KINDLY permit me to respond to Part three of Janette Bulkan and John Palmer’s series of reviewing the GFC’s reports, which were recently tabled in Parliament and published in the Stabroek News of Friday January 24th, 2014.

Kindly permit me to state the following in your newspaper:
1. Bulkan and Palmer are currently reviewing GFC’s reports from 2005-2012; but they are wrong, because they need to first analyze the Forestry Sector 1964-1992 and then move on to 2005- 2012. This will ensure that credible reviewing is done. However, so far this is not being done sequentially, which means that Bulkan and Palmer’s current reviewing process of the GFC’s reports is seriously flawed and must be ignored by all. The fact is that both Bulkan and Palmer are supporters of the PNC/APNU, which illegally ruled Guyana from 1964-1992, which was a period of massive corruption and misery. This is why Bulkan and Palmer do not want to review this period, thus their credibility is questionable: And worse, the past PNC Government never submitted reports to Parliament. So, basically, Bulkan and Palmer’s publicly reviewing of the GFC’s reports is ANTI-Government Politics in Action, and at best a farcical reviewing.
2. Bulkan and Palmer are currently hiding out and only emerge to camouflage PNC filth by casting aspersions on Government’s initiatives. A simple assessment of their parts 1, 2 & 3 reviewing of the GFC’s reports tells me that they are simply grasping at straws, since they have not as yet put forward a single credible analytical review that warrants any consideration. Where did they receive their training from? It appears that they want to make Parliament a banking institution, since they are making an issue over the signature of the commissioner of forests. What a shame! What have specimen signatures to do with the submission of reports to Parliament?
3. Bulkan and Palmer, however, seem to be job-hunting and marketing themselves foolishly from abroad. If so, then they can provide free training on the presentation of Annual Reports (ARs) and then apply to the Government of Guyana for a job, then the proper persons would determine their abilities. I can recall that Bulkan posed as a technical expert, but erroneously and unpatriotically advised Suriname to incorporate a portion of Guyana’s territory when that country was preparing its readiness plans to secure funding for its REDD+ Initiative from the Forest Carbon and Partnership Facility (FCPF). The GFC consistently condemned this major error by Suriname, which resulted in the removal of the “portion of Guyana’s territory” from the maps of Suriname. Shame!!! Bulkan was subsequently removed from the technical advisory panel (TAP) established by the FCPF. Is this one of the reasons why Bulkan is always bitter with the GFC and its work of sustainably managing Guyana’s forests and always attacks its policies, plans and programmes?
4. But everything the “goodly doctor” puts hands on always fade away, such as the National Forest Certification Standard, Iwokrama’s Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standard, Waini Forest management plan and the Barama Company Limited (BCL) Partnership with the Akawini Community for sustainable forest harvesting.
5. So listening and being advised by the “goodly doctor”; or some say “witch doctor”, the parliamentary Opposition in the National Assembly will soon fade away as they have started to. As Dr. Walter Rodney used to say in the 1970s, “Anything the PNC puts its hands on turns to sh._t”. So apt a description in this situation.
6. Mr. Editor, Bulkan and Palmer have parts four and five left of their series of critically reviewing the GFC’s reports submitted to Parliament. Their action in this regard can best be described as totally unpatriotic, anti-Government of Guyana, vindictive and unprofessional. Given the Suriname imbroglio, what else could one expect?

PETER PERSAUD