Janette Bulkan’s assertions are misleading

Nov 20, 2008 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I write to correct the unacceptable inaccuracies in Ms. Bulkan’s analysis of Minister Persaud’s statements at the IDB/GFC/CI meeting on 12/11/2008, as published in the Kaieteur News of 16/11/2008.

Ms. Bulkan’s assertions that the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) and the minister have presented misleading data on forestry in Guyana is evidently made on a total lack of understanding of the basic principles of sustainable forest management, promoted by the GFC.

Ms. Bulkan, in her ignorance, also provides details of her incorrect calculation of the annual allowable area for harvest. This allows one to identify her error in assessment very precisely, and to again highlight her tendency to manipulate facts and figures.

The data that is presented on the GFC’s website is in direct compliance with the minister’s statements, and testifies to the high level of sustainable forest management practices in Guyana.

The Forest Sector Information Report, January to June 2008, provides the following information:
Total area issued to State Forest Permissions (SFP’s, two-year leases) and Conversion Areas: 1,508,716 ha.

Total areas issued to Timber Sales Agreements (TSA’s, leases granted up to 30 years): 4,674,950 ha
Total area issued to Wood Cutting Leases (WCL’s, leases granted up to 10 years): 70,889 ha
Total: 6,254,555 ha

GFC manages all concessions on the precautionary principle of a 60-year cutting cycle with a maximum allowable cut (yield) of 20m3/ha over this 60-year rotation/cyclical system.

The GFC also allows concessions to operate on shorter cutting cycles (25-60 years) with a prorated reduction in the yield, using the formula of 20m3/ha over a 60-year cycle.

Ms. Bulkan has erroneously assumed in her analysis that the years of the lease period are equivalent to the felling cycle duration, and therefore the annual allowable area to be logged is obtained by dividing the total acreage by the lease period.

This is simply not the same. In no instance is the calculation of annual allowable area computed by using a two or eight-year period, as Ms. Bulkan uses in her letter for SFPs, SFP in conversion and WCL respectively. Additionally, Ms. Bulkan does not seem to appreciate the actual circumstances in the forest.

Had she considered this, she would have calculated that some areas of the forest are not used for production, either because of forest vegetation characteristics, or owing to the GFC’s protective measures, such as the requirement for the establishment of protective areas, buffer zones and biodiversity reserves.

The correct computation, therefore, is to discount non-productive areas and to divide the remaining acreage by the number of years in the cutting cycle. This principle applies to the management of all concessions intended for harvesting, namely SFP, TSA and WCL.

This therefore means that for total issued concessions, maximum sustainable annual allowable area should be computed as follows:
Total issued concession area = 6,254,555 ha
Productive area is estimated at 65 % of total issued concession area (this caters for biodiversity reserves; unproductive forest, roads, buffer areas etc).
Total productive area = 6,254,555 (0.65) = 4,065,460.75 ha.

If a felling cycle of 25 years is assumed, the maximum allowable cut will be:
(60 years) (20m3)/25 years = 8.33 m3
Total maximum annual allowable cut = (Total productive area/felling cycle) (8.33) m3
This equates to: (4,065,460/25) (8.33) m3 = (162,618.4) (8.33) m3 =1,354,611 m3
The above computation shows clearly that Minister Persaud’s assessment of average annual log production is on target.

A minimal difference of 10 % exists because the minister used average figures of an annual allowable acreage of 160,000 ha/year and an average harvest of 7.5 m3/ha which gave 1,200,000m3 annually or (160,000 ha) (7.5 m3).

Ms. Bulkan’s proposal of the annual allowable area being set at 950,000 ha would result in the entire forest being fully exhausted in two years for SFPs, eight years for WCL and 25 years for TSA. She has missed the entire concept of forest resources management techniques in Guyana.

The assertion of under- utilization of Guyana’s forest is also rightfully made by Minister Persaud, and this has been substantiated by the lower than average levels of yield per concession.

Ms. Bulkan concludes that this underutilization is tantamount to unsustainable forest management practices being prevalent in Guyana.

This makes little sense as logging below the annual allowable cut; but, in accordance with the GFC guidelines, it means that more of the forest remains intact. Ms. Bulkan’s logic is therefore most surprising.

She went on to conclude that heavy coloured timbers are being exported to Asia, but she gives no statistics to substantiate her allegations.

Additionally, she pronounces that there is over-harvesting of prime species, but she provides no inventory information to substantiate this. She also incorrectly assumes that all log exports to China are one species. This is certainly not the case.

These are further examples of Ms. Bulkan’s baseless assertions and conclusions aimed at deceiving the general public.

To clear up some of Ms. Bulkan’s confusion, I will answer her last queries in her letter very succinctly: Guyana ensures that sustainable forest management is practiced both now and in the future by implementing deliberate policies (like the ones which she has misunderstood on maximum allowable harvest area), all aimed at ensuring that the forests are best conserved and utilized for the benefit of all.

Owing to these and a range of other sustainable forest management principles being practiced, Guyana is and will continue to be a positive example to both the Guiana Shield and the Amazon region.
Vivian Li

---

---