Dear Editor,
A letter captioned “Illegal Logging in Guyana is worse than admitted by the Guyana Forestry Commission” (07.01.17) is another in a series of letters that seeks to selectively use information in a very manipulative way to serve the agendas of individuals who have launched an attack on the Government and the Commission.
The Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) has had in place the log tracking system for about seven years now. It has proven to be a very useful tool to restrict significantly the incidence of illegal logging, and importantly, to be able to quickly detect cases of illegal logging which may occur from time to time. The system is constantly being reviewed and upgraded and only recently (2006) a review of its efficiency was done by PROFOREST.
That review identified certain gaps in the implementation of the log tracking system and made very clear recommendations which are currently being implemented by the GFC.
The statement made by the FPMC that the “Log Tracking System has exposed and hence reduced the number of illegal operations especially the chainsaw operations” is very factual. Not all chainsaw operators operated illegally, but some years ago, a lot of existing chainsaw operations were being done by “poaching” on state forests that were unallocated, or leased to other concessionaires.
After repeatedly being held with untagged forest produce, these “illegal” operators then heeded the call of the Government and GFC to become regularized and legal operators. This led to the GFC coordinating the formation of Community Forestry Groups and allocating state forest land to them to operate in a legal manner.
The letter gives one definition of illegal logging, but readers should know that many highly recognized international institutions such as the World Bank, the Centre for International Research in Forestry (CIFOR), the World Wide Fund for Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), all have definitions of illegal logging.
In any case none of the companies existing in Guyana is in continuous breach of the definition of illegal logging as stated by the Royal Institute of International Affairs. When the minimal incidence of any breach occurs, it is quickly detected by the GFC’s control procedures and immediately dealt with.
Ms. Bulkan attempts to further add her definition of illegal logging to continue her vendetta against the foreign companies. The public should be aware that the Guyana Revenue Authority and the GFC have made it explicit to the foreign companies that all concessions granted by the Government are specifically for use in the state forests leased to them. This arrangement is being monitored by both GRA and GFC.
The statement of sub-letting by members of the FPA is again not factual, but we are accustomed to Ms Bulkan either misrepresenting the facts, or being very selective in choosing information to support her position.
For example, she quotes that sub-letting is against the National Forestry Policy (1997, Part 1, B3(d)). Unfortunately for Ms. Bulkan, the National Forest Policy Document of 1997, has no Part 1, B3(d). It would be advisable for a PhD research person to be more careful in making quotes that are non-existent. Again there is reference to a Part III, B3 in the National Forest Policy which is non-existent. Ms. Bulkan then quotes specific clauses in the Forest Regulations and TSA Agreement (clause 13) which deal with sub letting, but conveniently omits clause 14 of the same TSA Agreement which allows for the employment of agents and contractors.
This clause allows for companies to legally contract other companies to harvest within their leased concessions, with approval from the GFC, and in accordance with their Annual Operational Plan. To say that this is illegal logging does a disservice to the mentality of the public and certainly does not promote Guyana’s international image.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Taylor
