Dear Editor,
The gathering storm over the management of Guyana’s forestry and related concessions raises a number of troubling questions especially as this government approaches the end of its term in office.
The questions relate to:
i. the necessity to bring an end to the cult of secret deals negotiated by the PPP regime. Without exception every single one of the large deals pursued by the PPP has been associated with irregularities – the absence of feasibility studies, procurement irregularities, secrecy, etc.
ii. What benefits is the country getting from the destruction or utilization of resources that are not being replaced or renewed? This has implications for future generations.
iii. Does Guyana have to set up special and independent courts to prosecute those who facilitate large-scale economic illegalities before the PPP will desist from this behaviour?
iv. What are the criteria governing the extension of such large and varied concessions across sectors to investors in general and foreign firms in particular?
v. What are the arrangements for monitoring the implementation of the agreements and why have they failed?
iv. What is the extent to which possible side-deals or corruption have served to block the correction of abuses or to fuel the very existence of such abuses?
The current controversy over the policies associated with the operations of Bai Shan Lin and Vaitarna Holdings Private Inc (VHPI) are only part of a more insidious process already under way in Guyana. A number of land and labour policies have triggered varying reactions from the communities affected by them. In relation to firms emanating from the former Socialist states there have been protests and collective action in the courts about access to land, innumerable union actions, complaints and cases about their mistreatment of Guyanese. As with Indian firms there have also been many complaints and allegations about bribery and the unfair granting of concessions as well as irregularities in the award of tenders.
In the case of land, the incidents include the prominent case of the illegal sale of the Lamaha Gardens playground by a government official and the attempted take-over of the Bel Air Gardens park by NICIL for the construction of an apartment block. The first matter was raised in the National Assembly and to date no sensible explanation as to why the ministry official involved has not been prosecuted could be provided. In other words, even in apparently private incidents, government action has served to protect the perpetrators of the offence. Several hinterland communities, including the Upper Mazaruni and Kako in particular, have sought the assistance of the international community in resisting the granting without consultation of mining and forestry concessions carved out of land which they have traditionally occupied. According to an Associated Press (AP) report, in March 2013 the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD), wrote to the GOG urging them to review the practice of granting mining permits and concessions in indigenous communities before obtaining consent from Amerindians who live there.
The regional and local media have exposed agreements in which extensive tracts of land elsewhere and in primarily African and non-PPP areas such as Canje Creek, Berbice River and Region 10 have been secretly granted to foreign and regional companies. One such case is that of the MOU with Ansa McAl involving a bio-fuel/ethanol plant and a land area thrice the size of Barbados which until Dr Luncheon’s comment to the contrary a few days ago, all Guyanese knew to be a reputable company. At no point in grating the concessions have the communities or their representatives been consulted. In the same vein, over the last year the same Dr Luncheon informed journalists that Cabinet had taken a decision to begin winding up “defunct Cooperatives and Friendly Societies.” The opposition has already signalled that this announcement marks the acceleration of a process to seize such lands which are largely associated with African communities and lands purchased after the abolition of slavery.
The worrying features of this behaviour are discrimination, arbitrariness and high-handedness on the one hand and on the other, misrepresentation and secrecy. The ethanol deal was signed along with a number of others in September 2011 just prior to Mr Jagdeo’s demission of office. That is but one reason for the secrecy. By the same token you would have thought that after the furore over the procurement irregularities of the so-called Specialty Hospital the government would move very carefully and yet whilst other applicants have to go through all kinds of hoops and red tape even associated with the appropriate quality and location of premises in order to be accredited, the Indian Ajeen Exady Patil University has apparently been locally accredited without having established premises. To add insult to injury foreign beneficiaries of these excesses and secret deals are not being held to conditions that ensure more than nominal benefit to the affected communities and the nation as a whole.
It is astonishing that in this the second millennium, a Guyanese government would have to be told that we had long ago agreed to leave behind the colonial arrangement under which we were to be part of the world’s hewers of wood and drawers of water. Developing countries have recognized the centrality of processing and adding value to products in the process of diversification of skills, output and economic structure, and of its importance in commanding a larger share of the sales dollar of any final product origination from primary commodities. It is now received wisdom and best practice, except it seems, in Guyana.
As the debate is taken up over the next few months we need to get answers to some specific questions such as what informed the size of the concessions granted to these companies.
Barbados’ area is 166 sq miles and the Iwokrama Reserve is 3710 sq miles. The concessions granted to the two companies alone are almost as large as the Reserve. Vaitarna Holdings Private Inc (VHPI) has been granted 2469 sq miles – apparently the largest of all the concessions, and Bai Shan Lin 1058, giving a total of approximately 3237sq miles.
What is the reason for this? Furthermore, if after 7 years of existence one of them has not moved beyond logging to implement other commitments contained in the agreement why is consideration being given to granting licences to operate in other sectors?
What due diligence has been carried out on these firms and what did the relevant agency learn from that?
What species are the firms permitted to cut and what is the connection between that permission and their rights to export?
What volume of logs is associated with the areas they have been granted and what volume of logs and processed material are expected to flow over the lifetime of the project?
When will appropriate arrangements for monitoring these flows be put in place?
Most importantly what labour and training model informed the agreement. Are we to have more Marriot and CJIA-type contracts as far as the employment of locals is concerned?
Has the role of the Minister of Labour been redefined and what say does the ministry have in the drawing up and approval of these agreements? Guyanese have been involved in logging and forestry on these shores long before the market for sugar turned the land into one of slavery. We have worked for and managed many newer industries such as bauxite and manganese. Need I say more?
Yours faithfully,
Carl Greenidge