Last
week, I raised the issue of dissent within the NTC Executive body and the possibility that the IDB might be implicated in fuelling this fissure between Toshaos who are promoting an APA agenda and the others. If this is found to be true, then it can be interpreted as the Inter-American Development Bank’s (IDB) defence in light of its failure to efficiently disburse funds under the Forest and Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), to Amerindian communities.
However, the IDB is not the only international organisation which has failed time and again to adapt to the needs of and challenges faced by indigenous communities. The United Nations offices in Guyana, in the different projects they have undertaken, have also demonstrated varying degrees of inflexibility and negligence for on-the-ground realities which collide with their international guidelines and practices.
While it is understood that international organisations function on the basis of mandatory financial and operational standards, one sometimes feel that these principles do not leave space for the specificities of the contexts in which partnerships with subject stakeholders are executed.
Such might again be the case of the European Union Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (EU FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA). The VPA is a bilateral agreement between the EU and the engaging country, in this case, Guyana, which comprises an export market for timber.
Most naturally, if stakeholder demands are not examined and negotiated into an agreement, there can be no partnership between the Government of Guyana and the EU. Well at least not legally.
Amerindians, being inhabitants of and depending directly on our rainforest for their livelihood, survival and cultural preservation, are stakeholders of this partnership, being represented through the Indigenous Peoples Affairs Ministry, the NTC and civil organisations. Since 2012, conditions for implementing the VPA in keeping with indigenous rights were being discussed among stakeholders.
Yet, the draft VPA appears to omit most of these conditions, and subsequently presents significant inconsistencies with the Laws of Guyana. The NTC highlighted these concerns, reminding that despite having committed to observing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN) guidelines on indigenous livelihood, the draft VPA has fallen short of these frameworks.
Among these anomalies, is the possibility of lumber being removed from indigenous communities without their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). FPIC continues to be at the heart of rights violations regardless of the actor involved, and for the simple reason that information by itself is power.
Another objection cited was the short time frame allotted to the finalisation of the VPA, which is believed to be a deliberate move to limit stakeholder participation and input. If this is the case, then not only will the EU be disregarding international frameworks on indigenous rights, but so will the Government of Guyana.
The role of the Government is crucial in ensuring that the Constitutional and specific indigenous rights of Amerindians are respected by international organisations and all other stakeholders to Guyana’s development.
Failure to comply with procedural and qualitative requirements of legal and internationally frameworks on indigenous rights by international organisations, is conducive to deficiencies and other legal gaps in the establishment of partnerships, putting the minority indigenous population at risk. Here, both the Government and EU will be culpable of violating indigenous rights, especially if FPIC is not being adhered to in the VPA process.
In this particular case, where it is the sustainable economic development of Guyana that is at stake, several conventions protect indigenous peoples’ rights, including the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which were ratified by Guyana and consequently legally binding. Therefore, instead of rushing through the VPA process at the expense of Amerindians, it is recommended that the principle of FPIC guide the discussions among stakeholders.
Amidst the dissatisfaction expressed by Amerindians in light of the turn the VPA discussions have taken, as well as irregularities in the implementation of other projects under bilateral partnerships, we must question the level of commitment from international organisations to respect national legal structures, as well as the international frameworks which guarantee our rights, particularly indigenous rights, in Guyana. But au finale, the Government is to be held fully accountable for any rights violation committed by international organisations, as it is responsible for the security and well-being of its people.
