Vigilance
Editorial
Stabroek News
December 11, 2006
Friday's summoning of a press conference by the minister with responsibility for forestry, Robert Persaud, is evidence of the impact that sustained public pressure can sometimes have on decision makers.
The campaign on the export of logs etc has been waged largely through the letter columns of this newspaper by several writers, academics and members of the NGO community. It shows that even where the media and other institutions fail to discharge their obligations the mobilization of public space by the average citizen as occurred in this case can create feedback and force action by the dominant stakeholders. The minister and the Commissioner of Forests might not have yielded or admitted all that was sought by the letter writers but at least it is a start.
For too long the forestry industry, particularly the foreign-owned segment, has remained impervious to meaningful and searching scrutiny. Officials are hardly ever available to the media, they seem to have no belief that they must be accountable, questions go unanswered and they tend to operate as enclaves in the various far-flung parts of the country. Of course, much of the blame for this should be apportioned to the state and the regulator. There has been too much secrecy attending the business of the sector and it has a historic provenance. Several of the larger investment deals were fashioned in the 1990s in great secrecy - Barama and DTL in particular - and many questions were left unanswered. The inclusion of sumptuous tax concessions in some deals raised serious issues of propriety and the culture of secrecy has continued and been facilitated by the government and the regulator.
Because of the significance of the industry to the country and its economy and perhaps more importantly in light of the global consensus that exists towards forestry preservation and the prospect for carbon offsets, it is essential that the government and the regulator ensure transparency and openness.
Otherwise, not only would the country lose significant sums via transfer pricing and other nefarious practices, it may also awake one day to the realization that certain species have over a long time been over-harvested. The assurance that has come from the regulator that extraction rates are far below what is destructive is cold comfort. For there to be any satisfaction over such figures there would have to be much greater detail on extraction per species in any given area. And this is the nettle of the matter.
Given the challenges facing all local regulatory bodies in relation to personnel, resources etc the public will not be readily convinced that the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) is accoutred to properly fulfil its mandate especially in the light of the behaviour of some concessionaires who have been indulged, have cultivated influence and who believe that they don't have to be held accountable. Would forest rangers be able to exert their authority or even feel that they could in these concessions? Would they have unfettered access?
The public disquiet would not have been eased at all by Friday's disclosures that two members of the industry: Barama and Jialing have not been complying with the terms of their investment plans. When Barama expanded to Buck Hall there was concern that it was being allowed a new regime of concessions and officialdom stayed officially quiet on this matter. The details of the Jialing non-compliance might not have become public had there not been a letter published in this newspaper about Jialing exporting logs even though it had not fulfilled its sawmilling plant commitments. When put on the spot over its exports Jialing was to offer the rather unconvincing explanation about testing various species on the market. The actual breakdown of the species it exported has not been provided and may make illuminating reading. This is not the first time that a foreign-owned firm has had to answer uncomfortable questions about log exports while not proceeding with its processing plant.
The point is that unless the GFC is on the ball, given the voracious appetite for logs in China and other parts of Asia, the industry here could become one giant log reservoir with open-ended exports. Given the size of the northwest concession controlled by Barama it still boggles the mind that it relies on extraction from other concessions to meet its needs.
The government and the GFC must arrive at the awakening that rigorous oversight must be done of the industry to ensure that management and investment plans are followed through and that there are no serious missteps as there were in relation to the Aurelius application for a concession. The GFC should make available to the public pertinent details on the management plans for all concessionaires - foreign and local - setting out what was permitted for extraction, the actual output and breakdown by species. The investment pledges related to downstream processing must also be placed in the spotlight, monitored carefully and penalties applied for non-compliance.
It would for instance be highly illuminating for the GFC to provide data on Barama's export of plywood over the last decade or so compared to its log exports, the latter data setting out what came from its huge concession and what came from other forests.
The public will await with much interest the GFC's investigations of allegations of transfer pricing. One hopes that this investigation will not be prolonged and will seek out all of the stakeholders for the relevant information - some of which was alluded to in a letter in Saturday's issue of this newspaper.
And there are many other areas that have to be addressed in the open such as the need for more value-added investment by the stakeholders, the conditions of work at logging concessions and the hiring of foreign workers.
Vigilance must be the watchword.