Dear Editor,
Thank you for sending your reporter Gaulbert Sutherland to a meeting at Kako on 18 March (SN 23 March, “Our last refuge’ – Kako battling to protect river from miners’). Ministers for Amerindian Affairs and Natural Resources and the Environment were invited by the Kako Village Council but did not accept. Instead, they sent representatives who, if reported accurately, were remarkable for their ignorance of the laws of the land and the resources of the government agencies. The ministries and agencies can hardly be unaware of the evidence submitted in the protests about mining on Amerindian titled and customary lands which have been heard recently by the Committee of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (UN-CERD). The failure of the Government agencies to send well-briefed representatives is disrespectful/contemptuous of the Amerindian rights under national and international laws.
Kako is protesting about the influx of miners into the water catchment above the village, and the consequent likelihood of pollution by miners who do not comply with the environmental Mining Regulations 2005. Kako correctly pointed out the Amerindian right to ‘quiet enjoyment’ of their customary lands which is written into Article 111 of the Mining Act 1989. Kako is also entitled to a clean environment, through Article 36 of the National Constitution 1980/2003.
The Environmental Protection Act 1996 is explicit in Article 11 and Schedule 4 item 9 that ‘the extraction and conversion of mineral resources’ needs an environmental permit subsequent to an environmental impact assessment. Note that this Act does not allow a prospective miner to argue that the mining operation would not significantly affect the environment; that argument could be raised only for issues not listed in Schedule 4. The Chief Executive Officer of the Indigenous Peoples Commission (IPC), Autry Haynes, was thus wrong to tell the people of Kako that ‘for small and medium scale mining, an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required’. The CEO appeared to forget that one role for the IPC is to ‘promote and protect the rights of indigenous peoples’ (Article 212T (a) of the National Constitution).
It was also incorrect for the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) to have told Kako in July 2012 that ‘the agency had satisfied itself that mining would have no harmful effects on the environment’. GGMC has no right to make such a declaration; that is a function of the EPA, and in any case such a declaration is contrary to the EPA Act as stated above; as well as being patently absurd in respect of the hydraulic mining which is used in Guyana.
The GGMC thus appears to be in grave error to have issued licences for small- and medium-scale mining in areas of Amerindian customary rights – because that would infringe their ‘quiet enjoyment’. It is also an error to have issued licences without prior Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Permits from the Environmental Protection Agency.
It is extraordinary that an unnamed GGMC official told the Kako meeting that GGMC maps did not indicate titled lands. GGMC has had this information since at least 1997 through the Guyana Integrated Natural Resources Information System (GINRIS) and at least some of the maps available from GGMC do indeed show the Amerindian titled Village Lands.
Kako people are thus entirely within their constitutional rights to resist the issue of mining concessions over their communally titled and customary lands, and to demand the cancellation of all such concessions that have been issued to date without their agreement. The Government of Guyana has repeatedly assured the Norwegians, among others, that Guyana implements the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which is contained in the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, endorsed by Guyana in 2007.
Kako people could reasonably expect questions to be raised on their behalf by MPs in the National Assembly and in the sectoral committee on Natural Resources, and the relevant Ministers called to account for the incorrect statements and licences issued by their officials.
Yours faithfully,
Janette Bulkan
