Last week the Stabroek News drew to public attention the fact that Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment Robert Persaud had signed a Permission for Geological and Geophysical Survey (PGGS) in the New River Triangle in favour of a company called Muri Brasil Ventures Inc. This was after a copy of the PGGS and an anonymous letter had been circulated to the media and certain officials. The New River Triangle is to all intents and purposes one of the few remaining pristine forest areas in the country and is highly ecologically sensitive, which is why there has always been a kind of inchoate understanding on all sides that it should be environmentally protected. Even the ministry in earlier statements had indicated that no mining was contemplated there.
It now transpires, however, that the PGGS was signed on November 7 last year, and as we reported on December 11 this year, the company involved will be looking for rare earths, bauxite, limestone, nepheline, syenite, gold, diamonds and granite stones. It might be noted in passing that according to Friday’s Wall Street Journal, China controls about 80% of the world’s 17 rare minerals, which are used in commodities such as consumer electronics and car components, as well as in defence systems. It would come as no surprise to learn, therefore, that the search to find other sources of rare earths around the world is being pursued with some vigour, and as observers commented to this newspaper last week, given their strategic importance it calls into question government policy in this area and whether any and every company should be allowed to survey for these minerals, let alone explore for them.
The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment responded with some expedition to the report on the permission, drawing attention to the fact that Muri Brasil Ventures’ expression of interest predated the creation of the ministry, and that the PGGS was done in keeping with ISO-certified procedures. It should be said that both of these justifications are irrelevant to the issue, and where the second is concerned, the question is whether the permission should have been given at all, not whether it was compliant with certified procedures when it was.
The centrepiece of the ministry’s defence, however, was that the PGGS was exclusively an exploration licence, which did “not include any mining and/or profit related activities.” It went on to say that a prospecting licence required in-depth and intensive exploration, while the permission was a reconnaissance form of exploration which could then move to a prospecting licence for further exploration. It hardly needs remarking, one would have thought, that any company prepared to invest in exploration would only do so if they had some reasonable hope that they would eventually be granted a prospecting licence; however, in this particular instance they had better than a hope, and herein lies the first of the Minister’s major problems.
As we reported last week, a critical clause in the PGGS commits the GGMC to granting a maximum of 18 prospecting licences to the company should it apply for such at any point during the life of the permission, and provided it satisfies the requirements of the work programme for the geological and geophysical survey and tenders proof to the Minister of financial resources and technical capabilities to carry out its work programme. The permission also says that the GGMC shall treat such applications on “a priority basis.” The benchmarks given in the PGGS are quite straightforward ones, this newspaper was told.
So here we have a situation whereby prospecting licences will more-or-less automatically follow from the permission if applied for, and that these will have to be treated as priority by the GGMC. This inevitably raises the question as to whether this route was not deliberately chosen, because mining is in fact what was intended in the area all along. As was pointed out to this newspaper last week, there was always the option of a prospecting licence which comes under the jurisdiction of the GGMC, while the PGGS, in contrast, is solely within the remit of the Minister. In addition, according to APNU’s Joe Harmon, this is the first one which has ever been issued.
Which brings us to the Minister’s second major problem: what exactly did he (or his ministry) say to whom, and when, on this and related questions. Chronologically speaking, the first statements predated our story of December 10, coming as a consequence of reports of a road being built in the south-east of the country towards the New River Triangle, dubbed the Parabara road (another curious tale). In a letter to this newspaper published on November 27 this year, Permanent Secretary Joslyn McKenzie wrote: “I am further advised that whilst the GGMC had previously received several applications within the New River Triangle area, there are no mining permits issued east of the New River.” Given the existence of the permission and its terms, this could hardly be described as an adequate account of the current situation.
Minister Persaud himself did no better on the same date when appearing before the parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Natural Resources, also in connection with the Parabara road. He stated ‘categorically’ that no mining permit licences or permission for mining had been given in the New River Triangle or the contiguous area, and the “position of the government at this point in time is not to permit mining in that specific area…” When asked by Mr Harmon whether any permission had been issued “or anything for any activity other than mining say for example forestry…” he replied that he had been told by the staff there was no permitted forestry operation in the area.
In a letter to this newspaper on Friday, Mr Parmanand Persaud made a misplaced accusation against Stabroek News over the paraphrasing of a tiny portion of what the Minister said to the committee ‒ in fact there was little semantic difference between that and the parliamentary record ‒ but his precise words still do not insulate him from the charge that his language was designed to mask, not reveal. In a generous gesture, Mr Harmon called it being “economical with the truth.”
And then there was what the ministry said about disclosures made to the media earlier in the year concerning the survey and the New River Triangle; however, Stabroek News has not found any reference to these. It also indicated that the information was shared with the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), in addition to the sectoral committee and in the National Assembly in answer to a question.
On Friday, the GHRA in a press release clarified the “precise information” the ministry had furnished it (this again, it might be noted, because the association had issued a statement on the Parabara road). The release adverted to being told of an aerial survey to determine the presence of “rare earth” in the south Rupununi area. The GHRA then asked whether the survey “would lead to granting of prospecting licences,” and was given the assurance that it “carried no such implications.” The statement went on to say that the company which had been granted the permission was not mentioned, neither the details of the PGGS. If this is an accurate rendering of what transpired, it says nothing for Minister Persaud’s candour.
So now we have a situation where the Parabara road issue unlocked the ‘secret’ of the New River Triangle PGGS which had been kept hidden for a year. The phraseology of the permission itself is such that it will set us on the road to mining in the area, which is unquestionably why the Minister has been so ‘economical’ with his information all around. There should be no question of any activity in the New River Triangle or neighbouring areas which would compromise the ecology of that part of Guyana, and the terms of this PGGS would do just that.
The whole arrangement, in fact, is nothing short of disreputable, and is merely the latest in a series of deals concluded clandestinely that do not meet even the most rudimentary standards of transparency and due process. In this particular case, however, the New River Triangle is also a critical part of the forest patrimony of Guyanese, of which this generation is the custodian. Minister Persaud no doubt does not regard himself as selling off that patrimony, but his recent actions amount to the same thing whether he intends it or not.
In the light of this scandal, the onus is on President Donald Ramotar to ensure that two things happen in the immediate future: the first is to rescind the PGGS, and the second is to divest the Ministry of Natural Resources of the ‘Environment’ portion of the portfolio. The two segments after all are fundamentally contradictory, and no single minister can reasonably do justice to both. Whatever else he may be, Mr Robert Persaud is not by instinct or intent an environmentalist.
