Dear Editor,
The 2006 Amerindian Act makes provision from Sections 48 to 53 for dealing with mining in the Amerindian Villages and provides safeguards for the villagers if they allow mining activities within the boundaries of their Titled Villages.
During my tenure as Advisor to the Minister of Amerindian Affairs, the Hon. Pauline Sukhai M.P.; we did cause to be prepared a Mining Tem-plate to guide the Amerindian Village Councils in preparing a Mining Agreement with an Investor.
This template covers, inter alia, issues raised and concerns expressed over time by Village Toshaos, Village Councillors, the Board of Directors of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs (MOAA) and consensus on procedural issues i.e. how these must be addressed. In this regard also, reference was made to several relevant sections of the 2006 Amerindian Act, the 1989 Mining Act, the 1996 Environmental Protection Act and the obligations of the contracting Parties under these Agreements.
Most of the mining activities on Village lands are of a small and medium scale and here, the Village Council has powers of veto under the 2006 Amerindian Act
Prior to the 2006 Amerindian Act, there was no legal requirement for consultation with the villages. There-after, persons wishing to mine in the Amerindian Titled villages were required to consult with the Village and get the approval of two thirds of the residents present at the Village General meeting at which the Mining application was considered.
Thus no new miner could mine in a Titled Village without the express-ed permission of the Village.
Those Miners who had already entered into Agreements prior to the Act were allowed to complete the unexpired period of the Agreement and expected to enter into a new Agreement with the Village or the GGMC could not issue them with a Mining Permit.
Except for a small number of cases, miners were able to effect Agreements with Village Councils. The Ministry of Amerindian Affairs helped in some cases by providing advice to the Council and seeking GGMC’s intervention where considered necessary.
For the first time, Village Councils could include in their Agreements provisions to cover employment of persons from the Village; purchases of food from the villages, provision of social services by the Miner/ Investor, a minimum tribute to be paid by the Miner etc.
A number of Miners who were established before the 2006 Amerindian Act have successfully challenged the decisions of GGMC before the Court. These include:
Winston Rambarran against GGMC and the Micobie Village Council before Justice Roxane George in a decision dated 19/02/2009
Lalta Narine against GGMC and the Isseneru Village Council of Region 7 before Justice Bovell-Drakes in a decision dated August 18th, 2008
However, it should be noted in the case of Devroy Thomas and the Arau Village Council versus the Attorney General that the Court ruled that “the applicants Devroy Thomas and the Arau Village Council were entitled to an environment that is not harmful to their well-being”. The respondents GGMC and GOG “have a duty to make reasonable efforts to ensure that such mining activities though outside the Titled Land do not affect interim rights and the value to the land of the applicants.”
There have also been issues of the Village Council not wanting to renew Agreements because of allegations of breach of faith by the Miner viz: Wayne Vieira and the Chinese Landing Village Council of Region 1.
Issues of pollution of river and creek water used by Villagers viz; in the Kariako and other Villages of the Barama River of Region 1 and in the Arau Village continually engaged the attention of the Minister of Amerindian Affairs and the MOAA, the GGMC and miners working with the affected Villages to address the Village concerns.
Recall the training of persons identified by several of the Titled Villages to serve as Community Mines Rangers for their Villages: a commendable effort on the part of the GGMC as these Rangers were tasked with assisting in monitoring mining activities in their respective Villages. Yes there are social and economic issues associated with mining activities across Guyana. And while we must address these issues/ concerns; the social costs must be weighed against the opportunity costs. In this regard, the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs/the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission/the Environmental Protection Agency/the Amerindian Village Councils/ the Miners themselves all have an important role to play.
Yours faithfully,
Norman Whittaker
former Advisor, Ministry of
Amerindian Affairs
former Minister of Local Govern-
ment & Regional Development
