Earlier this month President Irfaan Ali and his team jetted off to Glasgow without consulting anyone regarding the nation’s climate change plans, although they still committed to an agreement there on forests and land use. Perhaps they had forgotten that agreement by the time they had returned, because they are going to allow the resumption of small-scale mining and mining exploration activities in the Marudi Mountains, again without any consultations with all those who might be affected.
The story of Marudi and the Mazoa mountain in particular is a complicated one, although what can be said without fear of contradiction is that the extent of environmental damage there would have sent the green activists at COP26 into a tailspin. Apart from anything else the miners at Mazoa have managed to effectively decapitate the mountain, and it is close to disappearing from physical maps of Guyana altogether. Similarly, the destruction of forest in the area bears little relationship to any undertakings about sustainability made by the President when he was in the Scottish city.
Last week an agreement was concluded between the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, Guyana Goldstrike, Canadian-owned mining company Aurous and the Rupununi Miners Association. The last named represents small miners with interests in the area. Not included in the pact was the South Rupununi District Council, which among its other duties represents Indigenous villagers affected by mining activities in Marudi.
Small miners have been active in the Marudi for a long time, but frictions arose when government granted a licence to a large company, Romanex, and subsequently to Mulgravian Ventures to mine there. (The first-named was subsequently taken over by Guyana Goldstrike, but miners and others still refer to it as Romanex.) For all of that small miners continued to work in Marudi, although relations with one or another of the large companies were not always easy, and their status there much of the time had no formal recognition.
Some seven years ago Mulgravian complained about the use of mechanical crushers by the small miners, both Indigenous and others, and these were subsequently banned by the GGMC. These methods, along with the use of excavators greatly increased productivity rates in comparison with the old hand methods, and this more efficient extraction presumably affected the value of the property from the company’s point of view. The government’s concern at the time was with the enormous environmental damage these machines caused.
That said, the outlawing of the crushers led to a return of more dangerous manual methods, in that small miners now went back into the tunnels at Mazoa particularly. These had become unstable over the years, and deaths occurred when they caved in. Negotiations over the years produced little in the way of results, and the issue was complicated by the fact that when the Romanex licence was suspended, a great deal of illegal mining took place, some of the interlopers coming from Brazil.
The government eventually renewed the licence to Goldstrike, the company which had bought over Romanex, and this spurred the small miners to form an association – the Rupununi Miners Association, which challenged the rights of the company. In an effort to bring a measure of order to the situation and in the interests of safety the GGMC had been enforcing the mining regulations, but since it could not be there on a permanent basis, as soon as its officials left the area, the situation would return to what it had been before.
The coalition government was anxious to accommodate the small miners, and as a consequence in 2016 then Minister of Natural Resources Raphael Trotman facilitated mediation between the small miners, the SRDC and Goldstrike, which was conducted by Major-General (rtd) Joe Singh. It produced an agreement which was intended to guide future engagements and reach a final resolution. This newspaper was told that under the agreement artisanal and small-scale miners were allowed to mine on the Goldstrike concession under certain conditions until the company commenced operations, following which they would become employees of the company. There was also to be an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment before operations could begin.
This newspaper was told that the conditions of the agreement were not adequately communicated to the small-scale miners, who thought parts of the concession had been given to them. In addition medium-scale miners arrived because they thought the green light had been given to mining in the area.
Current Minister of Natural Resources Vickram Bharrat has said that since the recommendations had not been implemented there was therefore need for further consultations on the issue. In the meantime, a cease order on mining was in effect. The deal which was struck recently, as indicated earlier, did not include the SRDC, although they had been represented in the 2016 mediation.
We reported the SRDC as maintaining that the Minister had said in a meeting with the villagers of Aishalton in September and December last year that the government would “respect the rights of Indigenous peoples.” The Council also reminded the administration that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had called on the government twice in 2018 to revoke projects on Marudi Mountain to which Indigenous peoples had not given their free, prior and informed consent.
The Council is now seeking the revocation of the agreement, and in its statement Toshao Michael of Aishalton was quoted as asking, “How can mining agreements be made without involving people of the South Rupununi, who will be directly affected by mining and its related activities?” In addition to emphasizing that the Marudi area is an important component of the Wapichan cultural and spiritual heritage, the statement also pointed out that it played a vital role in terms of other ecosystems since four major river systems originated there. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency had not yet issued an environmental permit for mining in Marudi, and had previously rejected a draft environmental impact assessment report, in part because of lack of participation by the indigenous peoples. Marudi is also included as part of Aishalton’s application for land extension.
In a Facebook post Minister Bharrat was quoted as saying that he recognised the “vital role” that mining played within the Rupununi. He urged all stakeholders to undertake mining and exploration activities in keeping with the Mining Act and Regulations. There was no mention of Indigenous communities.
Wapichan environmental and cultural concerns cannot be denied. Mining brings in its train all kinds of deleterious environmental and social consequences. In this instance, the environmental consequences especially, as we have earlier reported, have been enormous, involving among other things, destruction of mountain and forest, and the contamination and redirection of water courses. What is not clear is exactly how many Indigenous small miners there are in the area who depend on mining for a living; they are more likely to find cause with the Rupununi Miners Association than with the SRDC. In addition, there will be members of the local communities who provide supplies to miners and the like.
Whatever the true number of those villagers directly or indirectly dependent on mining, it does not justify government riding roughshod over the concerns of the surrounding Indigenous communities as a whole, who are the ones who will bear the full impact of the devastation mining has caused. When the gold resources are exhausted, the miners will move elsewhere, leaving the residents with the repercussions of their activities. For all its promotion of a green approach, the government has never managed to reconcile this with its drive for what it regards as economic development. When there is a conflict, the latter always wins. One might have thought that now it has oil, it could afford to take on board environmental concerns in a real sense.
That aside, it cannot continue to treat the Indigenous people with such scant regard, imposing decisions on them relating to the areas where they live. It is, as the SRDC said, a “flagrant” violation of Indigenous rights.
