Demarcation no help to Amerindians – APA report

Most Amerindian villages do not think that demarcation will help to protect their lands because of mistakes in the boundary lines that leave important areas outside the boundaries, an Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) report said.
The report indicated that of the 25 titled and demarcated villages visited as part of this assessment, 14 villages (56 per cent) considered the demarcated boundaries to have mistakes and do not match their original legal land title description. Some of these villages are Santa Rosa, Manawarin, Warapoka, Chinese Landing, Barima-Koriabo, Yarakita, Kamwatta, Sebai, Baramita, Akawini, Wakapao, Mashabo, Capoey and Kabakaburi.
In several cases, villages complained that boundary surveys and demarcation done by the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC) have reduced their title areas. Among these villages are Santa Rosa, Sebai, Barima Koriabo, Yarakita, Akawini, Capoey and Kabakaburi.
In 2016, the report said all the villages are still waiting for these errors to be corrected. It stated that another eight villages are unhappy about the demarcation even though the boundary more or less matches their title description – Kwebanna, Little Kaniballi, Assakata, Kokerite, Hotoquai, Hobodia, Bethany and St Monica. “They say that even if the demarcation is correct, it has only served to mark out a flawed title area that the village never formally agreed to through an FPIC [free, prior and informed consent] process, and that does not protect important settlements and customary lands that remain outside the boundary,” the report stated, adding that altogether 22 of the 25 demarcated villages (88 per cent) are unhappy with their demarcation. It highlighted that there were no official agreed ways to make sure that villages consult and agree on their common title extension boundaries. The report discovered that in most cases, villages did not consult with their neighbours before sending extension applications to the former Ministry of Amerindian Affairs (MoAA).
“But the MoAA also did not appear to have any clear rules requiring such consultation. The result is that the requested extension areas of many neighbouring villages overlap. This problem remains unresolved in 2016,” it added.
It said further that the Government has not dealt with village applications for land title or title extensions promptly or competently.
“Many villages submitted their original applications over a decade ago (eg Kariako first applied in 1994), and most made several applications, including Kokerite, Hobodia, Kwebanna, Kaniballi, Santa Rosa, St Monica, Mashabo, Akawini, Wakapao and Bethany. Only eight applications for extension received written replies from the authorities, while in several cases replies were only verbal (eg Kokerite, Mashabo and Bethany). Five applications never received any reply,” it expounded, stating that the Government claimed to have lost extension applications in three cases – Santa Rosa, Barima-Koriabo and Bethany.
Of the 17 villages requesting land title extensions, only one had been issued by the end of 2015 (Yarakita, which applied in 2007).
Thus, the report stated that the indigenous people believe that there was no official, fair and transparent appeal process where villages can take their concerns about demarcation surveys. It stated also that GLSC officials have ignored complaints or doubts raised by Village Councils and residents about demarcation.
It explained that villagers complain that there was no clear appeal process or grievance mechanism they could use when unhappy about boundary demarcation. They have even indicated that surveyors have even threatened some villages that they must pay for demarcation from their own funds unless the village approves the demarcation boundary description (eg, Kaniballi).
“In the case of Kabakaburi Village, GLSC only corrected errors after high-profile public protests and Village Council complaints in the national press,” it stated, adding that the methods and reasons for deciding land title extension areas were sometimes biased, unclear or strange.