The concession by the government that there would be no ban on mercury and river dredging has shown how ineffective the environmental community is on pursuing issues of national interest, the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) says, even as it called for a review of “inadequate” mining regulations.
Earlier this month, following a meeting with President Donald Ramotar, miners won assurances of no bans on river mining or on the use of mercury. Miners had ratcheted up the pressure on the government over these issues by declaring a vote of no-confidence in Minister of Natural Resources and Mining Robert Persaud and had vowed to step up action. Their aggressive stance had followed a June announcement by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) that effective June 1, 2012 no application for river claims would be processed. Following an outcry by miners, the government later said that the prohibition of river claims was to last only one month to allow a review in light of reports of irresponsible mining. It is unclear what this review found or whether it had been completed.
Yesterday, the GHRA said in a statement that after decades of mining activities in the country, fortunes in Guyana’s mining industry are still to be translated into wealth nationally and environmental protection for communities from which these resources are extracted. The organisation said that it understands that royalties paid to the government by miners do not exceed 5% of their earnings for small and medium scale miners, while for large scale mining, though evaluated on a case by case basis, reports noted that this amount does not exceed 8%.
The GHRA lamented the “complete silence” from international environmental NGOs such as the Iwokrama International Centre (IIC) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), who use Guyana as a base for their environmental work. However, it noted that Conservation International Guyana (CIG) has spoken out against the exploitation of the rivers.
“It is intriguing why these NGOs are not more resolute in offering support for the ban on river mining as such type of mining impacts the very places they are aiming to protect as well as communities they work with. Iwokrama Forest, Kanuku Mountains, Shell Beach, Kaieteur Falls and Konashen are not isolated from such impacts; rivers and creeks flow through these protected areas and affect communities within and surrounding these sites. Indeed, as these international NGOs aim to sell ecosystem services of Guyana on the global market, it is important that the values of the services they aim to sell are not degraded along the way,” the GHRA said.
“How independent these environmental NGOs are in lieu of funding shifts, and how this hampers their role in advocacy is a key question. The government has been bailing out Iwokrama Centre for several years; while both WWF and CIG have undergone “restructuring” which has seen a shift in their funding priorities as well as cuts. This further exacerbates the need to “advocate” for funding from different sources including through the Government of Guyana and its LCDS programme; where lots of money is piling up for potential projects on the environment and in communities,” it added.
The GHRA said that within a Low Carbon Development Strategy context, there is little doubt that mining has contributed both directly and indirectly to climate change through deforestation. However, it said, there is little effort made in addressing the impacts on natural resources, including the river system, by mining as it is seen as too complex and/or too controversial.
The human rights organisation referred to a recent article in Stabroek News on the Region Seven community of Kurutuku and said that this gives further substance to the call for a ban on river mining. “Despite several meetings with the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs and the Prime Minister, no solution has been adopted to decrease sediment content in water (“pollution”) as a result of these mining activities in the community and surrounding waters. Such increases in sediment load in rivers affect the ecology and biology of fishes and other species on which communities depend as part of their way of life. There is little doubt that similar scenarios occur in communities where river mining is prevalent,” the GHRA asserted.
It said that what is worrying is the role the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA) has taken to redirect concerns for the environment and communities. “GGDMA behaves as a petulant child throwing tantrums if they do not get their way; preventing a real discourse from occurring and therefore clear directives for long-term sustainability of our rivers and waterways. Even more disquieting is their latest “objection” to the UNDP project for “the lands set aside to be allocated, and/or demarcated, as/or for extension to Amerindian titled lands” and their threat of non-participation in Mining Week if the now former Chair of GGMC, Major General (ret’d) Joe Singh, did not resign. Amerindians have been advocating for years for demarcation and extension to their land in face of growing population and concerns over access to traditional/ancestral lands,” the statement said. Singh has since resigned.
The GHRA said that the “inadequate regulations governing small and medium scale miners and environmental damage that they incur need to be reviewed and properly documented.” It noted that no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required for the small and medium scale mining industry and the organisation understands that miners lodge approximately $100,000 as a base for rehabilitation of mined sites, but costs for complete rehabilitation of a small scale mine is estimated at approximately $4 million.
“The claim that mining is a major contributor to our GDP does not absolve those in the industry from applying responsible mining practices, including consideration for the long term sustainability of rivers and the well being of those who utilise same. Markets cannot be the only driving factor for engagement, particularly in light of Guyana’s move towards a Low Carbon economy. Price mechanism is not the appropriate or effective way for determining the value communities and citizens place on its rivers and waterways. As highlighted previously the “basic right to mine” is trumped resoundingly by both the communal claims of indigenous communities and the longer term interests of the larger society. In this light, a broader consultation process is necessary with a policy shift that enables development but not at the cost of our rivers and the right to health,” the GHRA said.
