Dear Editor,
Mr Trevor Atkinson in his letter captioned “Barama came in at a time when investment was badly needed and has been in the vanguard of sustainable forest management” (06.12.16) sought to justify the deal with 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 – offering a few crumbs to the locals while the company takes the loaves and all the drinks.
Whatever Barama did was in its own best business interests – definitely not out of public philanthropy or belief in some ethical values. The sugar and bauxite companies did a lot more, providing roads, hospitals, health centres, doctors, nurses, teachers, schools, recreational/sports facilities, scholarships, technical training institutes, donations to the university and revenue to the Govt. of the day.
Whatever Barama did to change its ways was done when local and international pressure was exerted, or when it was necessary for business reasons and interests. It knows that it must change to get the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) certificate or approval, in order to get access to the profitable North American markets for tropical timber marketed by its parent company, Samling, in USA and Canada). This would also bring access to the European markets.
If Barama is as responsible as its defenders claim, then we should expect not only the now touted sustainable forestry practices, but reforestation, and restoration of previously cut areas. Why should the taxpayers now be expected to pay (a subsidy) for what was/is the Company’s responsibility? We should expect to see the employment of forest biologists, the funding of chairs of forest biology, forest management, soil chemistry, etc., (at the Faculty of Natural Sciences, UG), and the funding of long term research projects in wood technology and alternative uses of wood (at the Faculty of Engineering at UG). We need scholarships in Forestry etc. for students at the University, Colleges, and Institutes .It would be to the entire forestry industry’s benefit if a Guyana Forestry Research Institute (independent but in close link with UG) is set up – funded mainly by all companies in the business. Barama having the largest concession (1.7 Million hectares – approx.1/8 of the country, or 1/5 of the forest) can lead the way. Like other ethical and responsible company, Barama should pay its fair share of due taxes to the national coffers.
Whatever has been said about Barama and its practices, can be applied to the other forestry companies, including Guyanese-owned companies. The APA has pointed out the wrong doings of our local Guyanese-owned forestry companies, Mr T .Atkinson was courageous enough to name where they are located.
I do not want the company (or any other in Guyana) to fail; I just want to see our people and nation get a fair deal. Hopefully, the young people in and out of government, are up to the challenge of seeing that Guyana gets what is rightfully hers.
Yours faithfully,
Seelochan Beharry
