The findings of a study undertaken by the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) in Region Seven would hardly come as a surprise to anyone. They mirrored the results of earlier investigations in Regions One, Two and Eight. The conflict between coastal citizens engaged in extractive industries and Indigenous People is almost inevitable in an area such as Region Seven, which has proved such a magnet for miners in particular.
There is no government in this country which has attempted to create a framework for integrating issues related to the exploitation of the interior with the right of the Indigenous population to pursue their traditional lifestyle unimpeded by the economic exigencies of the coast. Mining policy, forest use, roads, Indigenous claims, etc, have each been treated as separate, discrete matters, barring the inclusion of one or another savings clause in the disparate pieces of legislation pertaining to these subject areas.
The PPP/C government believed it had finally settled the matter of Indigenous land rights and local governance with the passage of the 2006 Amerindian Act, which secured the support of the opposition in Parliament as well. This replaced the much criticised 1976 legislation, widely believed to have been drafted by Desmond Hoyte. While that Act scheduled a list of areas for land-titling and at that level certainly represented something of a breakthrough for the period, nevertheless, it was to all intents and purposes an amendment grafted on to earlier paternalistic colonial legislation, some of which dated back to 1902.
The first issue which has made titled areas insufficient for Indigenous needs is simply the growth in the population since independence. As it is, the data from the last two censuses indicates that the Indigenous People are the only ethnic group which is increasing in number. Even 40 years ago, it was apparent that the 1976 allocations, which were based on the recommendations of the Amerindian Lands Commission of 1969, were already inadequate, and given the spike in the recent population figures, where in 2012 it is recorded that Indigenous People represent roughly around 10 per cent of Guyana’s total, it is hardly surprising that the APA heard a litany of complaints about land inadequacies.
The second is – and this is a complaint which dates back to the 1970s and the first granting of land titles – that the boundaries did not take account of all the traditional lands utilised by the Indigenous People in pursuit of their way of life. To some extent perhaps, the authorities of four decades ago may have dismissed this with the thought that the problem was mitigated by savings clauses in legislation such as the earlier State Lands Act or Forest Act, which recognised Indigenous usufruct rights on state lands. However, even if that position theoretically may have had some merit at the time, and this is doubtful, the situation in the hinterland is altogether different today.
The APA conducted interviews in 20 communities, 15 of which were titled. Only six of these had actually been demarcated, a common grievance of Indigenous villagers all over the country, which also goes back many years. But where land availability was concerned, the modern villagers were no more satisfied than some of their predecessors. At least 14 of the 15 titled villages, said the APA, complained that their lands failed to cover the full customary areas traditionally occupied and used by them. Twelve of the titled communities reported that they depended on land outside their titled area for farming, fishing, and hunting and gathering, as well as the collection of medicinal plants. They also had spiritual, cultural and historically important sites located outside their titled boundaries.
Despite applications for extensions to their title from some villages, none had yet been granted, said the report. It might be observed that this is in keeping with what has happened in other parts of the country, where the authorities have generally proved very reluctant to entertain any enlargement of existing village lands.
One innovation, which is also said in an earlier APA report to have its origins in the 1970s, is the concept of collective title, which is the subject of a court case against the government brought by six of the villages and involving the Akawaio and Arecuna. That case dates back to 1998. “The current system of titling communities individually does not cater for the fact that much of the customary land of communities has traditionally been shared between neighbouring villages within a collectively-held territory,” the APA report stated, adding that many of the communities were dissatisfied with the way individual village titles had fragmented their collective territory. It might be noted that an earlier report following a study in Regions One and Two had also recorded villagers’ exception there to the rejection by the authorities of collective title.
The reason for government’s anxiety to limit Indigenous land claims is not far to seek. While the Indigenous People are important to both sides of the infamous political divide for electoral purposes, they are not a critical factor in economic terms. Gold is. And after the price of gold rose so substantially on the world market, and displaced sugar by a long chalk as Guyana’s leading foreign exchange earner, the interior came under ever greater pressure from the issuance of mining concessions.
It is hardly unexpected, therefore, that the report made reference to 11 of the 15 titled villages citing problems with mining activities or the movement of miners on titled land, while at least two of them reported incidences of bullying and violence. The APA recorded 16 communities as saying that commercial mining and logging were harming the environment and, by extension, their livelihoods, the first of these being responsible for pollution, the second for deforestation, and both for the scarcity of game animals and fish.
The report also drew attention to the ‘save and except’ clause in Indigenous certificates of title. These clauses exclude land interests held by a third party from being absorbed into a titled area if the grant had been made prior to the issuance of title. In the case of at least two of the villages, the report said, this had limited their ability to “control the right of passage through village lands.”
It might be remarked en passant, that the 2006 Act does not give the Indigenous residents sub-soil rights on their titled land, while a question of an entirely different order arises when it is considered that there are some members of Indigenous communities in Region Seven who are themselves engaged in mining. The numbers involved are not known, and it is not clear how this interweaves with the complaints of 11 communities that mining is damaging their environment.
The APA is not in the business of reconciling the competing claims of the Indigenous People and those engaged in extractive industries in the interior. It may of course transpire that new economic developments, in particular oil, will take some of the economic pressure off the hinterland, and in the process alleviate some of the current aberrations. In addition, future governments may commit more in practice to a fully environmentally based approach, enabling the further development of indigenous tourism, to give one example, which would allow the residents to continue their traditional lifestyle, while at the same time opening an opportunity for them to earn money for their modern consumer needs.
Be that as it may, the report had some recommendations for the measures which would conduce to the respect for Indigenous rights. These, among others, included reform of the existing laws, including the 2006 Amerindian Act, and the granting of title to the full extent of traditional lands. In addition, it proposed that titles to larger territories involving multiple villages be held collectively through a district council, and that the process for dealing with title and extension applications should be altered so they could be approved in a timely fashion. The APA also stressed the importance of the prior and informed consent of Indigenous residents when an area was being granted title, consistent with Guyana’s obligations under international law.
Mining and logging concessions should not be granted on traditional and titled lands without free, prior and informed consent; ‘save and except’ clauses should be removed from titles; and third-party encumbrances should be removed from land returned to villages, said the report. Furthermore, it continued, there should be a systematic study of the pollution and destruction of forests caused by mining in the Region.
Importantly, it advocated the investigation of abuses committed by miners, loggers, police and soldiers and the disciplining of the perpetrators. The APA had received one report of conflict with the state authorities, including the army and police. It must be observed that this is an important border region, some portions of which have been subject to depredations by bandits from the neighbouring state, among other things. There can be absolutely no excuse for the bullying, molestation or maltreatment of Indigenous People by the security services; it is unacceptable and should be addressed without hesitation by the authorities.
