Did Unamco have permission or not?
Editorial
No-one doubts that the Unamco incident, where illegal logging was alleged by the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) must be seen in the context of a number of collateral issues. Some of these have been pointed out by several state officials including the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon. Among these are: what Luncheon described as a well-orchestrated campaign to discredit Malaysian investors in the forestry sector; the fact that other operators in the local industry are guilty of similar or more serious transgressions and that Unamco's relations with the GFC were very rocky. That aside, it is interesting to note another statement by Luncheon to the effect that "people don't recognise how negative an impact this could have on our economic development if they (Unamco) decide to abandon Guyana". That is also a potentially important statement on the government's handling of this issue. However, the above-mentioned factors really have nothing to do with the gravamen of the dispute between Unamco and the GFC i.e. did Unamco conduct a fairly substantial trial log run without the express approval of the GFC? The GFC said it did and imposed a fine, Unamco said that it did not and it has a letter from a minister granting it approval. From various reports it seems that Unamco had only conditional approval to conduct the trial log run and had not requited all of the terms of this sanction before it embarked on cutting. That in itself is a serious issue and has not yet been clearly addressed. Did Unamco have permission to conduct the trial run or not? The answer to that question has been obscured by Unamco's appeal for direct intervention by President Janet Jagan and decisive action, claiming that its relations with the GFC had reached crisis proportions. Unamco stated that the GFC was "unhelpful, non-cooperative and confrontational". It listed a number of complaints against the GFC including having to wait for 10 months before receiving conditional approval for its management plan; late notification that an Environmental Impact Assessment study had to be done before construction of an access road could begin; allocation by the GFC of a very small portion of land originally sought for its sawmill. The subsequent intervention by President Jagan effectively took the issue out of the ambit of the GFC and the minister responsible for forestry. It was a course of action fraught with difficulties. It sent the signal that big forestry operators could bypass essential requirements set out by the GFC by appealing directly to the head of government. It thereby undermines the authority of the GFC which has sweeping and onerous obligations in acting as conservator of forests and ensuring that all operators abide by the tenets of good forest practice. The GFC may well have had a plausible case for the actions it took relative to Unamco and may have required the company to take corrigent measures. It is the GFC, not the government, which has the frontline role in ensuring that the forest companies toe the line. It is also the GFC which has to deal in the future with Unamco. No matter how precious investment is to the forestry sector and the country as a whole it can never be to the detriment of national interests. That is why the authority of regulatory bodies like the GFC must be paramount otherwise ambivalent signals are telegraphed. The country continues aggressively seeking out new forestry investment despite well meaning criticisms that such a policy is foolhardy without a strong, effective and competent forestry commission. The problems that Unamco may have complained about may be due in part to continuing weaknesses at the GFC despite efforts by the British Department for International Development and other donors to empower it. This is where the direct intervention and decisive action by the President is more desirable. When this is done, many of the problems complained about may never bolt from the GFC's stable doors. As more and more forestry investors eye our resources and prepare to make lucrative officers, the competence and authority of the GFC must be settled beyond question. Questions still remain about the Unamco incident. Did Unamco have permission or not for the trial log run? How many logs were cut? What is the value of the logs cut? What species were felled? Will the logs be exported? What proposals were put by the government to Unamco? Answers, please. 
|