Dear Editor,
While the government’s new proposed regulation requiring a six-month notification period signals a move in the right direction, there is legitimate concern that the government has failed to engage in a careful analysis of it before recommendation or implementation. Here are some issues and concerns that arise from the proposal:
1. While a notification period is not wholly unreasonable given the need for better environmental protection, improved regulation, better data collection, strategic plan-ning and revenue forecasting, why specifically a 6-month notification period and why immediate implementation?
The government could realistically consider a reduced notification period based on consultation with stakeholders. It could also consider a transition process with an enlargement of the notice period over a period of time.
2. The government has not clearly elucidated why the timeline of 6 months was chosen. There must be some basis for this specific period of time so the government should tell the public how and why this period was decided on.
3. The 6-month notice period appears to be grounded more in the government seeking to comply with the Norway MOU and with internal adjustment for the vicissitudes of bureaucracy than serious consideration of the impact of this decision on the mining industry. There is no evidence from the Norway MOU that a specific 6-month mining notice period was agreed upon.
The proposal may simply be the government determining on its own that it needed 6 months in order to properly comply with the Norway MOU; an inherently government-al decision riddled with bureaucratic undertones and seemingly without full consideration for the economic effect on the mining industry.
4. Exactly what is the notification process going to be? Is it a simple rubber-stamping process or will this process be enlarged to grant government the inherent author-ity to refuse, accept or amend mining notifications. If the latter, there is potential for danger as the government will possess the ability to effectively freeze the mining industry.
A worrisome suggestion in the media is that the Guyana Forestry Commission will possess veto power over the notification process. This will be nothing more than the consolidation of the power of the government. If the government interprets the Norway MOU as warrant-ing the consolidation of its power it is sadly mistaken. How could any government that grants a favour-able mining licence to a cabinet advisor in contravention of the established rules be expected to use the consolidation of power and control of the nation’s resources in a credible and non-corrupt manner? Why not seek more independent external monitoring and utilize greater land use protocols than consolidate power which will spawn corruption.
The government has not proven it has put in place the system to deal with its proposed change. With the right strings pulled, some will gain unfair competitive advantage illegally.
Prolonged notice periods and the stifling of regulatory constraints could cleanse the industry of smaller operators and give large external mining conglomerates an unfair advantage.
5. If it works, a 6-month notification process in a country with a large percentage of small-scale miners could reduce gold production, resulting in economic devastation to some communities
Productivity will be hard to maintain in an industry beset by delays and bureaucracy. Does the forestry industry have a similar 6-month notice period?
6. The notification process, particularly if beset with corruption and bureaucracy, threatens to expand illegal mining. The incentive to flout the 6-month notification and gain an advantage over the competition will prevail. Miners will find it easier to pay a bribe or illegally mine than to wait 6 months for an application to be approved.
7. Both the miners and foresters have openly approved of greater land use cooperation. This is something the government should be pushing to reap better conservation results.
A proper land use agreement with requisite reporting requirements plus heavier involvement of external monitoring agencies is a better system to adopt. It is better to have a shorter notice period along with a stronger monitoring and enforcement mechanism where illegal mining practices are targeted and wrongdoers are quickly prosecuted and suspended. Punishment in terms of time suspension should be after enforcement and not before.
8. The core of this outcry lies in the lack of proper consultation and careful groundwork by the government. This problem should have been addressed with mining communities and representative mining bodies in the very primary explor-atory stages of the LCDS and of the conception of the Norway MOU, not scrambling after the fact.
The mining community has clearly indicated that it is aware of the government’s need to meet its obligations under the MOU and wants to work with the government.
The government has its role to play in preserving the environment. Both sides have to build from there. Regulation has to be derived from a balanced consideration of affected parties. I hope the government and the mining industry find it here.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Maxwell