Saying the exclusion of indigenous communities from having input on the resumption of mining operations on the Marudi Mountains, in the South Rupununi, Region Nine, violates their right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), indigenous activists have added their voices to the call for government to scrap the deal and hold consultations.
The recent signing of the agreement is being seen as proof of government’s disregard for the rights of indigenous communities of the South Rupununi, a Wapichan territory, who only learnt of the agreement via a post on the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Facebook page. As a result, activists say that government’s approach to the situation has been one of “disrespect,” hence the call for proper consultations to be held.
Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) Governance and Rights Coordinator Laura George, in voicing her concerns, said Guyana must respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples when it comes to extractive activities, including the right to a healthy environment.
“The COVID -19 pandemic has once again demonstrated how policymakers and implementers are non-inclusive of Indigenous Peoples. This is a violation of our rights as citizens to a healthy environment, rivers and ecosystems,” she underscored.
She argued that the imposition of the government “with regards to mining with no consultation nor participatory review of the agreement made in 2016 is disrespectful. In terms of trying to say that mining is good without inclusion to understand the concerns and trying to find out how impacts could be mitigated just speaks to the government double
standards to promoting the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) and Guyana’s commitment to climate change agreements and what they have committed to, for example, under the Cancun safeguards.”
The safeguards aim to ensure that REDD + initiatives adequately address sensitive issues, such as the rights of indigenous peoples and traditional communities, social participation, and preservation of natural ecosystems.
George pointed out that while a team of ministers and government officials visiting the Aishalton to speak with community leaders on the agreement, it was not consultation.
“What happened in Aishalton appears to be attempt at an ambush of the Indigenous Peoples and the South Rupununi District Council,” she argued.
George said that a 2016 agreement on mining on the concession, which saw wide stakeholder participation, should have been implemented in good faith. The agreement was also intended to guide future engagements. If the new administration feels the whole process is to be done differently, George added, fresh consultations should have been held and all parties informed so they could participate in for a fair consultation process.
Kid James, of the South Rupununi District Council, which initially called attention to the agreement, explained that the organisation is currently speaking with its international partners to determine its next move against the deal.
He explained that despite being promised the agreement, they are yet to receive a copy.
He, too, decried the “consultation” held by government, while stating that community leaders only had half an hour to ask questions at a meeting as opposed to government ministers, who spoke for over an hour.
Additionally, he stated that farmers are already seeing the negative impacts of miners returning to the community as the barriers of a recently constructed bridge were destroyed to allow trucks to use it.
James noted that the bridge was constructed through funds secured through the flood recovery programme to assist farmers in having access to transport their produce since it has been difficult to cross the section of a creek.
‘Lasting impacts’
Head of the APA and Former Toshao of Aishalton Tony James, in a letter published in this newspaper last Saturday, also blasted government over the apparent decision to exclude stakeholders of the South Rupununi from consultation.
James noted that while there have been mining permits in the past, changes demand and require meaningful and effective consultation with the people before any agreement can be arrived at.
“…We have previously objected to decisions being made about Marudi without us and we will continue to do so once we are being excluded from decisions that will have lasting impacts on our villages. The continued and serious violation of our rights as Indigenous Peoples to Free Prior Informed Consent and to effectively participate in decision-making affecting us violates the protections in the Constitution of Guyana for our cultural heritage and way of life, as well as the rights protected in international conventions incorporated therein,” he wrote.
“I demand of the present and future governments to respect us as first-class citizens who deserve respect, especially for our rights to our lands, territories and natural resources, our right to be consulted in accordance with our traditional norms, and our right to give our consent, be it negative or positive, free of political interference, intimidation or any other form of coercion,” he further added.
Additionally, he, too, said that while the meeting with the visiting government delegation was framed as a “consultation,” community leaders were provided with no prior information or time to prepare.
He pointed out that Toshao Michael Thomas was only informed of the meeting a day before. “…A regional official visited some communities and told residents to say they support the mining in Marudi and to say that 90% of our people mine in Marudi, when we know that is not true. Agents of the regional official were walking around our villages in the night to have documents signed,” he highlighted as he questioned whether consultations are supposed to be carried out in such a manner.
‘Columbus-ism’
Colin Klautky, Deputy Vice Chairman of the Guyana Organisation of Indigenous Peoples (GOIP), told this newspaper that the Marudi deal signals “Columbus-ism is alive and kicking.”
He stated that for many years, governments have been using the “talk down” approach to persuade and convince indigenous communities that projects can be beneficial to them but added that the need for inclusivity is much more important now.
“It has always been about ‘promises, promises, promises’ but never listening to what the people have to say and how they will be affected. Mining has the impacts that are irreversible and when that changes the environment nobody cannot benefit,” he lamented.
Klautky, who also sits on the Caribbean body representing the rights of the first peoples, added that government must reconsider its approach and engaged those that will be affected in the future.
He stressed that while mining is seen as solution to the economic woes of the communities, only those at the top of the operations continue to reap the benefits. “They come and tell us about jobs and jobs but what are the jobs our people get? It is the servant jobs at the bottom,” he added.
In his view, fresh consultations must be held immediately and the concerns of the Wapichan people must be considered before moving forward with just an agreement.
The mining activities over the years have eaten away a vast portion of the land, destroying not only the environment but the cultural significance of the area to the Wapichan nation, one of three Indigenous tribes that occupy surrounding lands.
A visit earlier this year to Marudi by Stabroek News revealed that gold mining activities in the area have caused damage to the environment, with several creeks and their ecosystems totally destroyed. The Mazoa Mountain, located within the Marudi mountain range, has also seen significant changes, with its peak completely flattened after a 2016 gold rush. The Locust Creek was the latest to have been destroyed by mining activities in the area.
The South Rupununi District Council, in condemning the signing of the agreement without consultation, had said that the mining deal was concluded even though the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) is well aware that “Marutu Taawa (Marudi Mountain) is a sacred place to the Wapichan people and that the area is subject to a pending application for extension of title by Aishalton Village.” The council charged that the GGMC made no attempt to ensure that the Aishalton Village Council, nearby villages, and the Council were involved in the decision-making concerning mining activities on the mountain.
“The Wapichan people are the traditional owners of the lands in question and those who will be forced to live with the consequences of these decisions long after these miners have departed… Learning of this agreement through the Ministry’s Facebook post has set a new low standard for meaningful participation in activities that affect Indigenous communities at a time when ardent efforts are being made to fully account for indigenous peoples rights and apply full Free, Prior and Informed Consent principles by all when engaging our communities,” it declared.
