Dear Editor,
I refer to an article in Monday’s SN September 15, 2008 informing that Prince Charles applauds Jagdeo’s climate change proposal. I take the opportunity to congratulate the President on his bold initiative to protect planet earth from the worst effects of Global Warming and Climate Change by offering to conserve Guyana’s forests. The government’s recent publication on the President’s “low carbon development vision” is a seminal work and shows clearly that “we are ready to lead.” Like President Jagdeo I agree fully that the time to act on climate change is now. Nevertheless, I wish to caution that the unorthodox handling of Guyana’s forest conservation proposal may be shaping up to be another EPA type fiasco.
One gets the distinct impression that Mr Jagdeo is single-handedly negotiating a deal with Britain that will involve all of Guyana’s forests. We are then told in your article that “The government will outline more details about plans for national consultations to take place in early 2009.” No doubt by “early 2009” Guyana’s position will be cast in stone and the forestry sector will be forced to play ‘catch-up’ in an effort to try and understand how certain positions critical to the well-being of the forestry sector were reached, and, whether or not they are immutable.
As it happens ‘catch-up’ is not one of the games enjoyed by heavy investors in the timber industry, so do forgive me if, in the absence of timely consultation, I use this letter to express some fears and concerns that the forestry sector should have been consulted, given that the sector contributes between 5-8% of annual GDP. As someone close to the forest industry but without proprietorial interest, and as a recent member of the Guyana Forestry Commission Board where I served for 5 years as the PNCR nominated director, I take the liberty of this intercession.
For the purpose of this advocacy we can say that Guyana’s forests fall into 2 proprietorial categories:
1. Unallocated State Forests (USF) which fall directly under government’s/GFC’s control and
2. 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.
Guyana’s forests cover roughly 40 million of the country’s 53 million acres (including state lands, Amerindian lands and private property). The state forest administered by the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) accounts for about 33 million acres divided almost equally between USF and ASF. I believe USF acreage may be in the region of 17 million acres with the rest (ASF) allocated to local and foreign-owned logging/timber companies, ie around 16 million acres.
On the first page of the government’s seminal booklet referred to above which sets out “Guyana’s low carbon development vision” the President states “As part of our commitment, we are willing to place almost our entire rain-forest – which is larger than England – under the supervision of an international body to ensure compliance with world-class forestry standards. We will do this if we can access the right market mechanisms to make it economically worthwhile.” But, what exactly does “almost our entire rain-forest” mean? Are we speaking about USF or ASF land or all the USF with some ASF land thrown in for good measure? According to the government’s booklet the land mass the President has in mind “is larger than England,” which has around 50,000 sq miles. This must mean he most likely is referring to an area larger than the Unallocated State Forests. Theoretically, about 62,500 sq miles of Guyana are forested. However, allowing for cut forest, clearings, rivers and built-up areas, etc, we can safely assume that the total existing standing forest covers around 55,000 sq miles. Is this what is meant by “our entire rain-forest… which is larger than England”?
President Jagdeo’s historic initiative is being given a lot of publicity in the United Kingdom, and rightly so. It is innovative and ahead of its time. Last week the BBC’s Panorama programme carried footage on the President’s acclaimed proposal. The documentary film was called ‘Can money grown on trees?’ and in the City of London, Guyana’s forest proposal has become a talking point, curiously referred to as “the scheme.” The City says that Guyana is asking for the handsome sum of £300M (about US$600M) for “the scheme.” Their understanding is that all of Guyana’s forest cover, close to 40 million acres, is on the negotiation table and in the absence of full and meaningful consultation with stakeholders in Guyana one has to believe the City of London knows what it is talking about. Like at any terminal market the money you make is based on volume and availability. The carbon exchange market when it gets into full swing will be trading carbon in the form of trees which convert carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into oxygen. It follows that the more standing trees you can take to the market the greater will be your earnings. In this sense money will grow on trees. But does the government really intend to cede it all, even if it means destroying an entire industry built over many decades by the amazing courage, hard work, dedication and sacrifice of many of its own supporters? The word on the street (Cornhill in the City of London) is that Britain may well agree to Guyana’s forest proposal to take effect from 2012.
Guyana’s forestry sector which earned in excess of US$60M between 2006 and 2007 (exceeding even the contribution of rice and fisheries) has a right to know first hand what the government plans for the sector.
The timber industry employs around 20,000 persons. Mainly ethnic minorities. An estimated 9,740 (48%) are employed in logging. These hapless Guyanese will be the first to be laid off when “the scheme” kicks in; 6,680 (33.4%) in sawpits and sawmills; 2,300 (11.5%) in plywood and related manufacturing; 1000 (5%) in manicole palm production and the remainder in other areas such as charcoal and mangrove bark production, lianas and log poaching/wood theft. What plans are being made to absorb these people into acceptable alternative employment while our forests are left untouched to keep the world alive and happy?
In terms of dependants, our 20,000 forestry sector workforce sustains a total community of approximately 100,000 Guyanese − roughly 14% of our total population. Of course some will find employment as conservation forest wardens, bird spotters and some as guides. Many will have to move to other Caricom countries whether they are wanted their or not, CSME or not. Will any portion of the US$600M be used to pay unemployment benefits to dislocated workers or used towards well-thought-out structural adjustment? Once their forests are ‘nationalized,’ will the timber companies be paid compensation for their investment losses given the billions that have been spent on economic and social infrastructure, equipment, road and river transport, machines, sawmill, salaries, overheads, royalties, acreage fees and now fines? And, is this compensation part of the package under negotiation with the Brown government? Or is compensation going to be dependent on government’s goodwill and benevolence? On the noisome subject of maximizing the volume of the Unallocated State Forests, is government/GFC going to frustrate, victimize, finesse and fine timber/logging companies out of existence in a malevolent and unlawful attempt to arbitrarily repossess most of the 16 million acres of allocated forest? Has this virtual ‘claw-back’ of Allocated State Forest already started? How much notice will concessionaries be given to pack up and leave? Will they be told “leave the forest by dawn or else?” After all, this is Guyana. Clearly there are more questions than answers, and a national consultation should have started long ago. Indeed, the President’s negotiations started with Tony Blair’s government and that must have been over 2 years ago. I therefore posit that the time for national consultation is not “early 2009” which can easily shift to mid or late 2009 or to a date in 2010. As the glossy booklet on the President’s “low carbon development vision” says ever so succinctly, “The time to act on climate change is now.” Similarly the time for consultation with our forestry sector, all stakeholders and the nation is now.
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. The task at hand is rather how to lift the nation out of the dark and create awareness and understanding of these new developments that may shake thousands of lives up root and branch while our trees are left standing and erect for the benefit of all mankind.
Yours faithfully,
F. Hamley Case
Former GFC Director
