Director of the local office of Conservation International Dr. David Singh has lamented the lifting of the moratorium on river mining before a full discussion of the issues and he believes that more should be done to work towards realising a sustainable economy.
It is “unfortunate,” Dr. Singh told Stabroek News, that “the interest behind the position the government had taken, that those interests may have been sacrificed at the recent concessions made by government.”
Last week, following a meeting with President Donald Ramotar, miners won assurances of no bans on river mining or on the use of mercury. Miners had ratcheted up the pressure on the government over these issues by declaring a vote of no-confidence in Minister of Natural Resources and Mining Robert Persaud and had vowed to step up action. Their aggressive stance had followed a June announcement by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) that effective June 1, 2012 no application for river claims would be processed. Following an outcry by miners, the government later said that the prohibition of river claims was to last only one month to allow a review in light of reports of irresponsible mining. It is unclear what this review found or whether it had been completed. The moratorium was lifted this week. Similarly, on the question of mercury, the government had signalled in an answer to a question in Parliament that it was looking at alternatives to mercury, in light of the looming 2013 US export ban on the chemical.
In an interview, Dr. Singh said that a moratorium would have allowed the stakeholders to study and understand the industry in greater detail and how the issues can be dealt with. The government had halted the processing of applications for mining in rivers due to the GGMC being overwhelmed by reports from stakeholders of damage caused by “increasingly irresponsible mining in Guyana’s rivers and tributaries” and said that a review will be done to decide on the way forward. “I think what would have been more valuable is if stakeholders could have assembled around the moratorium to better understand how in fact to really address the problem rather than what appears to be a standoff between the two, on one hand the government wants to institute a moratorium to better understand the issue and on the other hand I think the mining sector has, as well, a responsibility to be able to provide information either to demonstrate that it is in fact not responsible for the situation or if indeed it is responsible then how it will address that within the context of the livelihood and well being of the local communities that are being affected,” Dr Singh said.
He said that if the lifting of the moratorium was followed by a commitment to dialogue and discussion and presenting information to be able to inform decisions, he would have been much happier. Further, he added that while there is not enough information to really verify that mining is the largest contributor to river pollution, it does contribute.
But Dr Singh noted that there is a larger context to the issue. He pointed out that small-scale mining is a livelihood issue and at the same time the issues that local communities face are also related to livelihoods. How to improve the livelihood of the collective and ensure that it is not short-term but long-term, is an issue that has to be addressed, he declared. “So it’s not only about the issue of polluting or not polluting. It is also about the relationship between the mining sector and local communities to the extent of improving the livelihood of people over time,” he stated, emphasising that the issue is sustainable livelihood.
‘Too big to fail’
Dr Singh said he accepts the current view that mining is too big to fail and it is a very large contributor to economy. However, he questioned if Guyana, in the context of growing a low carbon and a healthy, sustainable economy, should seek to understand how the mining sector fits into helping to sustain the economy. He noted that mineral resources are not infinite and “if we have that level of efficiency which we should have in extracting our mineral resources, then once you mine an area you ought to be able to leave it to regenerate itself and for that ecosystem to restore its functionality.”
He said that the natural capital is being drawn upon and pointed out that such situations, particularly with the extractive sectors, have been addressed in publications before. “You are extracting your family jewels, you’re using that and to what extent are you converting that to something which is sustainable. To what extent are you converting it to human and social capital to build a sustainable institution, so when tomorrow the mineral resources are no longer there, do you have a society that is better structured so that you are in a better place than you were yesterday?” he said, emphasising that this is something that has to be looked at.
He pointed out that if resources generated by the mining sector are spent mainly for consumables such as consumer goods and buildings “then in fact what we are doing is not converting it to things which are building our society.”
He also said that enough is not being done by civil society to address the issue. “Civil society is not doing enough… the mining sector, the GGDMA and the women miners association is doing what they feel is in the best interest of their sector and I respect that… I think it is the responsibility of civil society, it is the responsibility of Guyanese outside of only the mining sector… it is our responsibility to do more,” he said. He suggested that a discussion on mining within the larger Guyanese society is something which civil society has to undertake. He said a major question is how to determine the means of managing the sector within the context of green development.
“This is the heart of what we have to do, this is the heart really of the future of the country, how do we get these different important sectors to integrate towards the healthy sustainable development of our economy,” Dr Singh stressed.
He added that he hoped that the National Assembly would find an opportunity to debate this issue. Dialogue is very important, he noted. “We have to expand the stage for dialogue. We have to go beyond the seeming confrontation and the seeming conflict” and establish a common state where people can dialogue, he said. “If we don’t have that then we don’t have the basis on which we can move forward.”
