Dear Editor,
Easily one of the most memorable photographs printed in the media in Guyana during 2014 was the disturbing image on the front page of your competitor’s newspaper showing dozens of Bai Shan Lin trucks lined up loaded with fresh cut hardwood logs destined for the Georgetown harbour for export. That picture brought home to Guyanese the enormity of the logging industry, and the huge quantity of logs being harvested from our forests and exported. Thousands of logs leave our shores in open and closed containers, or loose in ships’ holds, via wharves at Demerara Shipping, John Fernandes, Guyana National Shipping Corporation and Muneshwars.
The picture also reminded us that the profits derived from this great exploitation of our timber resource are going to foreigners; Guyanese seem to be enjoying little benefit.
In 1991, as part of its Economic Recovery Programme including the encouragement of foreign investment, the Hoyte administration agreed with the Barama Company Ltd as to terms for its investment in the timber industry in Guyana. Over one million hectares of land was yielded to Barama for harvesting purposes.
Barama agreed that no more than fifteen per cent of its staff would be foreign, and built a local plywood factory. It appears that the Barama contract was renewed under the Jagdeo administration around 2004.
Bai Shan Lin also entered the industry during the Jagdeo administration in 2006, with a promise to invest US$100M in milling facilities in Guyana for the processing of logs, a promise which has not materialized. Another log exporter, Demerara Timbers Ltd, formerly a state owned entity with substantial timber concessions, was diversified and its shares sold to Malaysian investors. Vaitarna Holdings, an Indian firm, was granted nearly 2 million hectares of forestry land.
By 2008, according to Janette Bulkan and John Palmer, Asian investors controlled more than one half of Guyana’s timber concessions.
And the loggers have not been model citizens. Many complaints have been made by and on behalf of Amerindian communities in respect of poor treatment at the hands of the loggers: low wages, poor and dangerous employment practices and environmentally damaging extraction methods. There have been accusations of under-declarations of logs harvested/export of undeclared logs. Tags issued by the Guyana Forestry Commission to identify logs are mishandled, and logging takes place illegally out of concession areas. In 2007 and 2008, the Commission made the news by imposing fines totaling in excess of $400 million in 2007 and 2008 on some of these companies, including Bai Shan Lin and Barama. The fact that the fines were paid without challenge was indicative both of the guilt of the loggers, and the insignificance of the amount of the fines in the context of their operations. The Commission has appeared otherwise unable to effectively monitor and handle the situation.
Since 2008, Chinese logging company Bai Shan Lin has exported 35 832 cubic metres of logs while since 2012, Indian logging company Vaitarna Holdings Private Inc (VHPI) has exported 15 190 cubic metres of logs, according to Bulkan and Palmer.
But their many promises and undertakings that value added industries would be built in Guyana have not materialized. Vaitarna had represented that it would build a processing plant in Guyana with employment opportunities and skills training. It was exporting raw logs as soon as it was up and running. I am unaware of any processing plant. I continue to see the logs on the wharf awaiting export.
And while these hardwood logs leave our shores, the price of wood locally is astronomical, and the quality of timber sold locally is poor. It boggles the mind that the sale of pine wood imported from North America has become a prominent feature of the local timber retail industry.
As a voter, I would like the political parties to discuss:
1. Has it been the policy of the authorities to encourage value added processing of logs before they are exported? If so, what measures have been put in place to encourage value added processing of hardwood logs locally before the raw logs are exported?
2. Have those measures been successful so that we are now exporting more wooden doors and windows, pre-made flooring and furniture made in Guyana than raw logs? If they have not, why did they fail? What new measures are now proposed?
3. What measures have been put in place to ensure that the loggers adhere to the law and that there is no repeat of the 2007-2008 offences which necessitated those fines?
3. Have those measures been successful?
4. Have investors been required to undertake contractually to develop facilities in Guyana for the processing of lumber? Have they honoured these undertakings? If not, what measures have been taken to compel compliance?
5. Is the government satisfied that Guyanese derive sufficient benefit in the way of employment, access to finished timber products, access to technology, as well as filling the coffers of the revenue, from the foreign investors in the timber industry? If they are not so satisfied, what measures have they put in place to correct the imbalances?
6. What new ideas does the opposition bring to the table to improve the current state of the industry?
Yours faithfully,
Timothy M. Jonas
