• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

APPENDIX A Page | 1 POINTS RAISED BY THE NGO COALITION AND FDA MANAGEMENT RESPONSE S/N NGO Coalition Allegations FDA Senior Management’s Board’s Comments on Allegation Response & Response 1 The primary pre-allocation This statement is false and misleading. We as a While the Board observes that there are ten (10) requirement was determined by the professional institution have always been core regulations governing the commercial use Senior Management of the FDA and is meticulous in all of our activities in keeping of the forest resources there isn’t a definite vulnerable to abuse. The PUP’s with the NFRL and Regulations. The dictates of regulation governing the issuance of PUPs. operators are not pre-qualified to Section 5.6 of the NFRL regarding the issuance Without such a regulation the awarding is operate PUPs as required by the of PUP are always strictly followed. Also in vulnerable to abuse. However to clearly NFRL; keeping with our OATH of Administration, we establish whether or not an abuse has occur never will falter or violate the LAW (NFRL) by there a need to carry out a compliance audit. approving a Holder who is not pre-qualified to The Board has mandated Senior Management manage a PUP. The records in our possession to begin the process of having such a further authenticate our statement and regulations done. professionalism. 2 The FDA appears to be using the PUP This is a re-statement of your opinion that Ordinarily the using of PUPs as a shortcut to as a shortcut to allocating concessions though provided for by the NFRL, concessions allocating concessions should not happen. should not be established resultant of a PUP but PUPs are issued only on private land to the land rather TSC or FMC. AS stated, the IMCC only owner or someone who has a written has jurisdiction over concessions acquired permission from the land owner to undertake through public bidding wherein its (IMCC) the commercial use while FMCs & TSCs are decision to declare a winner is informed by the issued on public land. However the spark in Report of the Concessions Bid Evaluation Panel the surge of PUP’s issuance without any and Due Diligence Committee. increase in the issuance of FMCs & TSCs raises a concern. Since the management of FDA has in its possession a map clearly identifying the locations of all PUPs as well as one identifying the locations of all FMCs & TSCs, these two maps will be superimposed as Page | 2 part of the compliance audit in order to clearly establish whether this accusation is true or not. The limitation of the existing regulations seems to provide a loophole that can be exploited. 3 The status of most of the forestlands On the approval of every PUP, we have been The Authority issued PUPs based on deeds being allocated under PUP is unclear, cautious of the Section 5.6 (d) (i) which verified by Ministry of Lands, Mines & some are said to be owned by provides: “ The Authority shall attest to a Energy. We however tend to agree with the individuals while the majority is said Private Use Permit only if the Applicant is the NGO Coalition that there need to be put into to be owned by communities. There is land owner or the applicant has written place a mechanism for the independent no mechanism for independent permission from the land owner to undertake verification of status of these lands prior to the verification of the tenure status of the commercial use…………………”. This is a fully acceptance of same. This should be ‘private’ forest land nor is there an warning that before the PUP is granted the addressed under the regulations and guidelines open consultation or any complaints ownership of the forest land area must be that are to be established. mechanism; established by a valid deed and the metes and bounds embedded therein certified by the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy. 4 The FDA appears to be using the Again this is a fallacy! The number of A careful look into this seems to point to the Community Rights Law in some Community Forestry Licenses issued contained fact that this accusation has some merits within instances as a base for allocating land masses less than 49,000 hectares in it. Due to the lack of its own regulations and PUPs, even though the CRL does not keeping with the Community Rights Law guidelines, PUPs’ issuance seems somehow provide for PUPs; (CRL). In this case, no deeds are required similar to the issuance of CFMLs however except for the formation of Community there are no facts to ascertain that Senior Assembly, Community Forest Management Management is deliberately doing so. Body and the preparation of a simple Forest Management Plan which we consider as part of the pre-felling requirements. In no case have we issued (PUP)’s on community land areas. 