Dear Editor,
Recently in the local press there has been an orchestrated attempt to resurrect a conversation about landlordism in the mining sectors, specifically with reference to the local medium-scale operators who have been in the industry for more than 30 years. This sudden, renewed interest on an already settled matter stems from a recently published report (Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Management and Systems Review Inception Report) authored by GW Walrond, LJL. Heesterman and J Goolsarran. In light of this inception report the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miner’s Association (GGDMA) would like to put on record, once again, its position on the issue of “landlordism.”
The Association is greatly surprised that these brilliant and qualified individuals did not apparently do basic research on this issue otherwise they would have noted that the issue was already dealt with extensively, by way of the Special Land established Use Committee (SLUC), established by former President Jagdeo in 2009. This committee was established as a result of the Guyana-Norway agreement for forest use (under the LCDS) to ensure that there is effective monitoring of forest use.
We therefore offer a background. This original committee was chaired by Minister Robeson Benn and comprised members such as Mr Odinga Lumumba, Mr William Woolford, Mr James Singh, Mr Kwesi Bremner, Mr Norman McLean, Mr Afro Alphonso, Mr Edward Shields, Mr Stanislaus Jardine, Mr Mahendra Persaud, Mr Patrick Pereira and Mr Patrick Harding. A total of 12 meetings was held by this first committee. After the initial report was submitted, additional miners demanded to be included in the committee since it was floated that the GGDMA did not represent all levels of miners. This led to additional members being included by President Jagdeo to represent:
- Bartica (Mr Frederick McWilfred, Mrs Simona Broomes, Mr Colin Hopkinson – alternate),
- Mahdia (Mr Timothy Junor and Mr V Harding -alternate)
- North West District (Mr Ramesh Deonarine and Mr C St Romain- alternate).
The reconstituted committee held a total of 26 meetings over the period March 5, 2010 to October 27, 2010 with over 70% participation at each meeting. In this reconstituted committee the issue of “landlordism” was raised by Mr Odinga Lumumba, and was dealt with under the heading of capping. As a consequence, several submissions were made including one from the GGDMA on capping which identified almost 12 million acres which could have been made available for mining at short notice.
This calculation was done based on empirical evidence and clearly demonstrated that the problem was not the availability of land, rather that these lands were held by GGMC under several mechanisms, including state reserves and closed areas. Submissions were also made by the representative of Bartica and an independent submission was made by Mr Dabria Marcus. As a consequence there was the consensus of the committee in the final report, that there will be no capping.
It also begs the question of whether the terms of reference for these hired consultants prevents them from accessing or considering previous studies and reports in the sector. A simple library check would have revealed that a consultant was also employed by the GGMC to examine the ISO compliance and certification, that there was also a report done by Jones and John, which if implemented, could have prevented the staff strike. Additionally there are the copious notes and decisions from the monthly board meeting of the GGMC; these dealt with several of the issues omitted from consideration.
The GGDMA notes with alarm that the proposal by authors of the current “inception report” and the fact that figures relating to the majority of the land, where no mining is done (only prospecting and reconnaissance), have not been published. Only the figures for the land used by the medium and small-scale miners have been published.
Dr Grantley Walrond, who served on both sides, both as Commissioner of Mines and as one of the large scale licensees of some of the best prospecting licences in Guyana, among which are the well-known Quartz-stone (auctioned for $28 million dollars) and Sardina Hill (initially auctioned for $80 million), is quite aware that the existing Mining Act and regulations do cater for those who occupy land and are not beneficially using it. For example at the level of claims, anyone not working their claim for a period of two years can be challenged and may lose it. In terms of medium-scale licences it is only issued initially for a period of three years and can be renewed twice for one year each, after which the mining laws and regulations come into effect. Persons will then have to either apply for a new licence or said licence is cancelled, a fact Mr Waldron is well aware of since it has had a significant impact on properties once held under his name.
Since the GGDMA position paper was submitted in 2010 over a million acres of land has been added to the closed area committee (approximately 1000 claims were abandoned or given back each month for one reason or another). A preliminary investigation would have shown an average of 1000 medium-scale licences were relinquished over the last year. As of March 31 this year thousands of claims have become invalid due to lack of payment, and while the GGMC has granted an extension until the 30th of April, it is doubtful that most will be renewed, effectively making even more lands available. The question therefore of mineral lands not being available is moot. The question therefore is why this proposal on landlordism? It is most obvious that certain individuals want the government to breach their contractual agreement with licensees by taking away lands from legitimate holders and giving it to others. It is the opinion of the GGDMA that a more pertinent recommendation should look into a capping, not of land being used for mining and economic development, but rather on the amount of land that can be held within the closed area mechanism.
There is also repeated reference to the “allocation” of land. For the record the GGDMA would like to clarify that lands for mining are not “allocated” and there are only four known legal methods of getting mining lands, these are:
- Locating and applying for a claim
- Via lottery- this is restricted and only small miners are allowed to participate
- By way of public auction -this mechanism has yielded the GGMC in excess of $455 million in auction fees for 2014 alone. This excludes the rental fees that must be paid annually.
- Via the free market system of sale and transfer by which one can buy and sell property acquired.
Outside of these methods no other system exists for acquiring mining lands, despite what the consultants would have one believe. The subtle suggestion that lands be seized and reallocated outside of a free market system one would hope is not the government’s intention.
The GGDMA appreciates the fact that the Chairman of the GGMC did hold a meeting with stakeholders and they were briefed on the initial report submitted. Additionally the Chairman has stated that before a final report is accepted the consultants must consult with the stakeholders. The Association welcomes and appreciates this consideration, since it is better late than never.
In conclusion, what is the definition of landlordism? No miner owns the property for which a licence is granted; the owners remain the state, for which an annual rental fee is charged. One suspects that this is the reason that mines officers are employed by the state to ensure that there is compliance with the laws, regulations and contracts. One must remember that the state is the guardian of all minerals in Guyana, miners are simply the tenants and both must operate within the law.
Only the claim licence, once one pays their rent, can be held indefinitely, all other licences are subjected to a limited period of time. In addition, any failure to pay rental immediately grants the authority to cancel the licence without need for any additional reason. Despite this the GGDMA recognized and appreciated the fact that the Minister uses his discretion to grant persons extensions to pay rental and penalties. To date many of the experienced and hardened operators in the sector, who invested in the sector when the gold was well below US$300 per ounce, have been faithfully paying their rentals. These in many cases add up to billions of dollars in revenue to the GGMC. It is useful to note that many at that hard time, were barely scraping out a living in the mining sector, and it would be grossly unfair to punitively deprive them of lands legally acquired and maintained. There has been a conscious investment of time and money to ensure that there is continuity by the larger operators and the Association finds it mind boggling that fly-by-night operators are seeking to use political leverage to claim lands legally rented and to tempt the government to act outside of the law. We have already seen this in action when, during the height of the gold price, several non-miners entered the arena largely as real estate agents acquiring and selling lands for exorbitant prices without any regard for the future of the industry.
There is enough land held in the closed area system by the GGMC that all can mine, and with the recent abandonment of several new claims even more land is available to be issued. The issue of landlordism therefore rests with the holders of the land, the state. We agree legitimate miners need land and will not allow the government to divide the little that we have while hoarding the lion’s share of Guyana’s mineral wealth. The Association demands an immediate consideration and release of some of the millions acres of land being held by the GGMC.
Yours faithfully,
Edward ShieldsExecutive
Director (rtd)/
Management Consultant GGDMA
