Nine days after a report appeared in this newspaper on the concerns expressed by residents and organisations of the Rupununi over road building, Chinese company Baishanlin issued a statement denying that it had built a new road network 130 kilometres long.
For the residents of the Rupununi and parts of Region Six the real truth of this matter has enormous bearing on their way of life. A vast network of 130 kilometres would leave their sheltered communities vulnerable to widespread ecological damage, loss of habitat and wildlife and encroachment by illegal miners from Brazil and elsewhere. Little doubt then that residents are seriously concerned. It was therefore a major topic of discussion when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened hearings in the community of Apoteri last month. Apoteri is now the frontline of the containment of any further illegal logging incursions.
Residents were adamant that a new road was being built and the line from the officials present did not clarify matters a whole lot. Director for the Compliance and Enforcement division of the EPA Mr Khemraj Parsram told the meeting in Apoteri that the road would be covered under the Environmental and Social Impact assessment (ESIA) currently being done. Deputy Commissioner of Forests Mr Tashreef Khan told the meeting that there was “upgrading” of trails and the company was given permission to “upgrade the trails.”
Despite Mr Khan’s statement, no current official maps indicate the presence of “trails” where the road is now and it is now so wide as to enable heavy-duty equipment to move along it, including the ubiquitous logging trucks. Further, Guyana Forestry Commission maps seen by Stabroek News indicate a proposed road alignment by Baishanlin with the map showing no indication that a road was present in the area; it only refers to the proposed road. The road works have occurred over the past several months.
Baishanlin has also applied to the EPA for permission to begin large-scale logging and sawmilling operations at its forest concessions in Regions Six and Nine. No doubt the company is confident of approvals and is expediting the process by preparing the infrastructure required for its logging operations. In its project summary the Chinese company had interestingly said that in the preparatory phase, activities would include establishing initially more than 196 km of all-weather roads to allow access to the concession area. According to the company, the all-weather roads will incorporate a number of bridges and culverts.
A report in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek on a study for the previous holders of the concessions that Baishanlin is now in control of referred to plans for a separate impact assessment for the road that was to be built. This was no doubt in recognition of the extensive and lasting impact the road could have on the ecosystem. The present arrangements for Baishanlin seem to gloss over this.
Its denials of road building notwithstanding, Baishanlin stands today as an example of the new development paradigm being foisted on Guyanese communities by the Government of Guyana. There is no problem with new, ethical Chinese investment. The problem that Baishanlin faces in Guyana is the widespread perception that it is coming from an environment with little respect for community rights and laws and has now embedded itself in a milieu of weak enforcement of laws and rampant corruption. It is a toxic cocktail that puts powerless communities at the mercy of influential companies like Baishanlin which appear to have carte blanche from the government.
When account is taken of the patently large amounts of logs being exported by Baishanlin, its construction of huge water craft which are clearly intended to transport even larger amounts of logs, its harvesting of vast duty-free concessions on equipment, the few valuable jobs created for Guyanese and its abject failure to live up to its commitments for value-added production, one has to be immediately concerned about the recent disclosures about its road building/reopening activities in sensitive areas of Regions six and nine. On top of all this, government officials and those from regulatory agencies have tripped over themselves to praise this company. The company has also found itself in questionable arrangements such as the building of a parking lot for the Guyana Revenue Authority of all agencies. It is also greatly ambitious in the area of mining among others.
The Ramotar administration has shown no inclination to ensure that companies like Baishanlin and Vaitarna stick to their commitments to value-added logging. The recent revelations at the community meeting at Apoteri raise credible concerns about unauthorised road activities in an ecologically vulnerable area. Neither the Guyana Forestry Commission nor the EPA was able to satisfy the people gathered at Apoteri that nothing untoward is occurring.
More importantly, whether new road or trail reopening, the people of the community should have been integrally involved as the natural custodians of that area. Trails served specific purposes for these communities. Reopening them preparatory to exploration or logging is rife with risks. No trails should have been reopened by Baishanlin without consultation with these communities and a study of the potential risks. This was clearly not done and the EPA and the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment should answer for this.
All work by Baishanlin on these trails/road should cease and the government should finance an assessment of the road work by community and local government leaders and their representatives so everyone can be certain of what has transpired and what is legal and what is not. It can’t be overstated that there must be rigorous scrutiny of the activities of large companies in the interior of the country to ensure compliance with the laws and best practices.
