3. EVALUATION OF DATA COLLECTION
The methodology used for the collection of data on production of roundlogs is reliable and the data submitted is accurate. Up to 1999, the data collected from private lands were limited to eight (8) species and the rest of production from private lands was estimated based on returns from sawmillers. Beyond 1999, the data from 66 species on private lands will be included in total roundlog output. However, there are some weaknesses in the system and these can be corrected within the Forestry Division. The monthly and quarterly reports should be based on the same data set so that verification at the end of each quarter would be possible.
Secondly, data submitted by the ranges should be checked and verified before it reaches the FRIM unit for compilation. Range and Conservancy totals should be crosschecked with the FRIM unit and Conservancy personnel. Quarterly reports by FRIM would assist the Forestry Division in meeting obligations to the CSO in publishing their quarterly trade bulletin.
The methodology for collection of sawnwood data from sawmills utilising the sawmillers’ annual records has proven to be quite inaccurate and unreliable. At the end of a given year, accurate data are not submitted to the Forestry Division, perhaps to evade possible taxation. The sawmillers also import round logs from Guyana, Suriname and Venezuela. Their yearly reports do not separate local production from imported production. This causes the input of roundlogs to be much higher than the production from the local sources.
From a review of the submissions by Sawmillers for the period 1995 to 1999, the following problems are revealed (Table 2).
Conversion rates of round logs to sawnwood varies from a low of 0.03 board foot to as high as 251.7 board feet per hoppus foot. The expected conversion is approximately 6.5 to 9.5 board feet per hoppus foot.
Input of round logs in hoppus feet by some sawmillers are the same as output of sawnwood in board feet. This is impossible since it means that their conversion is one board foot per hoppus foot.
Capacity is the same as input and sometimes as output.
Some records are incomplete
Conversion rates in some mills are constant from year to year despite varying log size and species composition implying that the returns are estimates rather than actual data.
Some returns are just nonsensical.
It would appear from the submissions that many sawmillers do not understand the differences between input, output and capacity. Therefore the Forestry Division should take the lead role in acquiring timely and accurate data from sawmills through officers attached to the individual ranges. The consultant wishes to recommend that two workshops (one in North Trinidad and the other in South Trinidad) be held to ensure that sawmillers understand their role in the data generation process.
The method of data collection on wood products at the ports by the Customs and Excise Division of the Ministry of Trade is based on a 100 percent tally. The data is collected in weight (kilograms), volume (cubic metres) and value (TT$). Customs and Excise Division interest lies in the monetary value of the declared imports and exports based on weight in kilograms. The figures in the Customs Declaration form deals with weight and volume. However, Custom brokers do not always enter the volume in cubic metres since many of the wood products imported are in board feet, hoppus feet, cubic feet and tonnes. These figures or similar estimates, are placed on the forms for volume in cubic metres. The end product is that the declared volume is not rigorously checked as the declared weight resulting in inaccurate import database on volume in cubic metres.
Copies of these original records without any editing are submitted to the CSO for inclusion in the statistics on trade. At the CSO the data is partly edited before computer entry. Due to the volume of data that has to be entered by the personnel at the CSO, very little further editing and verification is possible. While the weight is accurate, the data on volume is certainly not so.
The CSO is the only authorised agency to collate and disseminate statistical data on imports and exports of wood products. The Forestry Division is the ultimate user of this information in the planning process. Since the persons who collect this data do not understand the implications of their errors, the consultant wishes to recommend that a workshop be held to address the issues to the custom officers, custom brokers and CSO personnel. Therefore, every effort should be made to enhance their data entry, verification and validation mechanisms for the production of timely and accurate information.
