Dear Editor,
Are we seeing a repeat of our history? The Guianas have changed hands several times until we ended up with British Guiana. Bookers was the dominant force on the coastal sugar estates, hence the colony was called ‘Bookers’ Guiana.’ Now Barama has control of Guyana’s forests and is calling the shots, hence analogously we now have “Barama’s Guyana.”
One of Barama’s defenders, Mr Trevor Atkinson, had made a case for the Barama deal being good for Guyana.
I have so far written 3 letters covering the history of Barama’s operational practices. These periods were: (1) 1992 to 2003 – the work of Dr. M. Colchester and others were mentioned that showed the various infractions by Barama; (2) 2003-2005 that showed Barama winning awards (but claiming that no profits were made), yet practising mistreatment of its workers and the environment; and (3) The SGS (Feb. 2006) report that resulted in temporary FSC certification being given to Barama, however this document raised some serious questions about the appropriateness of the deal.
I shall now respond to Mr Trevor Atkinson’s premises.
Barama’s premise 1: Barama came to Guyana when the forestry sector was badly in need of foreign investment.
Response: True. However, the operative words are ‘Foreign Investment’ which are not the same as excessive ‘Foreign exploitation.’ In any investment, people expect something in return for the use of their property and resources. There was no “trickle down effect” for 15 years! Where is the big payoff for Guyana? The NGOs, etc, and Dr. C. Jagan (in opposition) did not believe that this deal was right for Guyana. Dr C Jagan (as President) acted when he commissioned Dr Nigel Sizer’s report (1996) – ‘Profit without Plunder.’
Barama’s premise 2: Barama has committed itself to sustainable forest harvesting methods, and is now in the vanguard of demonstrating good management practices.
Response: The independent ASI audit for FSC compliance disagrees with Mr Atkinson’s assertions, since the temporary FSC certification of Barama was suspended. WWF was embarrassed at the serious non-compliances detailed in the auditor’s report. Barama not only embarrassed itself, but also the entire state of Guyana, and the GFC in the eyes of the world. Now all are tarnished. How? The GFC has been saying that Barama is in compliance with their policies, etc., but now the oversight of GFC has been found to be very seriously flawed. The Govt of Guyana is now being told that Barama violated ILO conventions on its turf, indicating to the world that there is no Govt. oversight of Barama. The world has been told that Guyanese tolerated abuses of FSC’s guidelines.
Questions: 1. Do good management practices mean blatantly disregarding and violating: the guidelines of the FSC, or the accepted international conventions of the ILO (e.g. non-payment of contractors for 6 months, low wages, safety violations), or the laws of Guyana (e.g. non-payment of taxes), or seeking to avoid paying tax on timber harvested outside Barama’s vast concessions?
2. Good management practices mean that Barama’s operation is profitable and that Barama is making profits, yet Barama has not declared any profit in 15 years! Why are Barama’s modern practices so unprofitable? The smaller local companies without Barama’s operational advantages (such as generous tax breaks, etc) are showing profits, why is Barama’s such a failure? Is it because of bad management?
3. Good management practices mean that local workers are trained to handle all jobs. Barama has fallen short of the agreed goals, after 15 years.
4. Good Forestry management means replanting and restoration of previously cut areas. Who will pay to clean-up Barama’s mess? This is not even mentioned in the current controversy. Where does Barama plan to cut in the next 25-year cycle? It is known that some of the currently marketable trees do not regenerate that fast.
5. The income that Barama contributes to the national economy probably does not even cover the cost of policing Barama’s vast resources and activities.
6. Where is Barama’s contribution to forestry – biology, ecology, soil-chemistry studies at UG? Are scholarships and internships still being currently awarded, as were previously advertised? Barama’s premise 10: Beharry quoted outdated information – The concerns were dealt with a long time ago.
Response: The Reports by SGS (Feb. 2006) and ASI (Jan, 2007) both mentioned the same concerns, as previously documented by Dr M. Colchester and others. These were further supported by the local press reports and the GLU’s concerns in 2003/2004.
Question: If these concerns were dealt with, why are they still being mentioned in the abovementioned reports? Is Jan, 2007 not recent enough?
Barama’s premise 9: Barama faced parliamentary oversight in 1993, therefore no further parliamentary oversight is necessary
Response: In1993, could we seriously have expected the Parliamentary Opposition to be against a deal that it had just brokered? Both parties were in serious dilemmas, as mentioned before. If 1992-1997, 1997- 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 views are considered out of date, then how come 1993 parliamentary approval is considered appropriate by Barama? For any major policy directions and or changes, any business goes to its shareholders for their input and vote approval. Therefore is it not prudent and sound business practice, for share- or stake-holders (the people of Guyana) of the Forests to have a say in their business? Is this not a modern business practice?
Why is Barama so afraid of parliamentary oversight? Good companies are not afraid of public scrutiny, in fact it is welcome and their stock values go up, on good reports. People are looking for “green companies” in which to invest their money.
Yours faithfully,
Seelochan Beharry