There is a distinct air of urgency, perhaps even desperation among local forest producers. They appear convinced that between the growing restrictions on the export of logs and a powerful international environmental lobby that is driving the local timber harvesting procedures they are caught between a rock and a hard place.
The timber producers say that they are far from unmindful of the environmental considerations associated with the industry and that while they accept the need for a sensible official policy on the export of logs that policy must be informed by an official awareness of the state of the industry. For example, they say, export bans on entire species could completely ruin some timber harvesting operations and restrictions should be applied across the board on the basis of percentages.
Part of the reason for the creeping restrictions on the export of logs is the argument that the milling process and the subsequent conversion of timber into finished products like furniture would add value to the timber and increase returns to the country several times over. The “sticking point” here has to do with whether or not there is sufficient milling capacity locally. The authorities, it seems, are persuaded that there is; the timber producers and several of the saw mill operators disagree. They say that the local saw milling industry has undergone a significant decline, employs a preponderance of antiquated equipment and is is desperate need of a major injection of new equipment. They cannot, they say, afford the cost of this recapitalization exercise.
But some local timber producers think that the problem goes deeper. They believe that the successes of the international environmental lobby in setting conditions for the behaviour of the global timber industry may well have altered local perceptions of the importance of the industry even though they point out that existing timber sales agreements with foreign investors in the sector place no restrictions on the export of timber by those companies.
As far as adherence to sustainable forestry procedures is concerned the local timber producers are making the point that they have been seeking to comply with those procedures but that compliance has to be treated as a process in which rules are applied over time until the status of full compliance with a set of rules that protects the forests while allowing the industry to survive is reached. This, they say, has not been the official approach.
The legitimate timber harvesters also say that much of the real problem is associated with “pirate” harvesters who raid legitimate concessions and dispose of the logs at cheaper prices than the legitimate operators can.
This, of course, is probably only part of the story. The circumstances of the timber industry have been rendered particularly complicated by the various local and international regulations governing the harvesting and export of logs and it is entirely conceivable that the loggers may have an interest in simply telling their own story. What they say, however, is that they are prepared to subject their operations to full legitimate scrutiny and to engage in constructive discourse with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Guyana Forestry Commission on the state and the future of the industry and that such a course of action ought to precede any precipitate action by government to place further restrictions on log exports.