Dear Editor,

I refer to Hamley Case’s well-written and argued case (Sunday Stabroek, September 21), stressing the need for meaningful stakeholder consultation with regard to President Jagdeo’s climate change proposal/initiative. I share Hamley’s sentiments when he says that “despite all the questioning, government must be congratulated for putting Guyana in the vanguard of the fight against Global Warming and Climate Change and for grappling with the carbon problem in a uniquely Guyanese way.”

Our views differ somewhat, however, when it comes to the role that our forests can play in relation to the economic development of our country by way of job creation and export revenues. This requires, however, moving as is often said, from the general to the particular. Hamley states that Guyana’s forests fall into two proprietorial categories, the second being the following:

Allocated State Forests (ASF), referring to forests that have been allocated as timber concessions for logging purposes on which the manufacture of value-added timber products mainly for export depend. Hence the industry’s major contribution of 5-8% of the country’s annual GDP.

In this seemingly innocuous statement, resides a distinction as wide as the Essequibo River. Whilst a contribution of 5-8% toward the annual GDP could be described as being major, it obfuscates the reality that current revenues for this sector are minuscule and that its real potential is not being realised. For this to happen, however, the policy framework has to be different. We have always argued that as custodians of this natural resource, the state has the responsibility in its allocation, to see that national developmental objectives are met. One way of doing this and which currently does not obtain is to build in the requirement that a certain percentage of the harvest must be sold locally and which would be used for housebuilding,

construction, furniture and other value-added production, whether for local or export. The underlying principle or if you will, the rationale, is that given that these resources are inherited and not cultivated, it is the patrimony of all and therefore should only be exploited if national objectives are being met.

What could the above lead to? It would make sawn-timber more available and at more competitive prices and would spur a host of value-added processing activities. This is one of the things that Malaysia has done; I believe that their requirement of trees harvested that must be sold on the local market is 60%. Let’s look at the contribution that the forest sector is making there. In 2007, their exports of timber products were in excess of a staggering US$6.6B! Of it, wooden furniture was almost $2.0B, plywood almost the same, sawn-timber at $924M, moulding $267M, builders joinery and carpentry at $297M and logs too at $617M, or 9% of the total.

Total exports of forest products from Guyana in 2007 were US$61.475M, made up as follows: Sawn timber – $21.862M (35.6%) made up of undressed at $15.348M (25%) and dressed timber at $6.513M (10.6%), logs – $20.847M (33.9%), plywood − $8.887M (14.4%), other value-added products (which includes furniture doors, etc) − $5.037M (8.2%). These figures tell their own story which, stripped of any gloss, is that after a century of timber exploitation in Guyana, we are still only a primary producer.

It does not have to be so. From our perspective, this sector has the potential to be the leading contributor to our economy, larger than agriculture, mining, tourism, manufacturing. It has the potential of creating over 60,000 high paying jobs and exports of US$400-600M annually.

This would come about from the manufacture of, among other products, solid-wood doors, windows, strip and parquet flooring both unfinished and pre-finished, decking, furniture, architectural millwork, high-end joinery, pre-fab houses, dimensioned lumber for use in piers, jetties, wharves, etc. For this to happen though it requires firstly the will, followed by a centrally identified and supported programme.

We repeat that as custodian of the resource, the state has the responsibility in the allocation of forest concessions, to determine how the respective concessionaries fit into an overall plan for the development of the sector and to try and ensure that its contribution is maximized.

I do not know how much consultation preceded Malaysia’s enactment of policies, perhaps 30 years ago, to realize the potential of their forest sector. I would suggest though, that those who would have been affected by a shake-up of the status quo would not have been happy. This is a necessary component of change, however.

Yours faithfully,
R Bulkan