Dear Editor,
I read with interest the letters captioned “Guyana’s forestry resources are being plundered for little gain” and “Barama introduced modern techniques of forest management to the declining forest industry in Guyana” (07.01.18) as well as the report headlined “Barama certificate for good forestry suspended” on the same date. I would like to offer an international perspective, responding in particular to some of the inaccuracies and contradictions in that second letter by Trevor Atkinson.
Firstly, it is frankly incredible that Mr Atkinson can suggest that Barama has helped to develop “modern techniques of …personal development…and community relations.” He goes on to say that “Barama’s contributions to Port Kaituma and surrounding Amerindian communities as part of its corporate responsibility are outstanding and impressive.” Brave statements, but perhaps a little premature in view of the suspension of Barama’s FSC certification! Corrective actions have been published that confirm that Barama is not in compliance with FSC Principle 4 on the basic health and safety requirements and accommodation for workers in the camps, their training etc.
My own observations in the not too distant past were of shockingly different treatment of national and foreign workers. Why does Barama still attempt to justify the import of foreign workers to do ‘skilled jobs’ when it could have trained local staff over the 14 years during which it has been operating? Why is Barama accused at the SGS stakeholder meeting of preventing local people from harvesting Kufa and Nibi vines – upon which they rely for their livelihoods? Why at that same meeting are questions raised about Barama still having harvesting contracts with SFP operators (e.g. Barakat Timbers). Such SFPs are under little pressure to abide by FSC principles on worker health and safety. Subcontracting, if confirmed, would be in breach of national legislation. Why does Barama stand accused of deliberate subcontracting of Interior Wood Products Incorporated (IWPI) to operate with impunity in the Akawini indigenous community area – about which there are reports of serious indigenous concern. Hardly the stuff of exemplary personal development and community relations – or outstanding and impressive contributions! We will soon see the truth when the reports of the SGS audit and the FSC annual surveillance of SGS are made public.
Secondly, Mr Atkinson makes light of Barama failing to pay taxes. Yet, I cannot think of another equivalent example of so large a proportion of a country’s national territory being ceded to an expatriate company with so little return to the national purse. Is it not legitimate for the Guyanese citizen to object when his or her forest wealth is shipped overseas to line foreign pockets without even the recompense of tax revenues to be reinvested in the sector? Is it not fair that Guyanese citizens at the SGS stakeholder meeting should question the GFC report to its board of directors in March 2006 – stating that the Barama company was negotiating directly with Guyana’s President requesting to be exempted from payment of the 2% commission on logs harvested outside its direct concession? A report by the Guyana Forestry Commission itself pointed to the absurdity of the situation in which small and medium enterprises (mostly Guyanese owned) have access to only 25% of the production forest, but employ 50% of the forest sector workforce, and contribute 75% of the government revenues. Such reports certainly cannot be dismissed as ‘outdated and irrelevant information’ as is Mr Atkinson’s practice. For further detail see:http://www.iied. org/pubs/pdf/full/9540IIED.pdfhttp:// www.poptel.org.uk/iied/docs/flu/SME_pubs/Guyana_SME.pdf
Thirdly, Mr Atkinson made much of the “technology injection that the Barama investment offers.” Why then is this view not shared by the International Tropical Timber Organisation who stated in a 2003 report: “the use currently being made of Guyana’s extensive, diverse and complex forest resource is not satisfying many, if any, of the stakeholders”? A more recent analysis of the sector suggests that a more appropriate response to Guyana’s low densities of desirable timber would be through the much more modern and mobile sawmilling practices being introduced by a number of small and medium firms – which allow much higher recovery rates in volume and grade.
Innovative new practices take the means of timber conversion close to the tree where they can cut for grade – and so reduce transport costs and sawmilling inefficiencies in one stroke. These new technologies make more efficient use of each tree, and can therefore be run efficiently on smaller concession sizes. What is more, they are more affordable by Guyanese citizens – not relying on huge foreign investments. Is it not legitimate for the Guyanese citizen to object when huge chunks of territory are ceded to foreign control while national operators are starved of forest land which they could use more efficiently, and which could contribute to local, not foreign wealth? For further information see:
It is of course commendable that Barama has sought to move towards better forest management by attempting (and currently failing) to comply with FSC standards. But much bigger political issues are at stake here. Why should a foreign company be allowed to manage such a large portion of the national production forest with so few national benefits? Why is the government siding with a foreign company in failing to collect the same taxes that are imposed on Guyanese nationals? Why have international auditors seemed so tardy to respond to many different concerns by Guyanese citizens? Why do WWF dismiss as ‘minor deficiencies’ and Mr Atkinson dismiss as ‘personal axe grinding’ what to many Guyanese citizens seem such major concerns? As an outsider – I would hazard a guess that powerful vested interests are cheating the average citizen of their national wealth – whatever Mr Atkinson thinks.
Yours faithfully,
Duncan Macqueen
Senior Researcher
in Responsible Forest
Business International
Institute of Environment
and Development
