The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) yesterday said that if the content of a survey permission for rare earth metals is as reported in the media, then it has been misled by Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment Robert Persaud.
In reply to the GHRA just hours after, the ministry said that the information requested had been provided and there was no attempt to mislead. “The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment wishes to reassure that there is no attempt to mislead the GHRA or anyone as a revelation of the PGGS (Permission for Geological & Geographical Survey) was made by the Minister and team even though there was no specific request for same,” said the ministry in a statement.
The GHRA’s statement and the response by the ministry came amid a burgeoning furore over what Persaud did not reveal about a PGGS with Muri Brasil Ventures in the ecologically-sensitive south east of the country. Persaud had last month sought to assure the Natural Resources Committee of Parliament and the GHRA in separate meetings that there was going to be no mining east of the New River. However, since these assurances were given, an agreement with the company has surfaced containing a clause which compels the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) to provide a maximum of 18 prospecting licences in the said New River for a variety of minerals upon application by the company.
Following declarations this week by opposition MPs that Persaud had withheld information on this deal with Muri Brasil, the Ministry of Natural Resources had sought to defend the minister by stating that he had been upfront on his disclosures and had told the same to GHRA.
Responding to this, the GHRA yesterday said that if there was an assurance in the contract for prospecting licences – Stabroek News has a copy of the PGGS which outlines this – then it has been misled by Persaud.
In a statement yesterday afternoon responding to the GHRA statement, the ministry said that at the December 4 meeting between the team from the GHRA and the Ministry, the Ministry provided information requested, including a package on general development of the natural resources and environmental sector.
“Regarding the question on whether there was mining in the New River Triangle in relation to the Parabara Community, the documentation was provided by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission which confirmed that there was no mining, leases or permissions, in addition to the letter which was sent to the Village Council stating that no mining permit was issued,” the statement said.
‘Not of sufficient
significance’
“During the interaction, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment verbally updated the GHRA team of a PGGS which was granted and briefly outlined the activities involved. As indicated by GHRA in keeping with the main purpose of the December 04 meeting, the issue of the PGGS was not felt to be of sufficient significance. As a result, there was no request for further documentation on the company, particulars of the activity or any related additional information on that PGGS. The name of the company was not mentioned as there was no request for this information,” the ministry added. It said that there was no attempt to mislead the GHRA.
However, in its statement to clarify the information provided by Persaud at the December 4 meeting, the GHRA said that as part of a general assurance given to it that no permits had been issued for mining-related road construction in the new River Triangle, the minister went on to say that the only activity taking place was an aerial survey being conducted to determine the presence of ‘rare earth’ in the South Rupununi area.
“In response to a first question from the GHRA whether this survey would lead to granting of prospecting licenses, we were assured that the survey carried no such implications. With respect to a second question on the geo-political implications of the survey – given the strategic nature of ‘rare earth’ – we were again assured that there were none. No mention was made of the firm Muri Brazil Venture Inc. nor the details of the Permission for Geological & Geogra-phical Survey,” the human rights body asserted.
“The assurances were sufficiently categorical that, in the context of the main purpose of the meeting (requested by the Minister) the ‘rare earth’ survey issue was not felt to be of sufficient significance to be included in the GHRA post-meeting press release,” it added.
The GHRA said that however, “assuming the press revelations are correct concerning the alleged content of the contract with Muri Brazil Venture Inc., the GHRA was misled by the Minister.
“Indeed, if there is an assurance in the contract that applications for prospecting licenses from Muri Venture Inc. will be given priority treatment, then the GHRA would conclude that we were intentionally misled. The Minister told us nothing explicitly that was untrue, but omitted sufficient important details that we can only conclude the intention was to mislead,” the body declared.
It said that the parallel between the recent Chinese trawler issue and the current ‘rare earth’ furore is striking. The Chinese company’s intent to exploit fish stocks in Guyana waters when questioned was projected as an interest in undertaking a study of fish stocks. Similarly, if the press revelations are accurate, the survey of ‘rare earth’ will assure Muri Ventures Inc. of a place at the head of the queue for acquiring licences, the GHRA noted.
‘Strategic value’
“Moreover, as an essential component of all cell-phones, ‘rare earth’ is of enormous strategic value, 95% of which is currently provided by China. Complaints have been made at the World Trade Organization (WTO) that by its practice of restricting exports of ‘rare earth’, China is forcing companies trying to access it to relocate there. This fact alone renders exploration for ‘rare earth’ to be of considerable strategic significance. In addition, the territories being surveyed – bordering Brazil and Suriname over which Guyana has legal control but only a nominal governmental presence – further complicates the strategic dimension of this issue,” the GHRA added.
The human rights body while welcoming the Parliamentary oversight and monitoring which has brought a clearer perspective to the ‘rare earth’ issue, said that it has to be recognized that these after-the-fact mechanisms are not a substitute for preventive action. “Had a new road intended to penetrate the New River Triangle not been challenged, when would the matter of the ‘rare earth’ survey, which was signed a year ago, have surfaced,” it questioned.
“The combination of mining and the environment within the current framework of the MNR&E clearly fosters abuse. Without independent and professional agencies dedicated to the vigorous protection and promotion of environmental interests, the much-needed policy debates over the merits of mining versus the environment will never take place,” the GHRA said.
