WHY NOT BAN THE EXPORT OF ALL LOGS?

Nov 10, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The government has banned the exportation of locust timber. The reason given for the ban was that the local market was not benefiting from the export.
This is another way of saying that the more locust woods are exported the less supplies will be available for local manufacturers. This is not an unreasonable argument but locust cannot be the only species, the export of which will affect the domestic market.
Locust is one of the timbers in high demand. Large quantities of locust logs are being exported by the Chinese loggers thereby denying local manufacturers, including persons close to the government such supplies.
There is no evidence that the ban on this species of timber was intended to benefit anyone in particular. But it does raise some concerns as how certain matters should be handled by the new administration.
If it is felt that a legitimate policy decision can be perceived as benefiting a top supporter of the government or a member of the government, then it is incumbent in the interest of transparency for steps to be taken to demonstrate that there is no intention to use policy prescriptions to benefit friends and cronies as was the case under the PPP.
In the case of the ban on locust timber, this is not the only species of timber that is in demand, locally. There are others, the large-scale exportation of which can present problems for the country. Wamara is one such species. The ban should therefore not have been extended to other threatened species. This would have demonstrated greater transparency.
But why bother to ban any species at all? Why not ban the exportation of logs period? If the objective is to encourage local value- added production, there is a strong case against the export of logs. Once companies can export logs for processing elsewhere, there will be little incentive for establishing sawmills.
The banning of logs can be legitimized on the grounds of building–up domestic manufacturing. It can also be legitimized on environmental grounds such as protecting particular species. WTO rules allow for such exemptions on grounds to protect the extinction of repaid depletion of a species of timber and it does also allow for exemptions to prevent shortages in the domestic market.
However, there has to be sound scientific basis for banning and the process must be as such as not be seen as being willy nilly.
The government has read the ‘Riot Act’ to those companies that were exporting logs. It gave them time to put themselves in order and to establish sawmills that their investment proposals called for. But the public has not been told just how much time each company has been given.
If the government is serious about encouraging greater manufacturing in the timber sector, it should not be encouraging the exportation of logs. It is within the power of the government to ban the exportation of logs in Guyana.
There is therefore no need for the government to restrict the exportation of logs of any particular species. It should simply ban the export of logs period.
There may be reasons why there have been no bans on logs. This can be challenged as being anti- trade. Also the contracts signed between the government and foreign loggers may have provided for the export of logs. These are things that the public needs to be informed about.
The government however cannot simply ban a species of log without first establishing that this was absolutely necessary on environmental or in terms of protecting the domestic market.
There are international trade agreements that simply do not allow for such anti-trade measures to be implemented without legitimate cause. This is all the more reason why instead of locust alone, wamara should also have been banned on the grounds that the domestic market was being affected. It could have also been banned on environmental grounds.
The government must therefore now clearly state its position as regards the export of logs, as against the export of processed lumber. The government must also clarify why it has chosen to ban one species and not another also.

Latest News

WHY NOT BAN THE EXPORT OF ALL LOGS?

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 11th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Runsfest ends in draw, as arch rivals play hearts out

Guyana Harpy Eagles trio fined for breaching...

Sport Ministry injects $3M into EDFA League

GCB President meets U15 team ahead of Regional...

Jumbo Jet Thoroughbred Racing Committee, Guyana...

Week 3 of East Bank FA Boys’ U14 League shines...

Features/Columnists

The mirage of citizen investment

Collaborative Government–Private Sector Action Imperative for a Resilient Trade Future

The Great American Experiment

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

WHY NOT BAN THE EXPORT OF ALL LOGS?

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 11th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]