Following complaints, the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) is to have its systems revamped to tackle problems such as `landlordism’ and beneficial occupancy of mining claims.
This was disclosed in a statement on Friday by the Board of the GGMC, the same day that Stabroek Business reported on the findings of an internal review which expressed worry at Chinese forestry company Baishanlin being assigned numerous mining claims among other problems.
The GGMC statement said that as a result of numerous complaints against the Commission and recommendations of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment, the Board of Directors undertook a review of the Management Systems and practices for critical departments/divisions of the Commission.
A team of consultants engaged by the board recommended among other things:
- Reformation of the Mining Laws and Regulations to address “landlordism” and “beneficial-occupancy” as well as the allocation of expired/relinquished PLS and the upgrading of small scale properties to large scale properties.
- Restructuring of the Divisions of the Commission to ensure that similar functions are not done by various divisions – overlapping of functions such as mineral titling.
- Ensure the adequacy of trained and professional staff for the Commission.
The Stabroek Business news item said that the consultants’ report found “evidence of outrageous irregularities” in the mining sector including a “tendency towards landlordism,” which the report says “has taken over the mining industry.”
The report called on the GGMC to tackle the reform of the law to treat with what it says is “the growing menace of landlordism and non-beneficiary occupancy” which it says are strangling the potential growth of the mining sector.
In support of its assertion, the report said that “at the end of 2013 the list of claims in existence (on the GGMC website) showed 72 claims held by Baishanlin though they show as abandoned [at] 31st March 2014.” The review goes on to state that “in the current list of claims there are new claims registered to Baishanlin. How Baishanlin, a Chinese corporation with non-Guyanese owning the beneficial interest in the company was allowed by the Mines Division to apply for these small scales is indeed a mystery. This goes to the heart of a non-appreciation of the intent and fact of the law and is indeed worrying,” the report said. Baishanlin’s activities here have evoked skepticism as its professed value-added plans have not taken off even though it is heavily into logging for export. Its linkage with the mining claims will raise further concerns about possible plans to also extract mineral resources.
The GGMC statement on Friday said that the review commenced in December 2014 and was aimed at examining the operations of the Mines Division, Land Management and Geological Services Divisions of the Commission to determine the coherence of the structures and functions. It was also to look at the adequacy of its staffing, the flow of its operations and to identify systemic problems.
“The Commission was and still is cognizant that any deficiencies within the management framework and current practices, can contribute to non-fulfillment of the Commission’s objectives, and can possibly lead to the presence or possibility of undesirable acts of malfeasance”, the GGMC statement said.
It said that the consultants’ inception report was submitted by the review team to the Chairman of the Board of Directors in February 2015 at which point it was then forwarded to the Board for review. On the 24th March, 2015, the consultants were invited to present the report officially to the Commission and stakeholders of the sector, namely, the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA) and the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU).
“At this presentation, the critical gaps and deficiencies that were identified by the review team were highlighted along with clarifications on specific matters contained in the report. There was general consensus that the presentation of the consultants Inception Report was of an excellent quality and the overall objective of the review was achieved since areas of critical intervention were earmarked that would allow the evolution of the Commission to serve the needs of an evolving and growing mining sector”, the GGMC statement said. It added that it was agreed that the consultants would engage the GGDMA & the GPSU over the next two weeks to address areas of concern and finalize the report which would then go to the board.
The Stabroek Business report on Friday also said that the review found that “if the state of landlordism that was evident in the small scale (mining) system is to be frowned on, then the state of ownership of prospecting permits (medium scale) and mining permits (medium scale) could only be described as scandalous.” The report goes on to state that while a medium scale mining permit has a size of up to 1,200 acres “there are persons holding in excess of 500 prospecting permits (medium scale) and 100 mining permits (medium scale).”
The 50-page report called for “further investigation into allegations of persons with state lands arising out of claims that officers of the GGMC utilize what it describes as their ‘preferred knowledge of relinquished, cancelled or expired licenses to advise private persons of the upcoming availability of lands for private consideration.
“Whether corruption is involved with individuals informing miners that areas are vacant and subject to new locations, requires further investigation with records and access to personnel which was not available in this initial investigation,” the report says, adding that while, in recent times, there has been an attempt in some areas to effect a stricter adherence to the law, much of the recent public concern with the commission’s management of prospecting licences has had to do with “the perception that vacant land is distributed in an unfair way or that land becomes vacant and is acquired by a third party in a way that is not understood.”
