And now that the global environmental emergency demands a measure of sacrifice by developing countries which is wholly disproportionate to their contribution to the problem in the first place, those countries are having to ask of their citizens a measure of sacrifice, which, perhaps understandably, not all of them are willing to make.
Of course, under normal circumstances developing countries would have a perfectly compelling moral argument for dismissing out of hand the assertion that they must make no less robust an effort than developed countries to stem the tide of environmental degradation. The fact is, however, that the circumstances are decidedly abnormal since if environmental lawlessness is to be well and truly checked it requires the efforts of both developed and developing countries.
Whatever the protestations of the Government of Guyana to the contrary, the fact of the matter is that President Bharrat Jagdeo’s widely publicized Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) the bedrock upon which he has sought to build his credentials as an international environmental lobbyist, coupled with the strictures of the agreement with the Government of Norway compels his administration to hold those sectors that rely on the forests for their livelihood to a higher order.
The government, of course, insists to the contrary since it obviously does not consider it wise to make public the fact that a sector which brought far more money into the public treasury than sugar and rice combined is about to come under a higher level of environmental scrutiny that it will impact on the viability of its operations.
The miners have made no secret of the fact that the various ministerial assurances notwithstanding, they simply do not believe that the new regulations will not significantly injure their livelihoods. The size and scale of last Monday’s demonstration in Bartica suggests that other people and other sectors are persuaded by the argument being made by the miners. This newspaper has spoken with business enterprises that depend heavily on the mining sector and all of them have considerable fears for the future of small-scale mining and, by extension, the future of their own businesses, if the new regulations are implemented.
The miners contend, with considerable justification, that the new regulations were foisted on them without any meaningful consultation and that their umbrella organisation, the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA) was invited to sit on the hastily set up Land Use Committee after government had already made up its mind about the changes that it would make to the existing regulations. For its part the government, while seeking to provide assurances that it means small miners no harm appears to have made up its mind that it has to do what it has to do. Whatever room might exist for compromise is strictly limited.
Perhaps the most important reason why a compromise that satisfies the environmental standards being sought by the government while recognizing the importance of a viable mining sector is important, is that the consequences of any official imposition that leaves the miners unhappy could have decidedly unwholesome consequences for the sector. Official capacity to effectively police existing mining regulations is decidedly weak not only because of a lack of manpower but also because of the cloud of corruption that hangs over the mining sector. Mining persists not because all of the regulations are effectively enforced but because it seems that such consequences as accrue from the transgression of regulations are bearable when these are compared with the material returns from the sector.
Any new regulations that render it difficult for small and medium-scale miners to survive – and there is evidence that the proposed six-month wait period will make it tough for them – could lead to a ‘wild west’ situation in the interior that could see legitimate claims being raided and a new generation of brigands entering the sector and fully prepared to take on the weak enforcement capacity of the authorities. That way, our forests could become vulnerable to further degradation by a new breed of ‘gold miners’ who are bound to be even less mindful of environmental considerations than those who are part of the industry at this time. This apart, not too many of these miners would be likely to sell their gold either to official traders or to the Gold Board. Unless there is compromise, therefore, we could lose ‘corn and husk.’
