Dear Editor,
I wish to refer to Ms Janet Bulkan’s letter under the caption ‘The basic data on which the LCDS ideas are founded are still to be placed in the public domain’ carried in the Stabroek News in its issue of 19.3.2010.
(1) Amerindian human rights lawyer and leading APA activist Mr David James in an independent opinion in the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) report on the LCDS consultations said, “The LCDS has established the principle of FPIC as the standard for Amerindian communities to ‘opt in’ to the Forest Protection Programme.” He went on to say, “The LCDS to date, has made significant efforts to ensure that the requirements of FPIC have been complied with.” (p 13). The IIED’s report at page 7 stated, “The process was guided by nine standard best practice and internationally recognized principles: Transparency, inclusivity, information, timeliness, representation, flexibility, clarity, account ability and continuity.” The report further said, “It is the opinion of this team that the consultative process, to the extent that its findings inform a revised LCDS, can be considered credible, transparent and inclusive.” Who will Ms Bulkan believe, the APA conference notes or a reputable international organisation approved by the Government of Guyana and Norway? What is also important for Ms Bulkan to know is that, while the Government of Guyana respects and upholds the rights of its indigenous peoples, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous is not a legal binding agreement or treaty. Often a declaration is the first step towards adopting a binding convention or treaty that would impose legal obligations on the countries that ratify it. It is therefore widely assumed that a universal convention on the rights of indigenous peoples will be developed by the UN based upon the declaration.
(2) The presentations at the consultations were done in very simple English and backed by strong translation support. The presentations were long, not rushed or hurried and all aspects of the LCDS were covered including ‘opting in’ and ‘opting out’ of the strategy. What is important to note is that the LCDS as a national strategy is not cast in a stone, and as such there will be on- going consultations with the Amerindian communities. It must be noted, however, that it is only Guyana’s State Forest estate (SFE) that is committed to the LCDS and not the forested lands of titled Amerindian communities unless they choose to opt into the strategy, giving their consent and at their own pace.
(3) The land matter of the six Amerindian communities in the Upper Mazaruni is no doubt being sensationalized both at the national and international levels to give the misleading impression that Guyana has a big problem concerning the land rights of its indigenous peoples. This is misleading. The problem with the six Upper Mazaruni communities is that while they each have title to their lands and have village councils, they are seeking or claiming additional lands. But instead of engaging the government in this matter they were advised by the APA to take legal action against the government.
The matter is presently in the High Court. But while Ms Bulkan has expressed concerns about the land rights of Guyana’s indigenous peoples, she was silent on the land issues of the indigenous peoples of Suriname when she was on the panel reviewing Suriname’s Readiness Preparation Proposal (RPP) for World Bank funding. Also she did not raise objections with the Suriname authorities on the inclusion of the New River Triangle, a portion of Guyana on their RPP maps. Can Ms Bulkan tell the Guyanese people what went wrong here?
(4) For Ms Bulkan to say that the first and second versions of the LCDS are merely shopping lists of development projects on the coastal plain not backed by baseline studies is a matter of her own opinion. They are many critics on the LCDS who write all sorts of negative things about the strategy without first consulting with the Office of Climate Change (OCC) for authentic information.
(5) The OCC conducts its work with transparency and all information regarding the LCDS is placed in the public domain. Ms Bulkan just has to check the LCDS website which she does on a regular basis. However if she is not finding the information she needs, she can either call or visit the OCC.
(6) Can Ms Bulkan indicate the Amerindian communities which repeatedly requested information on the LCDS and did not receive any? Ms Bulkan should be reasonable enough to seek clarification from the APA as to why in the first place they have rejected the membership offer to serve on the Multi-Stakeholder Steering Committee where they could have also been a conduit of LCDS information for Amerindian communities. But now after nine months, the APA is complaining and will continue to do so.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Persaud
