Dear Editor,
Amerindians mining for their daily subsistence in Chenapau and the surrounding area is nothing new. With the geographical specificities of their region, and the climatic conditions currently affecting farming, waterways and other sources of subsistence in the village, there should have been leniency from authorities in handling the situation. Additionally, the people of Chenapau are forced to comply with restrictions imposed by the Kaieteur National Park management, including limitations for hunting and fishing.
Amerindians in general, do not have sources of steady or monthly income, in comparison to other Guyanese inhabiting the coastal regions. Instead, they live off the land, an inalienable component of all indigenous cultures.
Considering these attenuating factors, there was subsequently no need to force twenty-one persons from Chenapau, including a mother and her baby, on a plane to Georgetown, detaining them at the CID headquarters and shaming them nationally. Reports from concerned citizens who intervened on their behalf, indicate that no decent dietary and housing accommodation were provided by authorities.
The Kaieteur National Park relies heavily on the participation of Chenapau villagers for its proper function and maintenance. In addition to sharing a common boundary with the village, management is aware of the needs of Amerindians with respect to the use of natural resources. So the decision taken to charge them is a rather drastic approach, forcing us to question the apparent bias in handling mining encumbrances on indigenous ancestral lands.
I refer to Minister Simona Broomes who in 2006 had prospecting permits for mining blocks in Tassarene proposed-title land, as well as friends of the coalition who are being granted permits to mine over vast lands overlapping Amerindian ancestral lands, despite the legislation in place, including the Mining Act Cap 65:01, which guarantees the protection of subsistence rights of Amerindians. In 2012, Minister Broomes had entered into an exploration agreement with a company in relation to the mining blocks, but two years later one of these was transferred to a different company, therefore complicating the land titling process and obstructing indigenous land rights regardless of her responsibility to serve the people of Guyana. A hotel proprietor close to the regime was also granted mining permits in Tassarene, and is currently accused by villagers of polluting waterways close to habitations. The government, despite being solicited, is mum on these impediments to land titling.
It must be noted that indigenous affairs are guided, inter alia, by internationally recognised minority rights and that technically, we owe the preservation of our forests to the Amerindians, and not to the Protected Areas Commission established only in recent years. As a matter of fact, even the Protected Areas Act 2011 makes provision for indigenous rights. Before the establishment of the Kaieteur National Park in 1929 by the British, the indigenous peoples of South America were already guardians of our natural resources. Equally interesting to note is that while Amerindians struggle to make a few dollars, the Kaieteur National Park generates millions in annual revenues ($27M in 2014).
Guyana’s First Peoples account for fewer than eighty thousand individuals, and only a fraction mine for their subsistence, with the remaining majority relying on agriculture. Small-scale mining often involves traditional mining, since not all Amerindians can afford to invest in mechanical mining. Consequently, mining conducted by Amerindians cannot equate to the environmental impact of medium and large-scale mining conducted by those in the business, such as Minister Broomes. Yet, the Minister continues to be given a free pass to infringe on Akawaio land rights. Is she protecting the environment? Is she protecting the waterways? Or is she simply reflecting the unethical policies guiding indigenous rights in Guyana?
If Amerindians are barred from mining for their survival needs on the pretext that they are a hazard to the environment, then it can be argued that all miners who are granted permits to mine on proposed-title lands after villages submit official requests for ownership, are equal hazards to the survival of Guyana’s First Nations.
A look at the history of South America would teach us that those who least threaten our natural resources, are the First peoples whom we all met when we came; they are the true guardians of the forests and savannahs.
Yours faithfully,
Anna Correia
