Urgent Action
25 April 1997
Guyana Gives More of its Forests to Another Malaysian Logging Company
Guyana signs second deal with Malaysian logging company in as many weeks for
huge "exploratory leases" in areas previously excluded from forestry
activities. At the same time, monitoring capacity remains weak and the
rights of Indigenous peoples are not guaranteed or respected. A draft law
legalising the exploratory leases is scheduled to be before the Guyanese
Parliament in the next two weeks. The Guyana Human Rights Association and
the Amerindian Peoples Association are requesting international support to
protest the extension of state forest lands and the deals with the timber
companies.
Background
In the past 5 years Guyana has opened its forests and the ancestral lands of
Indigenous peoples at an alarming rate to multinational mining and logging
companies. The latest phase of this much criticised policy is the proposed
extension of state forest lands to incorporate the Southern third of the
country and the signing of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) for exploratory
leases with Malaysian loggers to inventory and, subsequently log the newly
opened up areas. The first MOU was signed with Malaysian-Guyanese
company, Kwitaro, and the second with the infamous Malaysian company,
Berjaya Berhad. At least two other MOUs are to be signed in the near future
with Buchanan Forest Products Ltd. of Canada and Solid Timbers Berhad of
Malaysia.
Each of these companies will be given rights to 750,000 acres in the newly
extended state forest lands, despite the fact that there is no legal basis
yet for granting exploratory licenses under Guyanese law. The Government
intends to remedy this legal vacuum by pushing through legislation in the
coming two weeks legalising exploratory licenses and extending state forest
lands to accommodate the areas covered by the MOUs. The price per acre of
rainforest and savannah for these exploratory leases is US0.20.
These exploratory licenses are being granted in order to circumvent a 3 year
moratorium on new logging concessions that was negotiated between the
Government and donor organizations in 1995. Although not technically
logging concessions at this point, the exploratory leases clearly violate
the spirit and intent of the moratorium. The moratorium was put in place in
order to provide time to strengthen the capacity of Guyana's monitoring and
administrative capacity with regard to the forestry sector. In other words,
it was acknowledged by all concerned that the Government and its Forestry
Commission were incapable of monitoring existing logging operations.
Although some progress has been made in strengthening institutional
monitoring capacity, it remains inadequate and untested, particularly in
remote areas like those covered by the exploratory leases. Serious questions
about Guyana's ability to monitor the operations of the companies involved
are therefore still applicable.
Serious questions have also been raised about whether Guyana has any
commitment whatsoever to the environment and Indigenous rights or whether
environmental initiatives are being used to placate international donors and
criticism while it continues to turn over the majority of the country to
multinational loggers and miners. The Guyana Human Rights Association, for
instance, points out that while plans have been set in place to develop a
National Protected Areas System (NPAS), a Select Parliamentary Committee to
review the outdated Amerindian Act has been established and an Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has been created, in the preceding four years no
action has been taken on the NPAS, the Review Committee is defunct and while
environmental legislation has been approved, the EPA has not been made fully
operational.
Also, the areas targeted for incorporation into the State Forests are some
of the most pristine forests in the world, with fauna and flora diversity
among the richest in the Americas. Scientific exploration and studies,
carried out by Conservation International and the European Community both
attest to the bio-diverse richness of this area. Of the 24 recommended
Protected Area Schemes only one has been legally designated and no further
steps either to demarcate or protect it have been taken. According to
inside sources, World Bank staff working on the NPAS project are also
alarmed by the granting of the exploratory leases, frustrated by the lack of
concrete action by the Guyana Government and are seriously re-evaluating
their future role, both as donor and technical staff on the project, and the
Government's commitment to Indigenous rights and environmental protection.
On the issue of Indigenous rights no progress has been made and Indigenous
peoples in Guyana continue to suffer the full force of the negative social,
cultural and health effects on unrestrained resource development. The area
covered by the exploratory leases contains lands identified by the
Indigenous Macusi people as theirs. These assertions of Indigenous
ownership have been ignored and remain unresolved. Also, Indigenous lands
in the area have not been demarcated despite repeated calls from Indigenous
communities and organizations to do so and other issues related to
Indigenous land rights, such as extensions of titled areas and granting
titles to those communities without them have yet to be addressed. The
Amerindian Peoples Association has also expressed concern about the Wai Wai
people who live in the area, who they consider to be extremely vulnerable to
external pressures.
