I refer to a letter in the Stabroek News written by Janette Bulkan in its issue of Tuesday, February 5, 2013 under the caption: “The GFC should not focus on more logging but helping to secure greater in Guyana benefits from what is logged now”.

Permit me to state the following:
1. Janette Bulkan, an “unpatriotic forest expert” has once again emerged from her habitat of oblivion to find fault with Guyana’s forestry sector which is sustainably managed by the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC). Bulkan’s behaviour is like a typical cockroach appearing only at nights to cover its filth. But this is so true of some human beings who have lost their usefulness to society but still want to be heard. Thanks to the restoration of democracy in 1992, where freedom of the press is flourishing.
2. Bulkan in her letter to Stabroek News mentioned that in early 2007 the Barama Company lost its Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certificate because it did not have a forest management plan “for its whole area.” But what Bulkan was silent about was that Iwokrama where she worked as a senior social scientist also lost its FSC certificate. The question here is why didn’t Bulkan use her “Forest Management Expertise” to ensure that Iwokrama kept its FSC certificate? I guess that even Norway knows the answer to this question.
3. Bulkan likes to write about value-added processing of our forestry sector but so far she is unable to understand that her approach towards this activity is not feasible, which is more of a recipe for failure and the intervention of the commercial banks. The GFC fully supports value-added processing but certainly not the kind Bulkan has practised and is advocating.
4. The reality is that value–added processing is energy intensive and with investments from companies of India and China in Guyana Technology can be introduced on ways to have cheaper energy, thereby further boosting value-added processing in Guyana.
5. Quite contrary to Bulkan’s misleading claims, Guyana is currently and actively pursuing the EU Flegt Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) as part of Guyana’s Low-Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). Guyana is also pursuing participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).
6. It is definitely correct that credible international audits have verified that the GFC’s mechanisms are working where one of such audits have proved that Guyana’s annual deforestation rate continues to remain constant at 0.053%, thereby qualifying Guyana for its third payment from Norway for reducing carbon emissions. In its continued good forest performance, Guyana is pursuing its fourth Norwegian payment which will further shift our country firmly on the course to Low-Carbon Development, while fighting Global Climate Change and its dangerous consequences.
7. Mr. Editor, Guyana’s good Forest performance continues to haunt “so called forest experts” both locally and internationally. Bulkan is one of them, who is basically at sea where the sustainable management of Guyana’s forest is concerned. My advice therefore to Bulkan is to simply remain in her habitat of oblivion since she lacks a track record of promoting sustainability in Guyana’s forestry sector. But it is said that success breeds animosity and this is where Bulkan finds herself in relation to the continued good governance of Guyana’s forest by the GFC.