Introduction
This is the first of a series on forestry policies and current practices in Guyana. This introductory column examines the mistaken belief in inexhaustible forest, the overlooked loss of control of forest harvest, and the existence of under-used laws and policies (national and party) which could restore sustainable productivity and secure jobs and income for Guyanese.
When it comes to the ‘bush,’ which is how coastlanders refer to the interior forests, Guyanese fondly cling to some quaint beliefs. ‘Dah wood kyan done, Man,’ meaning that ‘the forest is inexhaustible,’ is a commonplace boast. Official and publicity brochures reinforce this belief with stock mantras of their own, as if mere repetition alone provided proof of the assertions. Two of officialese’s mantras are ‘Guyana is one of four remaining pristine rainforest areas globally’ and ‘the FAO has said that the rate of deforestation in Guyana is low.’
Sorry, fellow Guyanese, but no amount of repetition will make the first proposition hold true or the second proposition relevant. The formula of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for calculating deforestation is based on data supplied by national forest services and on broad definitions of ‘tree’ and ‘tree cover.’ This is fare for public consumption, akin to President George W Bush’s denial of the reality of global warming. The reality, on the other hand, is forest degradation, the excessive selective removal of Guyana’s prime wood species.
The current rate of harvesting of Guyana’s prime species of timber is unsustainable. In layman’s language, in many accessible forested areas the capacity for natural regeneration by keystone species is either under severe stress or lost. Local sculptors and the more quotidian carvers of purpleheart utensils and kitchenware already know about the localized extinction of some of the defining timbers of Guyana, chief among them purpleheart. There is no organization which represents the interests of artisan carvers and sculptors as their livelihoods vanish without a trace, in parallel with the haemorrhaging of prime log species.
While the forestry companies are creaming off and exporting prime hardwood logs, who is monitoring Guyana’s forests in deed rather than in word only? Guyana’s 75 per cent forested interior should be like a long-term bond (never matures) if the forestry concession holders were regulated in the interests of net social benefit and public good. On the contrary, our natural capital is being liquidated and shipped out to create jobs in China and India, at the cost of jobs foregone in the present, and with a degraded forest remaining and stretching into the future.
The holders of large concessions repeat their own stock mantras to veil the booming export of prime timber species in log form. What they say ranges from: “It’s economics” (Stabroek Business, August 27, 2004) to, the local forestry sector “is probably on the verge of bankruptcy” (Stabroek Business, January 12, 2007). What these concession holders do is retain harvesting concessions over 80 per cent of State Production Forests and an undisclosed amount of control over small-scale forest permissions and forests on Amerindian titled lands.
Are the acreage fees, said to be the lowest acreage fees in the world, fully paid up? Here is what the GFC wrote in August 2005:
“However, due to the strong lobby by the Forest Products Association (FPA), GFC’s Board has maintained this [acreage] rate at 50% [of the amounts set in 1996 to compensate for years of erosion by inflation and change in currency exchange rates]. At present, even though the rates for acreage fees are considered low, the sector, mainly the large concessionaires, have been very tardy in meeting their assessed payments of these amounts. To date, in excess of G$200 million [US$1 million] is owed from outstanding acreage fees to the GFC. The GFC has not been charging interest on the outstanding balance. A few large companies have made efforts in formulating repayment plans with the GFC to repay the amounts owing. The main problem lies with the inactive and low activity concessions. This has resulted in no revenue been generated [sic] to cover the accumulating acreage fees that become due annually.”
What about forest revenue contribution to the government treasury? A UNDP Programme on Forests (PROFOR) study of Guyana’s forest sector financing in 2001 noted:
“The GFC has not contributed to the state treasury/consolidated accounts during the past [21] years although the GFC has been making a profit since 1992. Such a lax treatment of the various public sector commissions and parastatals has apparently been the norm in Guyana. Consequently, the GFC has been accumulating a significant positive bank account balance over the past years.”
What then is the status quo? Through sub-letting, four foreign-owned logging companies have extended their legal 38 per cent control of allocated State Production Forest by 14 per cent (more than 870,000 hectares), so that Asian loggers now control well over half the forest allocated by the GFC for harvesting. Sixty-nine per cent of all large concessions which cover over 52% of the
allocated state commercial forests are now controlled by these four Asian forestry companies, in direct violation of the terms of concession agreements.
The sub-letting is against the National Forest Policy (1997, part I, B3(d)). The GFC Board of Directors should immediately rescind such abused concessions and return the forest areas to the pool available for re-allocation under the Strategic Plan (National Forest Plan, 2001, NFP300) and National Forest Policy (1997, part III, B3). The widespread practice of landlording forest harvesting concessions to foreign contractors makes a nonsense of GFC strategic allocation of State Production Forests.
The GFC should not be permitted by Minister for Forestry Robert Persaud or the Minister of Forestry (President Bharrat Jagdeo) to condone this practice which is against the law without explicit presidential approval (Forest Regulations 1953, Article 12) and specific clauses in the concession licences (for example, TSA clause 13). Clause 13 of Forest Regulation 25 of 1982, Second schedule ‘A,’ Timber Sales Agreement, states: “The grantee shall not transfer, sublet, mortgage or otherwise dispose of any interest arising under this agreement except in accordance with the Forest Regulations and any purported disposition made except in accordance with such Regulations shall be null and void.” In addition there are specific exclusions in concession terms of business.
The present situation is the worst of all possible worlds for Guyanese who fondly believe that we are the owners of the country’s natural bounty. ‘Dah wood kyan done, Man’? Not true.
With political will, and with GFC staff in the field, Guyana’s forests could be restored to sustainable production for local added-value industries. The GFC should implement the agreed and published Forest Law and Forest Regulations and National Forest Policy, together with the timber tagging system as designed in 1999 to control the abuses now seen daily on Guyanese rivers, in log ponds, on pontoons and slung from ballahoos. The PPP/C’s 2006 election manifesto repeats four times the “added value” slogan for forest industries. Let us see some government action on this manifesto commitment.
