In the current discussions concerning possible intervention by the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) in the issue of mining leases, licences and concessions, the provisions of the forest law and regulations have apparently not been cited by the GFC or by the GGMC. Since 1953, that is, for 55 years, the Forests Act 1953 (Cap. 67:01) in Article 12 states that “A lease, licence or concession in State forest granted under the Mining Act, shall be subject to this Act [that is, the Forests Act] except when such lease, licence or concession contains any express condition to the contrary.” State Forests cover 13.7 million hectares of the 19.7 million hectares of land in Guyana, so most mines are likely to be located in State forests.
As miners need to remove standing forest and trees in order to carry out the surface mining which is customary in Guyana, the Forests Act requires anyone (implicitly including miners) to have permission to cut forest produce from a State forest (Article 3 in the Forest Regulations 1953; Regulations which are made under Article 42 of the Forests Act). Article 10 of the Forest Regulations 1953 allows the GFC to prescribe the form of the permit to cut. However, Article 16 of the Forest Regulations prescribes a minimum size for tree felling, which does not make sense when an area is being cleared for mining.
Neither the Forests Bill 2007 (passed by the National Assembly in January 2009 but lacking presidential assent to make it law) nor the 2004 draft revision of the Forest Regulations deal with tree felling and forest clearing in mining areas. It was anticipated in 1997, when the National Forest Policy was agreed, that the lack of harmony between the Forests Act 1953 and the Mining Act 1989 would be resolved through national integrated land use planning, following the successful demonstration of such planning in a pilot exercise in Region 10 in 1997; see “Part II B – Land Use Strategies – 1 Implementation of Land Use Plans” in the National Forest Policy.
May I suggest, Editor, that both the GGMC and GFC should quote the exact articles of their respective legislation under which they will require miners and loggers to do or not do certain acts, and that the GFC should explain what it is intending by apparently invoking Article 12 in the Forests Act 1953. The Prime Minister’s intervention indicates that the proposed six months’ interval between application for mining and issue of a licence to mine (Article 7 and Article in Part IV of the Mining Act 1989) is mainly for exploration and reporting on prospection by miners to the GGMC; see ‘Government proposes six months notice before any mining,’ SN January 1, 2010, partly clarified in Guyana Chronicle (‘Prime Minister Hinds responds to article in Stabroek News New Year’s Day edition,’ (January 5) and SN (‘Greater coordination between timber and mining operations is required and inevitable,’ January 5) and in Kaieteur News (‘Six-month mining notice… PM says proposal still being studied,’ (January 6), and ‘There is room for miners and loggers alike,’ (January 8). Exactly what the GFC would do with the miners’ prospecting reports, forwarded by the GGMC, is unclear.
May I suggest also, Editor, that miners and loggers should invoke Article 13 in the Guyana Constitution – “13. The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision making that directly affect their wellbeing.” – when they ask the ministers and government agencies for explanations.
Given that 43,000 Guyanese and 30,000 Brazilians depend on the mining sector in Guyana (possibly more than 100,000 people, according to the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association), and 27,000 people depend on the forest sector, it is not unreasonable for one quarter of the work force to ask for more transparency and rationality in government, and a greater say in future policy and planning.
May I also make an observation on the explanatory letter from Grantley Waldron and Odinga Lumumba ‘President granted a petition for a prospecting licence for the Mariwa-Sardine Hill area’ (SN January 10). Article 7 of the Mining Act 1989 is clear that the GGMC grants mining licences. Article 31 of the GGMC Act of 1979 allows the responsible minister to give “directions of a general character as to policy to be followed by the Commission in the performance of its functions”. Neither of these two acts give any role to the President. Nor can the minister give specific directions about a particular licence, although the Board of Directors of the GGMC could do so. So by what authority was President Jagdeo granting a petition for a prospecting licence to one of his paid advisers on empowerment in his own Office of the President? And why did the GGMC accept this apparently unlawful direction when the commission has enough authority itself in Article 57 of the Mining Act?
Yours faithfully,
Janette Bulkan
