Twenty-one Amerindians from Chenapau, the Amerindian village juxtaposing the Kaieteur National Park (KNP) in Region 8, were recently charged with illegal mining within the boundaries of the said protected area.
The Indigenous Peoples Affairs Ministry (MoIPA) remained mum, despite being fully cognizant of the fact that floods attaining up to 25ft had last month affected Chenapau and neighbouring communities, destroying farms and other means of daily subsistence. The Allicock administration maintained its usual passive stance, despite that among the 21 persons detained at Eve Leary figured a mother and her baby.
Reports accuse authorities of inadequacies in accommodation and dietary provisions, while the people complained of the insalubrious conditions in which they were detained. Yet, it was the responsibility of MoIPA to intervene on behalf of the detainees, who were in a situation of need and distress.
Released from police custody after their nationally-broadcasted humiliating ordeal, these Patamona natives are now forced before the Mahdia Court, after the Government had invoked several sections of the Protected Areas Act # 14 – 2011, as well as the famous Presidential Order which initiated the arrest.
However, Part VI of the said Act relates to the management of protected areas and provisions for the traditional rights of Amerindians with respect to land, and this implies their needs in terms of subsistence and livelihood. Part VI S. 73, for instance, states: “In order to protect traditional rights, the management authority for a national protected area may enter into an agreement with each Amerindian community and Amerindian village which has traditional rights in the national protected area, and the agreement may provide for [inter alia] (…)
– (b) Systems for monitoring and recording the exercise of traditional rights; (…)”
Interestingly, “traditional rights” here encompass all means of subsistence, including mining, which has been practised by the indigenous peoples of South America long before the Europeans even anchored.
While it is comprehensible that the Government would want to enforce the legislation protecting the KNP, one must ask what measures have to date been implemented to cushion the impact of restrictions imposed on Amerindians, who are now constrained in the use of their ancestral lands.
If the people’s livelihood is threatened by climatic conditions, are we expected to let them starve in the name of a law established in 2011? Are Amerindians expected to suffer the consequences of economic disparity deliberately imposed by the Government, while other prominent Guyanese, such as Minister Broomes, are allowed to mine on proposed-title Amerindian lands?
What are the measures put in place by the KNP management and the Protected Areas Commission to guarantee food security and the livelihood of their Amerindian inhabitants in exchange for the millions of dollars generated annually through State-controlled tourism and other activities?
What percentage of the KNP annual income is invested in the development of the neighbouring Chenapau village?
Are we insinuating that Amerindians are a threat to the environment, even though the indigenous peoples of South America were already guarding the continent in a pristine state long before the other peoples arrived?
And is President Granger the new and absolute authority on indigenous rights in Guyana? This question finds its legitimacy as much in this scenario as in the case of the Commission of Inquiry into African land reparation claims and indigenous land rights, recently forced upon Amerindians by Granger without their free, prior and informed consent. Why wasn’t a Presidential Order dispatched to Minister Broomes to interrupt her mining on Akawaio traditional lands, since she is part of the encumbrance to the village’s land titling process?
If the Coalition continues to ignore indigenous minority rights, what policies does it propose to ensure that Amerindians can keep up with the pace of national socioeconomic development?
Further, how do these policies guarantee Amerindians accessibility and inclusivity in the national decision-making process overlooking their social, economic and political rights?
If President Granger and his administration, in their neglect of internationally recognized indigenous rights, cannot compensate with durable policies which would guarantee the uplifting of Amerindians to the same socioeconomic level as other Guyanese citizens, then they are responsible for the marginalisation of our First Peoples. Since those who deliberately hinder Amerindian land titling, such as Minister Broomes, are not admonished in like manner, then the Government is guilty of bias in the exercise of its duties.
It is therefore our role as citizens to remind the President that a democracy, even in its developing state, cannot accommodate autocratic penchants and ethnic discrimination.
