The apparent mechanism by which any REDD funds accruing to Amerindian communities would be spent—essentially through approval by the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs—is “inappropriate,” according to a Norwegian report which described it as “a rather paternalistic system.”
Moreover, the report said despite the comprehensive consultation process, it is not clear that titled Amerindian communities have sufficient knowledge required as yet to make informed decisions on “opting-in” to the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) and further effort is required on this. Further, it recommended more independence for the National Toshaos Council (NTC) from the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs. It pointed out that the NTC presents a system which has the potential to have a solidly clear, democratic mandate to represent Amerindian communities and more independence from the Ministry, such as its own separate Secretariat, would help greatly in this.
The Report on Guyana is among the first in an ongoing real-time evaluation of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI) through which Oslo is providing support to Guyana to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in a deal potentially worth up to US$250M by 2015. It was commissioned by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), which oversees Norwegian aid.
“It is not clear that Amerindian communities yet have sufficient knowledge to take fully informed decisions on “Opting-in” and further effort is indicated on this. The apparent mechanism by which any REDD funds accruing to communities would be spent, essentially through approval by the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, is inappropriate. Efforts to build capacity and leave communities in charge of their own affairs, while meeting appropriate transparency and accountability standards should be prioritised,” one of the recommendations states. The report observes that the “paternalistic” system does not seem to be adequate to meet the spirit of the Guyana-Norway Agreement.
It noted that Amerindian communities are allowed to opt in if they wish, and also to opt out subsequently. “The way in which this could be accommodated within an internationally agreed REDD mechanism does not seem to have been considered in detail and few Amerindian leaders had real understanding of the obligations and restrictions opting in would engender,” the report observes.
Land title claims
It said that while the 2006 Amerindian Act and the progress with land titling both represent considerable progress compared with the earlier situation of Amerindians in Guyana, there are a number of important unresolved issues that are highly relevant.
The report pointed out that titled Amerindian communities will be allowed to “opt-in” to REDD and receive benefits from doing so but untitled Amerindian communities have no right to opt-in and until titling is completed, will derive no benefit from REDD. “The completion of the process of outstanding title claims needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency. Even when this is done, the question will remain over the extension claims to land used historically. This is an issue of considerable contention, especially in the Upper Mazaruni area. It remains a cause of considerable dissent from at least some communities,” the report says.
“It would be useful to revisit the proposed speed with which outstanding Amerindian land titles will be settled and to endeavour to deal with all of them as soon as possible, to remove the disparity between titled and untitled communities in respect of REDD. The apparent impasse in respect of land extensions continues to cause friction within Guyana and engender criticism from outside and it would be helpful to tackle this matter,” it recommends.
It had noted that despite the strong messages voiced on the importance of Amerindian land rights, especially from outside Guyana, in the discussions held by the team with Amerindian leaders and groups it was stated that this was not necessarily their primary interest. Some held the view that giving up some land used historically was a fair price to pay for integration into wider society. The most common concerns expressed related to improved access, health and education but especially the need for economic activity to encourage young people to remain in the community, as without this, Amerindian culture would not survive regardless of land allocation.
Further, the report said, resolution of the outstanding land titling is important but it is not understood why the costs included in LCDS to accomplish this need to be as high as stated. It is unclear whether the use of current technology has been fully investigated, it says.
‘Paternalistic’
Meanwhile, the report notes that there is diversity of opinion within the various Amerindian representative groups and among the communities themselves on the question of Amerindian rights. There is no doubt that the question of Amerindian land rights has moved forward greatly in the last decade although there is still further to go, it said. It noted that the Amerindian Peoples Association declined the invitation to join the Multi-stakeholder steering committee (MSSC) as they were unclear on the Terms of Reference, the role of the committee and the implications of their joining. “It would be useful to secure greater clarity on the precise mandate and accountability of the six Amerindian organisations in Guyana. It is at present virtually impossible to know for whom each group really speaks and how authority or mandate to do so was given,” says the report.
It highlights the possibility of the NTC as a representative body but noted that the Council is still largely under the wing of the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs and the government’s official relationship with Amerindian communities seems somewhat paternalistic.
The report says that there are issues relating to the use of forest resources on Amerindian lands when these reach commercial as opposed to traditional scale and an inventory of forest resources on Amerindian lands would be helpful. “There is a considerable variation in terms of the extent to which Amerindian communities in Guyana are integrated into modern life and many of the requirements noted by Amerindian leaders and support groups are similar to those of rural communities in every country rather than being specifically Amerindian,” the report noted. “It would also be appropriate to provide greater clarity on the interim position of untitled Amerindian communities and at the same time reconsider whether non-Amerindian rural communities should not receive more direct benefit from REDD,” it says.
