The APA does not speak for Indigenous people of Guyana – (Part 2)

Dear Editor,
LCDS 2030 was officially launched in October 2021 by H.E President Ally. The President, at the launch, highlighted that the document would be open for public comments and consultation. The LCDS states LCDS 2030 Draft for consultation. The document can be found on the LCDS website www.lcds.gov.gy. We lived in the age of technology. The MSSC was then resuscitated in December 2021, with the first meeting being held in February 2022, where a broad cross-section of civil society organisations, Private Sector organisations, ALL of the Amerindian/Indigenous NGOs, Government, 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 notice and opportunity to give comments and participate in the process of the setting up of the MSSC. Nothing can be more transparent than this.
Low 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 1 in the Northwest to Region 10 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, in-person consultation took place nationwide, and is still continuing. Hundreds of communities across all ten regions were consulted, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, Private Sector, NGOs, civil society, academic institutions, bankers, youths, Government Ministries and organs, international community, donors, chamber of commerce, municipalities, Local Democratic Organs, regional administration, village leaders, religious community, and the general public at large. Numerous sessions were held, covering thousands of Guyanese across the length and breadth of Guyana. In Regions 7 and 8, and to some extent Region 1, 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 Region 1: Sacred Heart, St Dominic, Aruka Mouth, Arukamai, Aruau, Hobedia, Hotoquai, Lower Kaituma, Barima/Kariabo, Black Water Savannah, Lower Kariabo, Red Hill, Baracina, Wauna, Canal Bank, Tobago, Wanaina, Hosororo, Koberimo, Khan’s Ville/Hill, Hobo Hill, Thomas Hill, Barabina, Mabaruma, Matthew’s Ridge, Arakaka, One Mile, Baramita, Eclipse Falls, 4 Miles, Oronoque, Citrus Grove, Sebai, Fitzburg, and Port Kaituma, Lower Black Water and others.
Region 7: Quebanang, Phillipai, Wayala Yeng, Amokokopai, Kako, Warawatta, Waramadong, Paruima,
Omenaik, and Kambaru Jawalla and other villages.
Region 8: Mountain Foot, Chung Mouth, Kanapang, Penak, Itabac, Kurukabaru, Kamana, Waipa, Sand Hills, Catchcow, Kaibarupai, Kato, Karisparu, Paramakatoi, Bamboo Creek, Tuseneng, Taruka Chenapou, Campbelltown, and Mahdia, etc.
Region 9: Fly Hill, Fairview Surama, Wowetta, Kwatamang, Rupertee, Annai Central, Apoteri, Rewa, Yakarinta, Massara, Kwaimatta, Anaruputa, Toka, Yupukari, Quatata, Kaicumbay, Katoka, Semonie, Crash Water South Rupununi District Council, Sustainable Wildlife Management Project, Sand Creek, Potarinau, Kraudanarau, Maruranau, Aishalton, Quiko, Shea, Baitoon, Achiwib, Sawarenau, Rupanau, Shulinab, and Parikarainau.
At these sessions, the documents are sent in before, shared out at the sessions, made available after on the LCDS website. Nearly all Guyanese have a cell phone, internet facilities are available in many, and most hinterland communities indicated that their comments can be made on the website as well through the LCDS email address, thus there is no shortage on 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, the APA makes lots of false claims in its article, but let the APA produce evidence of how many living Indigenous persons are unable to listen and understand our mother 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 languages are written, some are just spoken; so, in those cases, translation is done on site at the session. From what I witnessed, this was an expressed preference by the Indigenous peoples at the LCDS sessions held.
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 that they 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 consultation 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 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 would want to derail such a national and certainly an internationally impactful programme.
What rights are being violated, and where was the FPIC all these years? During the previous administration, the then President Granger announced that he is committing two million acres to the Protected Area. Inevitably, those two million acres 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 APA has always been anti- PPP, and has been stirring the pot with its lies during the previous PPP Administration, and are again trying to stir the pot and mislead the international community, donor stakeholders, and certainly trying to derail the LCDS financing which Guyana is pursuing to bring tremendous benefits to all Guyanese. The LCDS document itself has a provision that 15% of Guyana’s earning from the carbon credit programme would 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 make a decision not to segment lands separately for Indigenous communities and people.
The forest is a patrimony of all Guyanese, and the policy of this Government has been one of transparency and inclusiveness. Hence 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.
I am calling on all Guyanese, the international community, the ART Secretariat, buyers of carbon credits to reject the APA’s claims on consultations and matters of Indigenous people’s right. Their claims are baseless, and their motives are questionable, to say the least.

Sincerely,
Peter Persaud