Concern voiced by Vice-President Jagdeo in a recent press conference for the well-being of the Chinese Landing community besieged by miners is welcome.
However, his additional comment that “individuals at the junior level of Government” must be responsible cannot be taken seriously since similar devastation is established practice across the interior of Guyana. It is patently clear that the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) as an institution, not a few junior officers, is responsible.
Until that institution is thoroughly and urgently reformed from top to bottom, the scandalous squandering of Guyana’s natural mining assets and systematic undermining of community life of Guyana’s indigenous peoples will continue.
This scenario has been repeated for decades, the more recent examples of lawlessness being found in the Marudi Mountain area of South Rupununi, the Potaro river, and Baramita, the Carib community in Region 1.
Systematic tolerance for a range of legal and administrative breaches of all of the Acts related to mining is now institutionalized in the GGMC.
The relevant Ordinances and Acts contain multiple references to safeguarding Amerindian rights and privileges on State (previously known as ‘Crown’) lands.
The ‘right to quiet enjoyment’ passed down through revisions of mining law to the current Mining Act 1989 is central to understanding the inherited legal situation and the protection of Amerindian communities against unwanted mining. The relevant Acts include the following:
· The Mining Ordinance No. 1 of 1903 safeguarded Amerindian privileges on all Crown lands: ‘All land occupied or used by the Aboriginal Indians, and all land necessary for the quiet enjoyment by the Aboriginal Indians of any Indian Settlement, shall be deemed to be lawfully occupied by them’ (section 173).
This exact text is repeated in the following Acts: the Mining Regulations of 1905 (section 199); Mining Act 1989, section 112; Mining (amendment) Regulations – environmental section 251 (2005); Water and Sewerage Act cap. 30-01 2002 –section 94; The Forests Act from its inception until the 2009 revision.
Similar provisions are to be found in State Lands Act, cap. 62:01. 1972 Section 42(2) –Amerindian rights or privilege
‘Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prejudice, alter, or affect any right or privilege heretofore legally possessed, exercised, or enjoyed by any Amerindian in Guyana. Provided that the Minister may, from time to time, by publication in the Gazette, make any regulations defining the privileges and rights to be enjoyed by Amerindians, in relation to the State lands and rivers and creeks of Guyana.’
(ii) Water and Sewerage Act Cap. 30-01 2002 –section 94 ‘(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prejudice, alter or affect any right, privilege, freedom or usage possessed or exercised by law or by custom by any person.’
(iii) Amerindian Act 2006 Section 48 relates to all permissions miners are required to obtain from the Village Council and Section 14 lists all the by-laws affecting life in the community that miners are required to obey.
In addition, an administrative policy on mining adopted in 1997 included the sentence ‘Government has decided that recognised Amerindian land would stand exempted from any survey, prospecting or mineral agreements unless the agreement of the Captain and Council for the proposal is obtained by the GGMC in writing’.
There is no evidence that this administrative policy has been applied at least for the last two decades.
Despite this battery of legal support at its disposal, the Government projects the impression that the courts are the main obstacle frustrating its policies to promote the well-being of indigenous communities.
A more logical reading of the situation would suggest that the GGMC unwillingness to apply the laws is the source of the problem. The ‘quiet enjoyment’ clause should have been a deterrent to the GGMC issuing small-scale mining claim licenses or medium-scale mining permits unless a due diligence check had determined that there was no Amerindian traditional occupation or customary resource use in each requested area.
In practice, as shown in the High Court cases in 2009 (Arau Village) and 2012-2013 (Isseneru Village), such checks appear not to have been made and mining concessions have been issued by the GGMC over titled and untitled Amerindian lands without the knowledge of the Amerindian communities.
Secondly, a further powerful legal tool available to impeding destructive mining should be enforcement of the requirements for an environmental permit (EP) for every mine operation, backed by an environmental impact assessment (EIA) (Environmental Protection Act 1996, section 11 and Schedule 4, item 9).
This Section requires an environmental permit for any project which may significantly affect the environment. The Schedule lists the ‘extraction and conversion of mineral resources’ as examples of such a project.
In other words, all mining concessions should be associated with EIAs and EPs because all mining has a significant effect on the environment, at the level of hydraulic mining technology as used in Guyana. This issue was raised in 2013 because it appeared that the GGMC had not been enforcing such requirements for small- or medium-scale enforcement of the requirement.
That being the case all current small-scale mining claim licenses and river dredges were and are out of compliance.
Another means available to the Agency is Section 11 in the same Environmental Protection Act (1996). This Section relates to the control of the use and emissions of metallic mercury and the incidence and scale of mercury methylation released into the environment and food chain, with repercussions on human health.
Adverse effects have been documented in a number of well-researched Reports, by indigenous bodies and NGOs. How the superficial visit to the community by the GGMC team could have assessed the impact of mercury raises more skepticism.
Degradation of Guyana’s rivers and surrounding lands has risen significantly since the introduction of ‘draga’ dredges. The clear link between global warming and deforestation is well established. REDD+ lasted as a deterrent on mining only as long as Norwegian payments to the State exceeded income from mining.
Once gold prices rose again, REDD+ and Guyana’s progressive stance on the environment evaporated. Neither the well-being of current indigenous communities, nor Guyana’s obligations to future generations of Guyanese loom sufficiently large to deter decision-makers whose only interest in natural resources appears to be the price tag.
Executive Committee
Guyana Human Rights Association
