Dear Editor,
The article captioned ‘Iconic timber species overharvested near commercial extinction -Bulkan’ in the Sunday Stabroek of May 31.
It is claimed that certain species are over harvested and are extinct or are approaching commercial extinction in the accessible forests. There are environmentalists who do not believe a single tree should be cut down. In Guyana’s case with the bulk of the population along the coastline and nearly seven hundred and fifty miles of forest and savannah lands, can any development take place? Sixty years ago when the writer joined the industrial side of the forest industry it was suggested there would be only a twenty years’ supply of greenheart available in Guyana. This is because of the fact that as greenheart is a dense hardwood growing on a soil with very low nutrients, it takes time to grow to commercially acceptable sizes.
In the fifties the Guyana Forestry Department conducted a hundred per cent inventory on ten acres of worked-over (greenheart forest). This study is known as the E C Clarke Report, and is titled, ‘The Regeneration of Worked-out Greenheart (Ocoteas Rodiei) Forests in British Guiana.’ It was published in 1956. In Appendix C of this paper the results were reproduced and ninety-four stumps of commercial trees had been removed. Over a hundred and one trees, eight inches and up remained standing and over seven hundred greenheart saplings, from two inches in diameter to below eight inches in diameter. From seedling to sapling below 10 feet high, there were below 4,597 young trees. With professional findings like this it should be correct to state natural regeneration is taking place and this will maintain the forest.
It should be noted that a greenheart seed if removed from its natural environment and planted elsewhere will not grow. There is something within its environment that acts as a catalyst which encourages growth. This is not unknown as it was found that when the Australians tried to establish plantation forests of jarrah, an Australian species, there was little success until the introduction of a certain cactus into the plantation; this somehow acted as the catalyst to encourage growth. This type of work is needed in Guyana to assist the growth of the particular species, greenheart.
Remarks such as, “Massive over harvesting of commercially preferred timbers” shows an absolute ignorance of the problems that face any commercial operation in the Guyana forests. As it relates to markets large and small, most of our thousand odd species are under-sized trees. Forest regulations do not allow the commercial harvesting of under-sized trees; it would be only guessing to give what percentage of our thousand odd species would be trees of a commercial size. The SN article states that the top ten species account for seventy-six per cent of the total log production, so perhaps 99% of our forest species yield only 24% of commercial size trees?
Commercially you cannot cut a tree down unless there is a market. If you have an order for fifty thousand board feet and only have three trees of the species required in your block which might give you a return of twelve hundred board feet, commercially you cannot take the order, unless the customer is prepared to wait for a year or two. Theory and the practice do not run in harmony. You cannot cut trees down and wait for an order to suit, as wood rots and the markets control the utilization of the forest. The colonial administration of British Guiana introduced the Central Timber Manufacturing Plant (CTMP) of the Guiana Forestry Department which purchased standard sizes and lengths of certain species, creating a market for some of our lesser known species. They air dried and dressed them against orders and sold them. This created a market, where if you had one or two trees you could then cut them. The CTMP was very successful until independence, after which, because of the demands from various ministries for furniture which was supplied free of cost, the plant became a commercial failure, resulting in it being closed down.
In 1947, after World War II, a private sector company’s salesman took a suitcase of samples and travelled the USA seeking markets. The samples were very acceptable, however when asked how much of a particular species was available and the answer was five to ten thousand bm per month, the potential buyer advised that one shift of his plant needed fifty thousand board feet. So basically the markets are there for the other species, but we do not have the volume needed in our forest to service same.
This brings us to the market for logs. We in Guyana have a total population of maybe three quarters of a million people; countries such as India and China count their population in billions; some of those billions are well below the poverty line. When a log goes to those countries, they can sell every single stick and even the sawdust within their market. In Guyana although we have poverty, we do not believe a compressed sawdust stove will find a market. This is just a marketing reality. As regards things like transfer pricing, etc, currently this is an allegation and needs investigation. There is a problem with shipping. It is cheaper to send a container of lumber from Malaysia to Europe, than it is to send a container from Guyana to Europe; this is because of the size of ship that can come into our harbour.
The criticisms of the alleged practices of the Chinese have to be looked into by the authorities; nevertheless our armchair experts should understand that there are many small Guyanese concessionaires who benefit from log sales to the Chinese, who pick up their logs along the road in the forest. This practice was discouraged initially by the Forestry Commission during the nineties but appear to have been reversed in recent years.
There is a need for a greater study of the genetics of our forests, but it would require a great deal of study over a long period. This would be very costly. It is important that well paid researchers are employed. If the environmentalists of this world truly want to understand our forests, they should sponsor long term grants to encourage such research. Unfortunately most of our research has been done by people who really do not want us to utilize our forests. They make their study and report their findings, and they then try to explain away their findings. For example, some environmentalists claim the removal of certain species would change the quantity measures of species diversity. This was addressed in the study done by Tropenbos entitled, ‘Long Term Effects of Timber Harvesting in the Bartica Triangle – Central Guyana,’ where it is found (item 6, page 150) “There are no detectable changes in quantities measures of species diversity.” Then in their remarks they say, “Surprising, removal by harvesting of the dominant species did not result in a change in diversity.”
It would be pointed out, this was no surprise to those who have some knowledge of the Guyana forests, however, they go on at length to try and justify that their views are correct and yet “surprising” it did not happen. They also quote from their own work extensively, trying to justify their opinion. Bear in mind the Tropenbos people came as students and left as doctors, having done their various theses, most of which seem to be incorrect when looking at what is happening in the forest. But they are ‘Doctors’ and very few persons dare question their opinions.
We have to look at our forest and try and understand the problems of genetics and of commercial utilization. We seldom go into the forest nor do we study the findings of others who have been there and recorded facts. Accept the facts and do not just give opinions because the facts do not reflect favourably on preconceived opinions.
One final point, please do not compare the Malaysian forest where the yield per hectare is over sixty cubic metres per hectare as opposed to Guyana forest which is supposed to be around fourteen cubic metres per hectare, even though up to 20 cubic metres are said to be a sustainable figure for our forest.
A twenty year ‘guesstimate’ has stretched to over 60 years. This has been achieved by improved extraction techniques and access roads. There are new rich greenheart areas that have become available, but be this as it may, some day greenheart will be facing a catch-up phase. One Tropenbos person opined that perhaps the young trees, which fill the gaps created by felling, have a delay in growth when reaching canopy level. Like humans from 20-35 years old they are trim. After 35, some may start to put on weight. As for the 4000 seedlings (Clarke report), remember there are animals like deer who have to find food. Yes, some markets may be less, but greenheart is in no danger of being extinct.
Yours faithfully,
John Willems
