Editor,

I refer to the article by your reporter Johann Earle captioned
"Demerara Timbers to be taken over by Bai Shan Lin" (SN 07.08.21).
Through your columns, Mr Editor, I would like to ask:

a. A transfer of ownership of a forest harvesting concession requires
government approval (Timber Sales Agreement, condition 13), when and
under what conditions did the Board of Directors of the Guyana Forestry
Commission (GFC) agree to this transfer?

b. The President, as Minister of Forestry, must give prior approval to
such transfer (Forest Regulations 1953, Clause 12), when and under what
conditions was Presidential agreement signed?

c. The implication of the National Forest Policy 1997 (Part III A 4 and
Part IV B 3) and of the National Forest Plan 2001 (Section NFP 320) is
that concessions which cannot be operated by the licencees should be
rescinded by the GFC (Forest (Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1982,
Clause 11) and either placed in a strategic reserve of unallocated
forest or advertised publicly for new bidding. Under the Forests
(Amendment) (Exploratory Permits) amendment to the Forests Act in 1997,
such advertisement should call for the offering of a price premium for
the right to have exclusive access to the forest timber resources
within the concession boundary. Why was this procedure not used by the
GFC and what are the details of the compensatory premium which has been
offered by Bai Shan Lin to balance the cost saving of not having to
compete for the concession(s)?

d. Given that Bai Shan Lin has received US$ 5.1 million so far "to
facilitate the project" according to the company's Administrative
Manager ('New Chinese pledges to invest US $100 million, SN, 07.02.09),
[was this US $5.1 million out of EU funding channelled through LEAP and
intended to support bona fide businesses in Region 10?] and given that
it has failed to comply with the terms of its Foreign Direct Investment
(FDI) agreement with Guyana, what due diligence checks have Cabinet,
the GFC and the Guyana Revenue Authority carried out to ensure that
Guyana will not be further subsidising this Asian-owned logger?

e. Given that Bai Shan Lin has agreed not to export unprocessed logs,
what precautions are in place to prevent Bai Shan Lin from selling logs
to front companies for log exports such as Rong-An Inc., Natural Wealth
Development Inc., Demerara Timber Resources Inc., Newray Group Guyana
Inc. and a host of other newly incorporated companies?

f. Given that one of the purposes of FDI arrangements is the expansion
of employment and skills training for Guyanese, what precautions is the
Ministry of Home Affairs taking to prevent Bai Shan Lin from sacking
DTL employees and bringing in Chinese workers ?

g. What other elements of a time-bound action plan with progress
indicators associated with the FDI agreement of Bai Shan Lin will apply
to the DTL and landlorded concessions?

The two legal Timber Sales Agreements held by DTL cover 522,000 ha and
its two illegally rented concessions cover a further 91,000 ha. Surely
it is in the interest of Guyana that over six hundred thousand hectares
of prime public forest assets should be publicly tendered rather than
slipped under the table from one Asian logger to another?

Yours faithfully,

Janette Bulkan