Dear Editor,
I have been following the protest by miners at Bone Yard, Omai, where they are seeking permission for an extension to mine on a portion of land to which they have no legal entitlement. My biggest question is how did this land become available to these miners when the Commissioner of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) clearly stated that the area was closed? This could only have been possible if the law pertaining to closed areas was flouted.
Also, is GGMC following the mining laws by issuing these miners with parcels of land in Kaburi?
Miners are finding prime mining land very difficult to acquire. Enquiries at GGMC would frequently reveal the following:-
1. Most of the prime mining areas are held in large blocks by a few ‘big name’ miners. Most of these blocks have been held for in excess of 4 years, which is the stipulated legal requirement for them to be mined, with over ¾ yet to be mined.
This has resulted in a shortage of land for other miners while these ‘big miners’ engage in hoarding. Some of these lands are leased to small miners, but this is fraught with uncertainty and bullyism by the block owner if gold is found with very little security from GGMC.
2. GGMC introduced a new regulation where mining blocks that have been returned to the state are held in reserve and disposed of at auction or by lottery. There has been none of this for the past few years, resulting in a large amount of ‘raiding’ on state land because of the shrinking size of mineable lands that are available through legal application.
3. A very large portion of prime mining lands is held in reserve by GGMC for no known reason. Why can’t some of these lands be made available to the miners?
4. Large-scale mining companies also hold very large parcels of land for prospection. By law they should be giving up a portion of this vast area every year. Yet some of these companies have been allowed to hold onto their lands for periods far in excess of the stipulated duration without reducing their acreage.
5. The entire area of southern Guyana is reported to be closed to mining applications, even though there is no legal framework for such a process. This part of Guyana is arguably the least explored, and with the shrinking of mining lands in the known areas of northern Guyana it is inexorable that prospection will extend to this area. Rather than it being through a legal framework, all such activities will be deemed illegal.
6. The Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association is suspiciously quiet on the land issue when they should be in the forefront of seeking more lands for mining activities. Is it because this association is managed by the ‘big name’ miners who have more to lose if the correct legal requirements are implemented?
7. GGMC is encouraging prospection before mining so as to reduce unwanted deforestation. This could be aided if more geological and prospection data, especially from the foreign exploration companies, is made more easily available to the small miner.
The above listed issues are critical to the longevity of the mining industry but it seems that little is being done by the authorities to deal with these issues. There is much comment by GGMC about issues such as raiding and illegal mining operations but much of this stems from the simple fact that good mining lands are no longer easily available. This could be resolved if GGMC puts systems in place to make some of the vast acreage of lands presently held in reserve through closed areas, large-scale mining companies, repossessed blocks, etc, available to the miners.
The new Minster of Natural Resources’ comments have been encouraging in that he is seeking a review of the mining system and he also chided the GGDMA for not dealing with the issues of small miners. He is advised to make the land allocation issue one of his main priorities and to make the playing field more level for large and small miners alike.
He could start by repealing the system whereby mining blocks are put into reserve and make them immediately available to miners who have the means and intent to mine the areas within the stipulated time-frame.
He needs to implement a system where there is a level playing field which should not be distorted towards those who have the financial means or political clout to twist the system in their favour.
This brings the Omai saga into the limelight, and hopefully, the GGMC, in the interest of transparency, will respond:-
1. The Omai area has been closed since the days of the Omai Mining Company. How then did GGMC grant permission to those miners to operate in Bone Yard and what documentation was required by GGMC? Wasn’t this permission a contravention of the mining regulations? If, as the GGMC Commissioner pointed out, it was done on compassionate grounds, how can other miners receive similar ‘compassion’? Indeed, what legal grounds are there for ‘compassionate’ permission to mine?
2. Further, the GGMC Commissioner has said that 48 parcels of land were given to the miners in Kaburi. Was this land available for location? From my limited knowledge of the Kaburi area, it is entirely enclosed by mining blocks that are already owned. The only available land in this area are medium-scale blocks that were returned to the state. By legal process these blocks are due to go to auction or lottery. Isn’t this system of direct allocation to these Bone Yard miners an unfair advantage (or illegal process of allocation) over other prospective miners who may have had an interest in this area and were waiting on the lottery/auction to apply?
By giving this group of miners additional land is extending favouritism towards them, while other miners have little chance of owning blocks with mining potential. It is strongly suggested that there be review of this allocation and that this group of miners be subjected to an auction/lottery over these lands along with other miners who are interested in the area?
3. What is the size of mining operations in Bone Yard? Was it only small land dredges or was there heavy-duty machinery, such as excavators and bulldozers also? If there was heavy-duty machinery then it points to a well-financed operation and prompts the question as to whether it was morally correct for GGMC to subvert the law for this group of miners who are well financed.
4. Is this Bone Yard situation the only one in the mining industry? Or are (were) there other such instances?
5. What is the production record from Bone Yard during the period of mining activities?
In closing I would like to suggest to GGMC and the Minister that, rather than pandering to a very small group of miners they should be implementing strategies that would benefit the entire mining industry rather than a favoured few. The land issue which is the bone of the Bone Yard problem exists throughout the mining industry, and every effort should be made to resolve it in the interest of the industry; one that is literally deemed the golden sector of this country.
Simply put, some of those large acreages of land held in reserve by GGMC must be made available to the miners. It shouldn’t only be those with ‘contacts’ who can get lands.
To those politicians that have been treating the Bone Yard miners as though they are victims, just consider the many thousand other miners who can’t get proper lands to mine but have no voice to express their concerns. They have no one to turn to to get lands on ‘compassionate’ grounds. The politicians would be better served by seeking inclusive consultation on the way forward for all small miners in the mining industry, rather than highlighting the (un)lucky few who were able to mine at Bone Yard for the past few months and who made a fortune in a short time-frame.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address
provided)
