Dear Editor,
I wish to refer to a Sunday Stabroek article of 22nd May 2022 – `For 21 months, Amer-indian Peoples Association has been unable to meet Minister Sukhai.’
Let me make it pellucidly clear that the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) does not speak for or represent all or even the majority of the Indigenous people of Guyana.
The APA is pushing for the revision of the Amerindian Act. Firstly, they were against the Act of 2006 as they never wanted to be regulated. Why during the last government’s term in office, when that government had the majority in Parliament, was the revision of the very Amerindian Act not done? One of their very own was the Minister of Indigenous Peoples Affairs.
Consultation, FPIC and violation of Indigenous Peoples rights and LCDS 2030, land titling
The LCDS was first launched in 2009; the world, all Guyanese, and I am sure the APA, know that. To guide the process, a Multi Stakeholders Steering Committee (MSSC) was created. All Indigenous groups were invited to be part of it and have a representative and an alternate. Representation, alternate, and attendance were done by all the other indigenous groups – Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana (TAAMOG), Guya-nese Organi-zation of Indigenous People (GOIP), and National Amerindian Development Foundation (NADF).
However, by choice, the APA refused to send nominate a representative to the MSSC, under the false pretence that no terms of reference for the MSSC was shared with them. They know very well to collect the benefits that came along with the previous LCDS under the partnership with Norway. The APA has been misleading Indigenous villages and thus preventing them from obtaining national benefits and programmes.
COVID-19
A case in point. Ms. Laura George pointed out in her article of May 22 that certain APA villages didn’t take the COVID vaccine because they were not consulted or properly informed. And as a result of this they were shut out of meetings, etc. because no vaccine card meant being unable to travel and access government facilities.
Can it get more ridiculous than this Ms. George? The world was reeling from COVID-19, millions of people died, thousands of Guyanese were infected, hundreds of Guyanese died. The vaccine was a means of countering COVID; what more consultation or information more you need on this. Vaccination was done at the national level and scale and no international travel was allowed if no vaccines were taken.
Why didn’t the APA lead this effort of information dissemination to the villages? Many NGOs and private sector groups came on board and assisted the government to roll out this programme. Thank-fully our numbers have reduced dramatically, due to the government’s national vaccination programme and other health measures.
If the APA can play politics with one’s health, there is no line in the sand to be drawn where they are concerned. No issue is safeguarded from their politicking.
Let us take a look back at the period 2015 to 2020 when the PPP was not in office and the APNU+AFC was in government. The LCDS was mysteriously abandoned and replaced by the Green State Development Strategy (GSDS). Where was the APA voice on FPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consent) and on consultation? The GSDS was drafted and what came out of it? – not a single programme. May I ask Ms. George or the APA, has any consultation been done before or after the GSDS was drafted? The answer is a resounding, No! Why didn’t the APA say anything? The APA is hoping that Guyanese are forgetful of this reality.
Land Titling
The Stabroek News article stated that a major Land Titling Project was launched under the APNU+AFC. Can Ms. George or Ms. Jean La Rose provide some more information on this as to the date when it was launched? The facts are that no Land Titling Project was launched under the previous administration.
Please be guided by the fact that from the proceeds of the LCDS 2009/Norway Part-nership, the PPP/C government started this major land titling project. This can be verified with UNDP or the Guyana Lands and Survey Commission, and the internet: https:/ /lcds.gov.gy/ time line/amerindian-land-titling/.
LCDS 2030
LCDS 2030 was officially launched in October 2021 by President Ali. At the launch, the President highlighted that the document will be open for public comments and consultation. The document can be found on the LCDS website www.lcds.gov.gy. We live in the age of technology. The MSSC was then resuscitated in December 2021 with the first meeting in February 2022 where a broad cross section of civil society organisations, private sector groups, all the Amerindian/ Indigenous NGO’s, government bodies, etc, were invited to nominate representatives for the newly formed MSSC. Terms of reference were prepared and circulated well in advance (December 2021). Representatives were given adequate notices and opportunities to give comments and participate in the process of the setting up of the MSSC. Nothing can be more transparent than this. Lo and behold! the APA was represented by Ms. Laura George and has been at every meeting. This was a welcome sign of the APA’s willingness to participate in a national process and strategy document. Copies of the LCDS were also given to all members.
