10.01.2013 Views

The_Open_Door_deel1

The_Open_Door_deel1

The_Open_Door_deel1

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

-265-<br />

were authorized to issue permits for a specified number of<br />

activities in Government Forest Reserves, National Parks and<br />

Native Authority Forest Reserves. In the case of Government<br />

Forest Reserves and National Parks (these) permits were subject<br />

to the approval of the Chief of the Bureau of Forestry<br />

Conservation and the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture<br />

and Commerce, In the case of activities within Native Authority<br />

Forest Reserves only the approval of the former was needed. <strong>The</strong><br />

approval of the tribal authority concerned was not required.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Act only mentions in this respect: "(>>,) and in consultation<br />

with the responsible Native Authority" (27).<br />

<strong>The</strong> activities which thus could be authorized were the following:<br />

a) to collect, convey, remove, or subject to any manufacturing<br />

process any forest products of plant origin;<br />

b) to cut down or damage any trees;<br />

c) to set fire to vegetation; logging slash, etc;<br />

d) to dig in the soil or prospect for minerals, coal or oil;<br />

e) to make a dam across a river, creek or other waterway;<br />

f) to reside, or build any structure necessary in connection with<br />

authorized forest harvesting operations;<br />

g) to build roads, trails or railroads (22).<br />

Whereas some of these authorized operations and activities were<br />

not necessarily incompatible with the interests of the tribal<br />

population of such a Native Authority Forest Reserve, the one<br />

mentioned under g) e.g. could well constitute a threat to their<br />

interests or conflict with them although these tribal people were<br />

not provided with the legal means to oppose such acts which could<br />

disturb their (economic) village life. It should be noted that<br />

unlike the Americo-Liberians they were at this time not yet<br />

represented in the National Legislature. <strong>The</strong> tribal peoples of<br />

the three provinces (the Hinterland) - where most of these Native<br />

Authority Forest Reserves were situated - were not represented in<br />

the Senate at all and only had token representation in the House<br />

of Representatives.<br />

A second noteworthy aspect of the 1957 'Supplementary Act is an<br />

obligation imposed on holders of permits to remove timber from<br />

Government Forests (which permits would take the form of a<br />

Timber Sale Agreement or Contract) to provide for the<br />

regeneration of tree species removed during cutting operations<br />

(23). This obligation thus formulated, was more precise than the<br />

seemingly similar obligation imposed on a concessionaire with<br />

timber exploitation rights. He was merely held responsible to<br />

ensure that the forest areas under his agreement were maintained<br />

for forest production (24), As the concessionaire would most<br />

likely remove the most valuable species from his concession area<br />

and was not explicitly obliged to replant the same species, the<br />

potentially high value of the Liberian forest area was in fact<br />

not protected. In this light, it is interesting to note the<br />

Act's stipulations with respect to excise tax or stumpage fee.<br />

Strangely enough, the Act did not differentiate according to<br />

the tree species and their respective values. It introduced a<br />

flat rate of $ 3.00 per thousand board feet for lumber, planks,<br />

timber or other parts manufactured products and $ 5-00 per

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!