Dear Editor,
To put things in their proper perspective, I would like to provide a background to the article appearing in the 2010-01-01 edition of the Stabroek News, entitled ‘Government proposes six months notice before any mining’.

The need to coordinate the mining and timber operations in our forests was recognized more than 20 years ago. The government of the day moved in the direction of giving to the holders of Timber Sales Agreements (TSAs), the right to be provided notice of, as well as the right of ‘first refusal’ to, any proposed mining within the area covered by the TSA. That direction was deemed to be unfair to miners, and the present administration managed to have those intended rights put in abeyance whilst we gained further experience on this potential conflict area.

It is largely true, as the Guyana Gold and diamond Miners Association (GGDMA) says that what mankind doesn’t grow, is mined. For the foreseeable future, the world must remain engaged in lots and lots of mining. Man must mine!

Miners pursue sub-surface materials of value, including water, gas, and petroleum.  However, all mining compromises activities engaged at the surface level, to a lesser or greater degree; and, where there is surface mining, other existing activities on the surface are overridden – and those surface activities may only be resumed after the mining activities would have ended.

Mines cannot be located simply wherever someone would prefer them to be.  Mines are developed where economic bodies of minerals happen to be found! Mining is usually preceded by some degree of prospecting.  The social and environmental impacts of formal prospecting are minimal, compared with that of actual mining. Whilst, generally, the whole country is open to prospecting, quantities of economic resources may be found, on average, only over about 5% of the land area. At times, these may be along certain geological features where 50%, or more, of the area may be economically mineable. One acknowledged challenge to small and medium-scale mining in Guyana is that, hitherto, prospecting and mining were largely merged. Now, however, they must be separated sufficiently.

Historically, the conflict between mining and surface activities has escaped much notice because miners often have been pioneers, advancing to where there is little surface activity, besides hunting and gathering.  Where, and when, settlements and other activities develop later, the mine already in place would be an accepted fact. In Guyana, the development of the bauxite mines, at Mackenzie, is an example, and gold-mining at Mahdia is another.

No doubt, in an effort to resolve the potential conflict between the miners and the timber operators, the TSAs under which the timber companies, namely Barama and CRL, were established, at the end of the 1980s, sought to give these timber companies the right of ‘first refusal’ to any proposed mining within the area covered by the TSA.  The Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) would have been required to bring any intention to mine to the attention of the timber operator who could then choose to himself, or herself, pursue the mining. This solution favoured the timber operator too much, and over a number of years of discussions and arrangements, Barama and CRL allowed that provision to go into abeyance.

The potential conflict between mining and timber operations, however, did not go away, but has been intensifying through the last decade as world markets for  timber insisted, more and more, that the timber come from ‘certified’ forests.  It has been clear that the international Forest Certifying companies would prefer that there be no small and medium-scale mining in forests to be certified.  They have studiously avoided invitations to propose standard practices for small and medium-scale mining which they would find acceptable.

Over the last decade, the disparity between what is prescribed for timber operators and what miners can do, has been intensifying. Timber operators are required to develop inventories of all trees of a diameter greater than 14 inches of breast height, and are allowed to fell no more than six to eight trees, or eight cubic metres per acre, once every 60 years, or half of that allowable amount every 30 years. Thus, timber operators are virtually required to obtain pre-approval from the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) before felling any tree! On the other hand, miners have been allowed to continue felling trees as they have perceived the need.

The proposed six months’ notice of intention to mine is not intended to give the GFC a veto in mining but, rather, it is meant to allow the GFC and the timber operator, to integrate into their plans the clear felling which would accompany the intended mining. Nor is the proposal to be implemented immediately. Rather, His Excellency, the President, established a group chaired by Minister Robeson Benn, formerly a commissioner of the GGMC, and which includes leading officers of both the GGMC and GFC, as well as members and officers of the GGDMA nominated by the latter, to study how the proposal may be put into effect.

With or without the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS), greater coordination between the timber and mining operations was required and, indeed, was inevitable. Our approach has been designed to promote cooperation, for mutual benefits, amongst all who live and work in our forests.  This remains the direction in which we will continue to work!

It is my belief that small and medium-scale gold and diamond mining can survive and prosper in Guyana, once the natural anxieties about changes are overcome, and minds are opened to seeking, finding, and trying, new ways.

Yours faithfully,
Samuel A.A. Hinds
Prime Minister and Minister
Responsible for Mines and Minerals