Dear Editor,
There have been many articles on our forest industry’s performance over the years, where various intellectuals point out the weak returns from our ‘humongous’ forests, which only contribute a minor percentage to our gross national income. No one can disagree with that conclusion based on the figures offered. It is opined that figures do not tell the full story, as there is a reason for such a vast resource giving little or nothing to the national income.
Our forest is comprised of over 1000 different species. It is a mixed forest with some species more prevalent in some areas yet nonexistent in other areas. This information has been available since the late nineteen thirties. In 1947 a suitcase of samples were taken around the USA to many manufacturers. Many of the species were acceptable but the monthly production available was not enough to service one shift in the factory.
As regards the decline of production this may be caused by the micro-management of private investment by the Guyana Forestry Commission, which seems to have avoided any responsibility for ‘sales’ yet insisted on various levies. This may be changing. It is hoped that with the disappearance of the former Minister the system will be freed up and the local investors will regain the incentive to find markets for their products, both logs and sawn lumber.
One term that needs some thought is what exactly is meant by ‘value added’? One would expect that the producers of the log would get more money for his log; that is not the case. The producer/sawmiller may sell some wood from a log to a ‘value added’ manufacturer. Only some wood from the log is purchased by the manufacturer (maybe 20 to 30%? This amount is unknown and depends on many factors). The rest of the sawn log goes into stock or waste. Hence it is incorrect to assume there will be an increase in value of the log if it is sawn for ‘value added’. Of course there is one market in which the problem is dealt with differently. In this market the manufacturer buys the log and then instructs the sawmiller how to saw it. This is done at a predetermined price of, say, X dollars per m3, the log is sawn and the manufacturer takes everything regardless of whatever quality. This then places the manufacturer with the task to utilize all the yield of lumber from the log. At this time this is not done in Guyana.
The real problem lies in the markets. The local market is small, and foreign markets are too large. Of course small amounts are serviced mainly in the West Indies; however, in those markets Guyana has to compete with pine. Pine is a soft wood and most of Guyana’s forests contain hardwoods. In most developed countries it is recognized that the markets are different, softwood and hardwood, the latter being more expensive. To make it clear, consider gasoline and diesel: both can do the same thing yet are different, and similarly with wood. Brazil is selling to the West Indies at low prices made even more attractive by devaluation.
Guyana does have one of the lowest rates of deforestation. It is suggested that this has not come about by any particular regulation but by the forest itself when selective logging is done of about 14 species, in a forest of over 1000 species. Then only 1.4% of the forest is removed. This will hardly be noticed as 98.6% remain. This paragraph only illustrates a point as the forest has a different mix in different parts of the country.
So what can be done with this ‘humongous’ forest? One radical view is that it is a major oxygen machine, so leave it alone. As a large percentage of our country is covered by forest it leaves us with no room for development. It is a raw material and technology may be developed in the future to utilize this asset. Particle board can be made from any wood. There was a plant functioning in the late fifties early sixties. This plant failed due to conditions existing at that time. The promised electricity failed, there was Suriname’s plant dumping and a slow reaction from government to stop the dumping, however, particle board is seen by some as the only viable option. Such a plant could be located in the forest near to a hydro site, but currently there are too many regulations to encourage any entrepreneur to attempt to make things happen.
Other forest products mooted are: tourism sites, medical potential, fruits and nuts, minerals, hydro sites and solar energy.
- Tourism can be developed near to small hydro power sites. The drawback is the high cost of travel within Guyana, the lack of infrastructure and crime.
- Medical potential is often spoken of but has never been firmly established.
- Fruits and nuts: there has been some minor production, but it has never developed.
- Mini hydro should be developed nationwide. Large sites can be developed in areas easily accessible.
- Solar energy small and large should be encouraged.
Our ‘humongous’ forest has little or no infrastructure, yet in some hinterland areas the forest is honeycombed with paths. These have been made by concessionaires, both timber and mining.
The current regulation of the forest is slowly crippling the industry. Such regulation is totally unnecessary as shown by the results of the Tropenbos Inventory of 1999 done on the Bartica Triangle, an area logged over for at least sixty years. The facts in the report showed that greenheart, the targeted species, still ranks third in abundance in the area. This is a fact.
Tropenbos is not known to be a friend of utilization and their work tends to explain what they expect to find, then when the facts are not what they expected, they try to explain away why the facts happened, not concede that their assumptions were wrong.
One other point for consideration was a remark made by the late Dr Kenneth King. “The forest is a dynamic thing changing all the time”. This along with the recently learnt fact, that greenheart seeds are being attacked by a fungus makes one think about the future of greenheart. Either use it or lose it?
Yours faithfully,
John Willems
