Dear Editor,
The Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment likes to be quoted when he thinks he has good news but retreats behind the agencies when his policies and practices are questioned. Having been at one time in favour of open discussion, Minister Persaud stated that there was a policy of not responding (‘Logs in shipment where cocaine found were in-transit in Jamaica –Singh,’ Stabroek News, June 21, 2011). Later, Minister Persaud asserted that he had “no interest in being ensnared in a publicity exercise to justify relevance and funding” (‘Purpleheart not being unsustainably managed,’ SN, April 16, 2012). Now the Commissioner of Forests is charged with responding on behalf of the silent Minister (‘The GFC has been working to reduce log exports, stimulate manufacture of value-added products and employment opportunities in a transparent way,’ (SN letter, May 2013). Unfortunately, Commissioner Singh has once again failed to answer the questions.
I asked in my letter ‘Questions about Bai Shan Lin interventions in the forest sector’ (SN, May 5) “When was such approval [for Joint Ventures between BSL and Guyanese holders of logging concessions] given, for what areas and under what conditionalities? Why were the existing logging concessions not rescinded and then publicly advertised to capture a bid premium at auction, for government revenue to the Consolidated Fund, in accordance with the National Forest Policy 1997/2011?”
Commissioner Singh does not reply to any of these questions. Instead he says that “There was no legal forestry requirement prior to the early 2000 period… for approval/rejection of Joint Ventures.” That is not correct. As I had pointed out, Condition 2 of the Timber Sales Agreement concession licence (in law since 1982) and Section 12 of the Forest Regulations 1954 have required presidential approval for transfers of any kind of interest in a concession, not just the whole ownership. However, the Forest Regulations 1954 did not spell out the criteria for presidential approval or rejection, and the process which Commissioner Singh states was followed from the early 2000 period has not been posted to the GFC website. The Commissioner refers to the recent acquisition by BSL of the State Forest Exploratory Permit (SFEP 01/2007) acquired initially by Sherwood Forrest Inc. The 1997 revision of the Forests Act did make provision for changes of SFEP ownership but the Commissioner does not say if that procedure was followed. In the absence of more specific information, it is reasonable to conclude that BSL has not acquired control of logging concessions by fully legal processes.
I then posed seven numbered questions, and again the Commissioner failed to answer them directly.
1. Exactly what are the foreign direct investment arrangements for the various BSL enterprises?
The Commissioner does not say what the FDI arrangements are, nor does he engage with GO-Invest to provide such information. I did not ask how many machines have been imported. What citizens are entitled to know are the details of the tax and other concessions which the Cabinet has approved for BSL, and the conditionalities for such generosity.
2. Exactly what wood processing will take place, where and when (investment schedule)?
The Commissioner repeats what BSL has stated as its manufacturing intentions but does not give the time schedule. His Minister will recall the problems of failures to implement investment promises in 2006/7 by Bai Shan Lin’s earlier incarnation as Jai Lin, and Barama running its plywood mill at 11 per cent of designed capacity during January-June 2012 but receiving 100 per cent of tax concessions from Guyana.
3. What raw materials will input to these wood processing facilities – species, dimensions, volumes, qualities of timbers?
The Commissioner utterly fails to answer this question, other than saying that additional products from Lesser Used Species “can also be produced.”
4. What kinds of products will be produced which are not already milled in Guyana – species, volumes, values, intended markets?
The Commissioner fails to answer this question, other than saying that flooring will be produced and that finger jointing will be used. The other products are or have been milled in Guyana already, so BSL would be adding nothing new.
5. What is the agreed schedule to phase out exports of unprocessed logs (such exports being contrary to national policies and to PPP election manifestos in 2006 and 2011) – species, dimensions, volumes, qualities of timbers?
The Commissioner says only that BSL “intends to do in-country processing of over 80% of BSL’s leased concessions,” without mentioning any time schedule. And why 80%, why not 100 per cent?
6. What is the training programme for Guyanese at all operational and managerial levels of BSL to replace imported staff?
The Commissioner says that BSL is in discussion about comprehensive training of current and potential employees, and such statement must be welcomed. BSL/Jai Lin has been in Guyana for over six years, so one could have expected that by now its operations would be fully staffed with Guyanese, but clearly they are not. So again it is reasonable to ask for the time schedule for the new training programme.
7. How many foreign workers have been brought into Guyana, and how many more visas are being processed?
The Commissioner evades answering this question, and our diplomats in Beijing also do not know the answer.
In summary, Editor, Commissioner Singh apparently knows, or has been authorized to disclose, little more than is available in BSL’s publicity video. This dribble of information is incompatible with the assurances given by the Government of Guyana in items 10 and 23 of the REDD+ Governance Development Plan agreed with Norway in June 2011. If the government and its agency the GFC are serious about acquiring a Voluntary Partnership Agreement with the European Union under the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade action plan of 2003 then a freer flow of information will have to become a habit for government agencies.
It is time that the Natural Resources Sectoral Committee of the National Assembly asked serious questions of the ministry and GFC and Bai Shan Lin, and insisted on full disclosure in the answers as the committee is entitled to under the Legislative Bodies (Evidence) Act (Cap 01-08).
Yours faithfully,
Janette Bulkan