Then came the national consultation. The MSSC members were presented with a very detailed consultation plan and strategy for the LCDS at the very first meeting. A consultation committee was set up, of which Ms. George was a member and participated in fine-tuning the consultation plan and strategy.
Consultation on the LCDS
National consultations have been held in all of the administrative regions of Guyana, from Region One in the Northwest to Region Ten in Upper Demerara. At the time of the formation of the MSSC, COVID restrictions were still in place and hence most of the consultations were done online via Zoom. However, once the government lifted the COVID restrictions, person-to-person consultation took place nationwide and is still continuing. Hundreds of communities across all ten regions were consulted, including both Indigenous and non- Indigenous, private sector, NGO’s, civil society, academic institutions, bankers, youths, government ministries and organs, international community, donors, Cham-bers of Commerce, municipalities, local democratic organs, regional administrations, village leaders, religious communities, and the general public. Numerous sessions were held involving thousands of Guyanese across the length and breadth of Guyana. In regions Seven and Eight, and to some extent, Region One, where APA communities are dominant, hundreds of communities were represented at consultation sessions. I can attest to this since I was personally present at some of these sessions.
At these sessions the documents are sent in before, shared out at the sessions, and made available on the LCDS website. Nearly all Guyanese have a cell phone, internet facilities are available in many and most hinterland communities which means that comments can be made on the website as well through the LCDS email address, thus there is no shortage of the medium of communication and consultation. As noted in the document, this is a draft for consultation. As I have witnessed first-hand, at no time did anyone ask for villages and communities to endorse the document as claimed in the APA article. This is a big falsehood. The APA cannot produce a single shred of evidence to verify that Indigenous people have been asked to endorse the LCDS at these sessions or that they have not gotten copies of the document or their comments are not being considered.
On the subject of translation, let the APA produce evidence of how many living Indigenous persons are unable to listen and understand our national language, as the vast majority of Amerindian peoples communicate in English. Even the APA rep on the MSSC, Ms. George, agrees that it makes no sense translating the whole LCDS document. Also not all Indigenous language are written, some are just spoken, so in those cases translation are done on site at the session – from what I witnessed, this was an expressed preference by the Indigenous peoples at the LCDS sessions. Ironically, at the early stages of the planning process for LCDS consultations, the APA volunteered to assist in preparing community-friendly materials for sessions. They failed to deliver as there was not a single piece of material proffered, and worse yet, they attended not a single session. How can they boldly claim to be in the best position to offer criticism of consultations sessions. They attended none.
The LCDS represents a modern vision for Guyana and certainly a model for the international transformation along a low-carbon path. The world is seeking to cut emissions and invest along a low-carbon path. Across the length and breadth of Guyana, the LCDS 2030 has been widely been hailed as a visionary strategy for a modern Guyana, and a lesson for the international community. It therefore boggles the mind as to why the APA will want to derail such a national, and certainly an internationally impactful programme. What rights are being violated and where was FPIC all these years? During the previous administration the then President Granger announced that he was committing two million acres to the Protected Areas System. Invariably this two million would have cut across many hinterland and Indigenous communities. The question for APA is, were they consulted by President Granger or the APNU+AFC? Where was FPIC then? The answer is a big NO. Were the rights of Indigenous people violated?
The LCDS document itself has a provision that 15% of Guyana’s earning from the carbon credit programme will go towards Indigenous People Amerindian Development – for every year and for all years. By population and Indigenous occupation of communities it is well below this 15%, closer to 10% in population and 13% in lands, thus an allocation of 15% for Amerindian development presents a sound and equitable model for development at Indigenous village level and a lasting opportunity for sustainable financing to protect forests and sustain livelihoods. Many countries across the world, even right in the Caribbean region have made a decision not to segment lands separately for Indigenous communities and the rest of the population.
The Forest is a patrimony of all Guyanese and the policy of this government has been one of transparency and inclusiveness. Hence, for benefits that can be accrued at a national scale, it’s the prerogative of the democratically elected government to make that call consistent with the Constitution and all national applicable laws and not segment and divide this economy to the detriment of any group of stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Peter Persaud
TAAMOG