The signing of the exploratory leases and the extension of state forest
lands was undertaken without consulting affected Indigenous communities.
Ignoring the existence of Indigenous communities when granting permission to
multinational loggers and miners is a routine practice in Guyana. This is
even the case when Indigenous villages themselves are located in logging or
mining concessions. Predictably, when Indigenous communities complain they
are ignored.
The Companies Involved
Berjaya has been trying to get a timber concession in Guyana for the last
four years. During this same period, it also unsuccessfully attempted to
obtain a million plus hectare concession in neighbouring Suriname that
brought it into serious conflict with Indigenous and Tribal peoples in that
country and environmentalists the World over. Much of the objection to
Berjaya's entry in Suriname was based upon its and its assumed parent
company's, Rimbunan Hijau, appalling environmental record in other regions
of the World.
While Guyana may claim ignorance of the track record of some of the
companies with which it enters into agreements, it cannot use that excuse in
the case of Berjaya. For instance, a Berjaya official was forced to leave
the Solomon Islands following a much publicised attempt to bribe a senior
government official and allegations of pervasive bribery were wide spread in
connection with Berjaya's attempt to gain access to Suriname's forests.
Furthermore, a controversial tourist development on one of the world's most
famous marine parks on the island of Pulau Redang, which threatened
magnificent coral reefs and mangroves, resulted in a confrontation between
Berjaya and Malaysian environmentalists. When Berjaya first sought a
concession in Guyana, Berjaya Textiles, the subsidiary conducting the
negotiations was in the process of a reverse buy-out by Rimbunan Hijau, the
notorious timber empire which has wreaked havoc in Sarawak and other parts
of Asia. However, due to the endless attempts to disguise real ownership of
these faceless companies, it is unclear wheth er Guyana has in reality
signed a contract with Rimbunan.
Kwitaro, the other company that has signed a MOU is a joint venture between
Guyanese investors and the Malaysian, Mafira Group. Little is known about
the Mafira Group, other than its director is a retired Lt. General in the
Malaysian military and that one of its subsidiaries, Mafira Techniques,
manufactures rocket launchers, warships and small arms.
Request for Support
The preceding makes clear that the Government of Guyana is merely paying lip
service to environmental concerns, Indigenous rights and sustainable
development. Previous assurances of a freeze on concessions until the
institutional and legal capacity to regulate and monitor logging are in
place, are being evaded and Indigenous rights are being ignored and violated.
Consequently, the Guyana Human Rights Association and the Amerindian Peoples
Association are calling for concerted action to petition the Government to
postpone the passage of the impending legislation before Parliament, namely,
the Forest Exploratory Permits Bill 1997, until the following outstanding
issues have been resolved:
*outstanding Amerindian land rights issues, such as demarcation, legal
recognition for communities without titles and extension of titles for those
communities that have requested them;
* protected Areas legislation is in place and Protected Areas designated;
* review and replacement of the Amerindian Act in accordance with
international standards is completed.
* the Environmental Protection Agency is operational and monitoring capacity
is demonstrable.
Please send polite but firm faxes requesting the Guyana Government to
postpone the passage of the Forest Exploratory Permits Bill 1997 until the
issues noted above have been resolved.
Please fax letters to:
His Excellency,
President Sam Hinds,
Office of the President Fax No: 592 2 63395
New Garden Street
Georgetown
Please send copies to : GHRA/ APA, Fax No: 592 2 74948;
EMail: ghra.guy@solutions2000.net
For further information please contact the
Forest Peoples Programme, 1c Fosseway Business Centre, Stratford Road,
Moreton-in-Marsh, GLOS. GL56 9NQ, UK
Tel: 44 1608 652893 Fax: 44 1608 652878 Email: wrm@gn.apc.org
Forest Peoples Programme / World Rainforest Movement (UK Office)
1c Fosseway Business Center, Stratford Road, Moreton in Marsh, GL56 9NQ, UK
Tel: 44 (0)i608 652893 Fax: 44 (0) 1608 652878 Email: wrm@gn.apc.org
The World Rainforest Movement's International Secretariat is at:
Casilla de Correo 1539, Montevideo, Uruguay
Tel: 598 2 496192 Fax: 598 2 419222 Email: rcarrere@chasque.apc.org