Dear editor,
1)The 2006 Amerindian Act makes provision, from Sections 48 to 53, for dealing with mining in Amerindian villages, and provides safeguards for the villagers if they allow mining activities within the boundaries of their titled villages.
Section 48 establishes the procedures any individual or corporate body wanting to mine in the titled villages must follow, while Section 49 sets out terms and conditions that could be included in any Mining Agreement between the Village Council and the prospective miner.
Section 50 allows the village to refuse its consent in respect to large-scale mining, while allowing the Minister responsible for mining to act in the public interest.
Section 51 deals with benefits-sharing, while Section 52 gives recognition to the traditional mining privileges of Amerindians. Further, this Section provides that the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission shall be the Authority which, inter alia, facilitates, monitors, and regulates for sustainable utilization of Guyana’s mineral resources”.
Section 53 deals with some of the obligations of the Guyana Geology & Mines Commission (GGMC) if the latter “intends to issue a permit, concession, licence or other permission over or in (a) any part of village lands (b) any land contiguous to village lands; or (c) any rivers, creeks or waterways which pass through village lands or any lands contiguous with village lands”.
In this regard, the GGMC also provides additional safeguards for the villages where mining is taking place.
Part XIV of the Mining Act 1989 sets out special provisions to treat with mining in the Amerindian villages and communities. These include, inter alia, the exclusion of areas from mining if these areas are officially earmarked for village title, extensions… Thus, implicit in this provision is the requirement that GGMC be informed of a clear intent on the part of the village to apply for a grant of title or an extension of land.
GGMC, as a precautionary measure, does enforce a buffer zone of one mile around the periphery of Amerindian titled lands. In addition, the Mining Act specifies that miners cannot exercise any right over, or interfere with, farming operations. This reduces the probability of mining concessions being granted in areas traditionally occupied by Amerindians but outside of the titled village.
The Mining Agreement
2) During my tenure as Advisor to the Minister of Amerindian Affairs, the Hon. Pauline Sukhai MP, we did cause to be prepared a mining template to guide the Amerindian Village Councils in preparing a mining agreement with an investor.
This template covers, inter alia, issues raised and concerns expressed over time by Village Toshaos, Village Councillors, the Board of Directors of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, and consensus on how procedural issues must be addressed. In this regard also, reference was made to several relevant sections of the 2006 Amerindian Act, the 1989 Mining Act, the 1996 Environmental Protection Act, and the obligations of the contracting parties under these agreements.
Most of the mining activities on village lands are of a small and medium scale, and here the Village Council has power of veto under the 2006 Amerindian Act. Prior to the 2006 Amerindian Act, there was no legal requirement for consultation with the villages. Thereafter, persons wishing to mine in the Amerindian titled villages were required to consult with the Village and get the approval of two-thirds of the residents present at the village general meeting at which the mining application was considered.
Thus, no new miner could mine in a titled village without the expressed permission of the village.
Those miners who had already entered into agreements prior to the Act were allowed to complete the unexpired period of the agreement and were expected to enter into a new agreement with the village, or GGMC could not issue them with a mining permit.
Except for a small number of cases, miners were able to effect agreements with Village Councils. The Ministry of Amerindian Affairs helped in some cases by providing advice to the Council, and seeking GGMC’s intervention when considered necessary.
For the first time, Village Councils could include in their agreements provisions to cover employment of persons from the village; purchases of food from the villages, provision of social services by the miner/ investor, a minimum tribute to be paid by the miner etc.
The implementation of the 2006 Amerindian Act, while providing more benefits to the villagers, has not been without several challenges:
A number of miners who were established before the 2006 Amerindian Act have successfully challenged the decisions of GGMC before the Court. These include:
i)Winston Rambarran against GGMC and the Micobie Village Council, before Justice Roxanne George in a decision dated 19/02/2009
ii)Lalta Narine against GGMC and the Isseneru Village Council of Region 7, before Justice Bovell Drakes in a decision dated August 18th, 2008
iii)However, it should be noted, in the case of Devroy Thomas and the Arau Village Council versus the Attorney General, that the Court ruled that “the applicants Devroy Thomas and the Arau Village Council were entitled to an environment that is not harmful to their well-being”.
The respondents GGMC and GoG “have a duty to make reasonable efforts to ensure that such mining activities, though outside the titled land, do not affect interim rights and the value to the land of the applicants.”
There have also been issues of the Village Council not wanting to renew agreements because of allegations of breach of faith by the miner viz: Wayne Vieira and the Chinese Landing Village Council of Region One.
Issues of pollution of river and creek water used by villagers — in the Kariako and other villages of the Barama River of Region 1, and in the Arau Village — continually engaged the attention of the Minister of Amerindian Affairs and the MoAA, the GGMC, miners working with the affected villages to address the village concerns.
Recall the training of persons identified by several of the titled villages to serve as Community Mine Rangers for their villages: a commendable effort on the part of the GGMC, as these Rangers were tasked with assisting in monitoring mining activities in their respective villages. Yes, there are social and economic issues associated with mining activities across Guyana. And while we must address these issues/concerns, the social costs must be weighed against the opportunity costs. In this regard, the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs/the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission /the Environmental Protection Agency/the Amerindian Village Councils/the miners themselves all have an important role to play.
Sincerely,
Norman Whittaker
Former Advisor, Ministry of Amerindian Affairs
Former Minister of Local Government & Regional Developmenta
