I wish to refer to a letter in the Guyana Times under the caption, “GFC responds to Janette Bulkan” in its issue of Wednesday May 8, 2013 written by James Singh.
In relation to this letter, I wish to state the following:
1. Congratulations to Mr. James Singh, the Commissioner of Forests for his professional and adequate response to Janette Bulkan’s Letter in the Kaieteur news of May 7, 2013 under the caption,

“Questions about Bai Shan Lin interventions in the forest sector”
2. It is hoped that Bulkan has learnt from Mr. Singh’s setting the records straight in relation to Bai Shan Lin(BSL) investments in Guyana’s forestry sector and hence- forth desist from her usually misleading agenda.
3. But Bulkan, a known unpatriotic critic and so-called forestry expert with no track record in forest management, and in her engrossed anti-government agenda will continue to formulate unqualified generalisations against the management of Guyana’s forestry sector.
4. Bulkan questions the BSL Investments “in our Forest Sector” and its “legally approved joint venture agreements.” She also raised other questions about BSL investments which she is not qualified to ask, since she does not live in Guyana and to therefore write “Our Forest Sector” does not apply to her but to the Guyanese people.
5. In relation to BSL’s joint-venture agreements, these were approved by the GFC under Procedures of Transparency. But what is the problem with joint venture agreements in Guyana’s forestry sector? Didn’t Bulkan’s family business at one time before its demise appeal for a joint business partnership?
6. Isn’t it good news that BSL will be engaged in value-added processing in our forestry sector? This has proven to be difficult by our local manufacturers because of cash flow and the need for modern equipment. While this difficulty continues, the GFC took the wise decision of creating a balance between log exportation and wood-processing so as to enable the buoyancy of the forestry sector.
Bulkan claims to be an advocate of value-added processing in Guyana’s forests, but unfortunately, the limitations of her “forest expertise” have clouded her understanding of the realities that do exist in relation to value-added processing in Guyana’s forestry sector, as well as her ability to deal with such realities.
7. Bulkan is known to be anti-LCDS and is not in favour of Norway funding this national initiative to combat Climate Change. But Norway continues to ignore her comments against Guyana’s LCDS which do not hold any water. This also relates to her misleading claims that BSL will consume 300,000  cubic metres of additional timber per year when in actual fact this amount is used merely in the group of indicators in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Guyana and Norway, which will be correctly phased out by 2014 when our monitoring, reporting and verification system (MRVS) becomes fully operationalised. Further, by this time BSL harvesting of the 300,000 cubic metres of timber will not be achievable. Something is definitely wrong with Bulkan’s forestry expertise which is responsible for her fictionalised writings on forestry matters in Guyana.