5 Given the level of discretionary The Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) We fully agree with Senior Management, since authority the Senior Management has between the European Union and Liberia on the VPA should be in compliance with the laws in the allocation of PUP it contravenes Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and of this country, it is the VPA that is faulty and Principle #2 of the Voluntary Trade on Timber Products into the European needs correction. A letter will be written to the Page | 3 Partnership Agreement (VPA); Union (FLEGT) was developed by all Parties joint implementation committee of the VPA within the context of the Liberian Laws. The requesting said correction be made. NFRL at Sections (5.3, 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6) accounts for four licenses (permits) respectively FMC, TSC, FUP & PUP. The fifth license as enacted by the National Legislature is the Community Rights License. Therefore the omission of a PUP as one of the contracts or permits under the Principle Two (2) [Forest Allocation] of the VPA Legality Definition is a violation of the NFRL. Notwithstanding, despite its (VPA) initialing by the Parties, same has not been ratified by the National Legislature. Therefore there is a room for amendment to include PUP as a Contract/Permit to be covered under Principle (2) of the VPA Legality Definition. 6 Pre-felling requirements of Regulation Except proven otherwise, it is difficult to The verification of this will be done during the 105-07 are not being applied to the comprehend that the Forest Venture and the compliance audit. PUPs; Atlantic Resources have harvested logs without fulfilling all pre-felling requirements. Before any log is felled, we ensure a complete checklist of pre-felling requirements including Annual Operations Plan, Management Plan, and Environmental Impact Assessment is certified before the issuance of a Harvesting Certificate. We have always been careful on implementation of these requirements. 7 Some logging companies, for example For clarity on the allegation of illegal harvesting According to records available to the Board Atlantic Resources Ltd., that are of trees by Atlantic Resources we provide this only Atlantic falls within this category. At the owing forestry taxes and who have not information. The Atlantic Resources is Holder time of the granting of the PUPs Atlantic was fully met the requirements for of FMC “P” located in Grand Kru County. The delinquent in its payment arrangement with the harvesting from their existing FMC concession is closer to the Port of Harper which Ministry of Finance but since then the payment concessions are already harvesting has limited capacity for shipment of huge schedule has been regularized. Page | 4 timber from PUPs; volume of timber and timber products. It is against this backdrop that Atlantic is constructing a major highway under the supervision of the Ministry of Public Works from Sinoe to Grand Kru to be able to access Timber and timber products from its concession to the Port of Greenville which has a bigger capacity. The road construction passes through the University of Liberia Forest. This construction project is being undertaken by the acquiescence of the University of Liberia Authority, the local county authorities (Sinoe and Grand Kru) and the local community dwellers. By regulation, undertaking such a major road construction outside of your concession, an allowance of forty (40) chains on both sides of the road is permitted. Merchantable harvestable trees felled during the process are owned by Atlantic after having compensated the University of Liberia. Said trees covered under the Chain of Custody System are intended to defray the expenses incurred by the Management of Atlantic Resources Limited. This multi-million dollar construction project nearly at completion stands to benefit not only the Atlantic Resources but the entire citizenry of Liberia who will shortly be greatly relieved of the huge burden of travel suffered under long, dangerous and hazardous road conditions. 8 Since land rental is not assessed on The statement herein is completely Since the land in question is private land the Page | 5 PUP, Government is losing significant contradictory and paradoxical to the long time GoL cannot access land rental on private land. amount of revenue; advocacy of the Civil Society that all lands in It is the private land owners who receives rental the Republic belong to the people. Consistent for his/her property. It is therefore the lessee with Sections 5.3 (b) (ii) and 5.4 (b) (ii) of the who pays the rent of the leased property from NFRL, (FMC)’S and (PUP)’S are only possible the private land owners that should withhold all on public lands duly validated. Our action on payments made on the rent payments due the the issuance of the acreage of PUP herein stated private land owner.

Load more

  20

Copy Link