Introduction
My recent columns have argued that, despite a relatively rich forest resource endowment, and relatedly a very high standing in the world of forests, Guyana has had historically one of the world’s lowest deforestation rates. This constitutes a major dilemma for the country. This situation is, in my opinion, not singularly a source of comfort, as several forest analysts have suggested.
As we try to comprehend the historical dynamics of Guyana’s extractive sector, the argument I am advancing is that its low deforestation rate derives principally from the limited capability of its then pre-capitalist forms of colonial production, organization, structures, and processes, which have historically generated the livelihoods of the forest-dependent population. In this sense this limited intrinsic capacity to utilize abundant resources was a misfortune for Guyana. This view directly contradicts those of the ruling orthodoxy, which attributes this circumstance to the consideration that, governance through the historically evolved forms of forest culture, was based on a uniform prioritizing of being in harmony with nature in its most virgin and pristine state. This is considered a great boon to Guyana.
Today’s column concludes my presentation on this topic.
Customs and practices
Previously, I had suggested the pre-capitalist forms of petty or simple commodity production in Guyana had morphed into the traditional, communalist features of Guyana’s First Peoples’ socio-cultural system. This group constituted the bulk of the forest inhabitants. This morphing reflected how deeply embedded were traditional communalist features into the then prevailing pre-capitalist forms of production and social organization. Such features, however, did not substantially enhance the capability of the pre-capitalist forms in securing livelihoods for the forest peoples. Therefore, recognition of this other social dimension in the forest ecosystems, does not add significantly to the threats/challenges posed by deforestation, forest degradation or human-induced environmental deterioration.
Rules of forest governance, especially as they relate to access, ownership, oversight, sanctioning, monitoring, recording and reporting were in this historical phase, extremely rudimentary. Indeed, an admixture of customs and practices generally prevailed. This observation suggests that there were elements of what today would be termed ‘informalisation’ in the structure and processes of forest products extraction in Guyana.
Role of exchange
Exchanges of forest products, whether through sale or direct swap or barter, have played important roles in the development of forest production. Indeed, it can be claimed that such exchanges represented the earliest expressions of incipient market capitalist impulses, which incentivized new and intensified forest products operations. As a result these exchanges yielded some rise in the incipient threats to the forest’s ecosystems.
Going further, one might also argue that this observation indicates the insertion/ intrusion of irregular (as well as illicit) elements in the domain of undocumented customs and practices, which, as posited above, dominated governance of the forest resources at that time. This intrusion, allowed for the proliferation of hustler-type and other irregular operations. With these, came grave injustices/inequities in accessing forest resources. Guyana’s First Peoples had to endure regular violations of their customary and traditional forest access. Regrettably also, these irregular operations often resorted to backward practices such as the use of bound/indentured and slave-like labour. It is in light of all these circumstances that, back in 1925, the colonial authorities established for the first time in British Guiana, a state Forest Department.
Independence
Approaching Independence in 1966, and in the years following, the traditional and customary structures and processes that prevailed for much of Guyana’s colonial history, came under immense stress. Both the colonial authorities in the latter years of colonial rule, and following Independence, the Guyana state, sought to impose an updated regime of institutional, legal and economic organization on the traditional forest structures and processes, guided by customs and practices.
As a result, since Independence, those traditional pre-capitalist forms have been substantially transformed. By the 1970s, market capitalist forms ruled and pre-capitalist forms survived only as historical remnants. This situation yielded marginal rises in deforesting, forest degrading, and human-induced environmental deterioration of the forest ecosystems. When examined carefully though, significant challenges and constraints remained in Guyana’s extractive forest sub-sector. And writing towards the end of the 20th century, both versions I and II, of Guyana’s National Development Strategy (1996 and 2001) painted a picture which is considered by many, the most reliable for that period.
Three main lines
First, that picture identified the forest economy as structured along three main lines. One was a small-scale sector where as expected small enterprises dominated. These enterprises utilized low levels of financial and productive equipment. Their production processes were highly labour intensive, with production largely confined to small logging operations. It should be emphasized that in this designation, small scale is used relatively, as in the colonial period it was considerably smaller.
Second, there were medium to large scale enterprises. These were heavily reliant, not only on productive capital and equipment, but also assured access to financial capital. Significantly, such enterprises were also far more integrated, as typically, the same enterprise would be engaged in logging, sawmilling, and provisioning of their own infrastructure, especially roads and power.
The third element in this structure was comprised of enterprises owned, controlled and established through foreign direct investment (FDI). The 21st century has seen this element grow considerably; names like Baishanlin, Barama, Vaitarna decorate the ‘achievements’ of FDI in Guyana’s extractive forest sub-sector. These enterprises have prioritized production for export, and being large scale, they have massively assured access to productive capital, equipment, technology and financial capital.
These three elements of the extractive forest sub-sector share several common challenges, but clearly, at the individual level, their capacity to respond varies. In addition, each of the elements has its own specific sets of constraints and challenges. Some of these will be addressed in next week’s column, before I move on to address the sector’s performance (employment, exports, production and prices) principally over the past decade.
