Dear Editor,
I would like to call attention to two letters captioned “The Industry did not view the Forestry Commission’s threats to curtail production as credible” (08.02.16) by Mahadeo Kowlessar; and “The Forestry Commission should focus on the huge losses suffered from log exports” (08.02.19) by Janet Bulkan.
I actually delayed penning this letter, because based on the past experience I was expecting a third letter by Seelochan Beharry to follow closely on these initial two conforming to the pattern of their continuing orchestrated attack on the Forestry Commission.
Let me deal firstly with Kowlessar’s letter. In numerous press releases, the GFC made it clear that May 2008 was the final date for submission of inventory information – however inventory information submitted prior to that date would be verified and only then approval given for harvesting to occur. GFC made it abundantly clear that no harvesting would be approved if inventory information was not provided.
What is the basis then for this gentleman to come to the assumption that persons are being allowed to log in the absence of the 100 % inventory submission?
Mr Kowlessar’s statement that “the GFC’s threats to curtail logging were not viewed as credible” is laughable. Why would loggers who were collectively fined two hundred and seventy-five million dollars (G$275M) in 2007 not take the GFC seriously, and repeat the same error, especially since according to the GFC, the penalties increase on the second and third offences? This doesn’t make sense, Mr Kowlessar.
The GFC stated clearly in one of their releases that the maximum acreage harvestable in one calendar year was five hundred (500) blocks for all concessionaires put together, or fifty thousand (50,000 ha) hectares. How does Kowlessar arrive at 144,960 hectares? Where did he get his misinformation from – or rather, is it his intention to misinform? And when did GFC indicate that all of the blocks have to be verified within the month of December. Is Kowlessar assuming incorrectly that the loggers will log all of the blocks in January 2008?
No Mr Kowlessar, the intention as indicated by GFC is to verify some blocks to allow harvesting in January 2008. Whilst the loggers are operating in these blocks, the GFC teams continue to do verification. Kowlessar needs to update himself more on forestry issues so that he can offer constructive criticism, and not make it his duty to regularly write negatively on the GFC to support some hidden agenda.
With respect to the letter by Ms Bulkan, she refers to the commission the Guyana loses since Barama pays no export commission on the export of greenheart logs. I suggest that this doctoral researcher gets her facts right by referring to Article 8 B (Export tax) of the agreement signed between the Guyana Government and Barama on 14th August 1991. This article clearly states that Barama has to pay the export commission on the export of greenheart logs.
Further reading of this agreement confirms what the GFC has been stating all along- many agreements signed before 1992 give companies unrestricted ability to export logs. Ms Bulkan also quotes how many logs were exported in 2007( 157,097 cubic meters), but conveniently omits that the export figures for 2006 were 190,783 cubic metres. This means that even in the absence of a national log export policy, the GFC was able to encourage concessionaires to export less logs in 2007, an actual reduction of 33,686 cubic meters or a 17.66 % volume reduction. Surely the GFC and producers need to be congratulated on this!
Bulkan however, in her haste to attack the GFC at every opportunity misses this point. Her inconsistency is exposed by the fact that whilst a few years ago she was quick to publicise the lack of standards and quality in processing, now that the GFC is enforcing same after a long period of consultation with the sector, she misguidedly tries to portray the GFC as running after the processors. Yet, it is these same processors who need to upgrade their equipment, standards, quality and efficiency if they are to profitably process the logs that Bulkan wants banned. This is a real dilemma for the GFC- in one instance the doomsayers are upbraiding the GFC for not enforcing standards, quality control etc. However, when GFC does begin the enforcement process (after considerable dialogue with stakeholders), the Bulkans and Kowlessars see it as a golden opportunity to try to discredit the GFC.
As a local consumer who has been forced to buy substandard forest produce because of the limited quality produce readily available, and as a Guyanese who has a stake in the patrimony of the forests, I say to the GFC that it is time that the players in the forestry sector and industry come on board. The GFC has been much too tolerant for too long a period. I also say to you- ignore the Bulkans and Kowlessars who obviously have agendas to satisfy.
Yours faithfully,
Samantha Griffith (Ms)
