Dear Editor,
I refer to Seelochan Behary’s letter captioned “How is it Barama made no profit?” (07.02.05).
I submit the following in relation to this letter.
1. My comments on Barama’s forest management will be reserved until the appeal by the SGS – qualifier is objectively heard and analysed.
2. Without being sinister, “Barama’s Guyana” may sound appropriate since Barama is the name of a river which is a tributary of the Waini River in the North West Region of Guyana.
3. when in opposition politicians say anything like bringing down the cost of living, better transportation systems, increased wages etc. but when they are in government they tell you a different story. Yes, Dr Cheddi Jagan acted when he commissioned Dr Nigel Sizer’s report – “Profit without plunder”. What stopped him from pursuing his action; certainly he had enough time to act. But Dr Jagan did not act against the Barama company because the company’s harvesting methods were consistent with sustainable forest management. Even if Dr Jagan had acted the way Mr Beharry wanted him to act, the wrong signals would have been sent out to the international business community that Dr Jagan’s government, being the new government at the time, was against foreign investment. This principle still holds today and so it must be.
4. Mr Beharry continues to mislead the Guyanese and international communities that with the presence of Barama in our country our forests will be plundered or are undergoing destruction or depletion. This is a myth, over 80% of our forest cover remains intact and our country continues to be charcterized by vast areas of pristine and undisturbed tropical rainforest, mountain edges and savannahs with a rich diversity of plants and animals. The government and people of Guyana will never allow our country to reach the state of forest plunder like Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, the Solomon Islands and other south East Asian countries.
5. Mr Beharry is not a forrester. He once lectured at the University of Guyana in chemistry and is therefore not in the professional range to tell the difference between non-conformity with FSC principles and forest destruction.
6. Mr Beharry wants to know why the Barama company is not making any profits after 15 years. Before I answer Mr Beharry his question, he will first have to tell me, why Omai Gold Company after carrying on mining operations for over ten years in Guyana did not make any profits and caused an environmental disaster in August 1995 which polluted our Essequibo river and caused devastating effects on our flora, fauna and riverain residents.
7. Mr Beharry’s silence on the non-profitability of OMAI is reflective on his dishonest patriotic claims and his pursuance of an agenda on behalf of a cabal that now seeks to monopolise and control the forestry sector by deceitful and unprofessional means.
8. As for payment of contractors, Barama does not owe money to any contractor.
9. The local forestry industry says they are on the brink of bankruptcy.
In 1993 Barama’s contract was taken before parliament and debated on. Being the new government at the time it was decided that this action was appropriate.
Barama is not afraid of parliamentary scrutiny but it is no threat to our nation – state, so why parliamentary scrutiny?
Yours faithfully,
Trevor Atkinson
