The Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) yesterday refuted the claims of those involved in protest action staged on Monday in front of the Kwakwani Forest Station that they were not treated fairly in the awarding of concessions.
In a press release, the GFC acknowledged the protest action reportedly by representatives of the Aroaima Forest & Agriculture Producers Association (AFAPA) and Upper Berbice Forest & Agricultural Producers Association (UBFAPA). The Commission said that it was suggested by the named associations that the GFC treated them unfairly by not awarding named forest concessions to them, and this the GFC declared, “…is furthest from the truth.”
In its response the Commission cited Section 6 (4 & 5) of the Forest Act 2009 which mandates the GFC to carefully evaluate the technical and financial qualifications, as well as the compliance history of every applicant; to satisfy itself that the said applicant (a) intends in good faith to fulfil the forest concession agreement and (b) has the competence and resources to carry out the type of operations specified in that agreement.
Further, it was explained that in addition to the foregoing, Regulation 8(2) of the Forest Regulations 2018 stipulates that no forest concession agreement may be granted unless all outstanding fees have been paid or assured to the GFC.
The Commission noted that “regrettably,” some associations have been unable to meet the statutory qualifications set out by the Regulations. It also informed that around February 7, the associations in question made several applications for vacant forest concessions publicly advertised by the GFC between January and February, 2020.
According to the GFC, at the time of the said applications, the records of those already holding concessions were as follows:
Along with the advertisement, the Commission says it also advertised a detailed list of criteria for consideration highlighting, for example, that all outstanding sums due and owing to the GFC must be cleared prior to or at the date of the application(s) in order for the said application(s) to be considered. Notwithstanding indebtedness of the named Associations, the GFC says did not weigh these debts heavily against the associations, since they were both signatories to Memorandums of Understanding with the GFC for the outstanding sums.
However, the forestry body says it could not look past the numerous breaches of the Forest Act over the lifetime of the concessions, neither could it ignore the fact that UBAFAPA controlled 18 concessions including three large concessions. The GFC was of the opinion that UBAFPA needed to strengthen their management capacities to properly manage the concessions already awarded to them, before they could be favourably considered for additional concessions.
To this end, the GFC says it collaborated with the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Secretariat to strengthen the human capacities within these bodies, and in fact, a number of workshops were hosted by the FCPF and the named Associations along with several others were in attendance.
As regards AFAPA, the Commission says that this Association “failed to submit any supporting documents (with its application) to satisfy the GFC of its competency and or adequacy of resources to carry out another forest operation.”
Therefore, and in light of the foregoing, the GFC was of the opinion that at the time of application, “neither of the named Associations satisfied the GFC of their respective qualifications (financial and otherwise) to carry out an additional forest operation in good faith.”
