Dear Editor,
I wish to refer to a letter written by Mr Seelochan Beharry captioned “How could the deal with Barama Company Ltd be favourable to Guyana?” in response to mine 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).
Mr Beharry is very misleading, he quoted me out of context to give the impression that the Hoyte Govern-ment simply agreed with the terms and conditions of the Barama contract because the country at the time was in an economic crisis. But given the declining state of the forest products industry government decided to stimulate foreign investment in the sector, which no doubt was a sound and timely idea.
Most observers believe that the terms and conditions of the Barama agreement were advantageous to the Barama investor Group but missed the point that the employment and technology injection which the Barama investment offers can provide the opportunity for Guyana to review its forest products industry and to introduce modern techniques of forest management.
Barama’s scale and type of investment and the modern management techniques ap-plied are providing our workers, supervisors, technicians and managers with valuable on the job training opportunities in a sector which has been technically stagnant for many years. In terms of its forest operations, Barama is conducting a professional, systematic, well planned and supervised forest harvesting effort which involves a variety of standard modern forestry and logging procedures.
In the area of marketing, the Barama investment has put Guyana on the global forest products market place for a wider range of products and is providing a vital impetus to introduce species which were little known to markets outside of Guyana.
The most significant contribution which Barama can also make to Guyana is to help demonstrate the use and value of modern techniques of production management, personal development, forest management and community relations.
There is good opportunity for other producers in the sector to collaborate rather than compete with Barama or be confrontational which does not serve the interests of the sector right now.
Mr Beharry laments that Barama does not pay taxes. But where companies have shown an interest in developing long-term operations in their concessions, the government may grant tax credits for road and other investments that represent infrastructure for public use and which go beyond the normal requirements of the private operations of logging companies.
Mr Beharry is unfair to the present government when he said that it is “tolerating” Barama Company in our country.
In 1993 Barama’s contract was debated in our Parlia-ment. Unfortunately for the critics, their expectations were not realized. They badly wanted the contract to be reviewed.
Mr Beharry continues to quote outdated and irrelevant information from a 1997 report of Marcus Colchester and the APA on Amerindian concerns about the Barama Company. All of those concerns were effectively addressed which demonstrated Barama’s respect for the rights of indigenous communities near its operations.
The APA in 1993 staged a campaign to reduce the Barama concession and at the same launched an international boycott against Barama’s products.
The campaign failed and in the process the APA lost its credibility. In response to the APA’s campaign, an overseas buyer had actually cancelled their orders from the company and opted to visit its operations at Port Kaituma to verify this complaint levelled against Barama. Their verification proved otherwise and being misled they tripled their orders.
Today, because of Barama’s firm commitment to sustainable harvesting methods it has become the recipient of the Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) certificate for good forest management. Their detractors and critics have been left standing with their mouths open, but still not satisfied they continue to beat their chests in hostility against the Barama Company.
Barama’s contributions to Port Kaituma and surrounding Amerindian communities as part of its corporate responsibility are outstanding and impressive. This no doubt has significantly highlighted the difference between itself and the other logging companies in the forestry sector of Guyana.
In relation to the other falsities mentioned in Mr. Beharry’s letter, I can only conclude that he is engaged in “personal axe grinding”.
Yours faithfully,
Trevor Atkinson
