Irresponsible Logging and Mining Negatively Affecting Indigenous People
4/26/97
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Information Update
26 April 1997
UnderMINING Indigenous Peoples and the Environment in Guyana
In early April 1997, Guyana's President, Sam Hinds travelled to a Miami
Conference entitled "Investment in the Americas". The main reason for
this trip was to lobby for foreign investment, particularly in the mining
sector. He bragged that Guyana should be one of the first countries that
mining companies consider for investment because the Government recognizes
the need to sustain and encourage large scale exploration and investment
in the mining sector. He added, almost as an afterthought, that Guyana
was also committed to protecting the environment and the rights of
Indigenous peoples. The President's rhetoric about the environment and
Indigenous rights, however, does not survive even a cursory look at
situation in Guyana. Both mining and logging, the scale of which can be
characterized as totally irreponsible, are being conducted without
adequate monitoring and regulation and with a total disregard for
Indigenous rights.
The records of some of the companies involved is also cause for much
concern. Discussing the rights of Indigenous peoples, Hinds said that even
though the Government is the legal owner of subsoil resources, it is
working to assure Amerindians that they will benefit from the search for
minerals on their lands. The issue of whether Amerindians find the
activities of mining companies on their ancestral lands desirable or
appropriate seems to be irrelevant. In fact, many Amerindian communities
and all Amerindian organizations in Guyana have vigorously opposed the
granting of concessions to mining companies on Amerindian lands, viewing
these activities as violations of their human rights, cultural integrity
and future survival as distinct peoples. They are demanding that all
outstanding issues related to Amerindian land rights, including
demarcation, must be resolved prior to the granting of mining or logging
concessions; that they must participate fully in any decisions affecting
their lands and territories and; that an adequate and participatory
monitoring system must be in place before more concessions
are granted.
The granting of a mining concession to Brazilian company, Zamuteba,
illustrates of what is happening in Guyana. The agreement with Zamuteba
was signed by the Government of Guyana on 26 August 1996. It allows the
company, described as a former Angolan company, to conduct geological and
geophysical surveys for all minerals in two areas totalling 6,000 square
kilometres or 1.7 million hectares. Zamuteba, which has been active in
Brazil for the past 5 years, is presently working a diamond mine in Angola
and a gold mine in Povronia state, Brazil.
In a petition to the Government dated 22.02.97, 11 village Captains and 26
village councillors from Region 8, which lies in Cental-west Guyana on the
border with Brazil, complained: that they were not consulted or even
notified about the granting of a mining concession to Zamuteba; that they
were concerned about negative impacts on their culture and lifestyle,
evidence of which had already surfaced; that short-, medium- and long-
term assesments of the impact of mining on the Indigenous peoples in the
area had not been conducted; and that the issue of Indigenous land rights
had not been fully addressed. Indigenous territories throughout Guyana
have not been demarcated leading to confusion as to the boundaries, many
communities have requested extensions of existing titles and some
communities are without recognized land rights. They have
received no response from the Government.
The agreement with Zamuteba came immediately after the signing of another
agreement with Australian mining giant, Broken Hill Proprietary (BHP).
This agreement permits BHP to prospect for gold and other minerals in 2.5
million acres in an area adjoining Zamuteba's concession. BHP were
granted additional reconaissance rights to a further 12,000 square
kilometres or a little more than 5% of the country on 12 August 1996. BHP
is well know for it abuse of Indigenous peoples in Australia and the
infamous OK Tedi gold/copper mine in Papua New Guinea. Apart from
generating considerable conflict with Indigenous land owners, the OK Tedi
mine has been the site of at least one major cyanide spill and the cause
of severe pollution in the 1100 km long Fly river. BHP and its partners
in OK Tedi, until forced to change their policy by the PNG government, had
been dumping untreated toxic mine wastes directly into the river. High
levels of cyanide and heavy metals were detected up to 80 km downstream
from the mine.
BHP subsequently entered into a joint venture agreement with Canadian
company, Golden Star Resources (GSR) (based in Denver, Colorado). BHP and
GSR split exploration and future mine development costs 60-40,
respectively. Golden Star's record on both the environment and Indigenous
rights is also not good. As a minority partner in Guyana's infamous OMAI
gold mine, Golden Star was responsible for one of South America's worst
mining disasters, when a tailings dam ruptured pouring 3-4 million cubic
litres of cyanide- and heavy metal-laced wastes into the Omai and
Essequibo Rivers. The spill killed all aquatic life in the Omai river and
severly disrupted the lives of Amerindians living along the Essequibo
river, who are dependent on river water and fish. In neighbouring
Suriname, Golden Star is presently involved in at least two disputes with
Indigenous and Tribal communities, one of which, Nieuw Koffiekamp, is
facing the imminent prospect of relocation for the second time in 33 years
to make way for GSR's and OMAI Mine partner, Cambior's, mining operations.
Cambior is presently contesting a C$600 million law suit filed in Quebec
by persons damaged by the OMAI mine disaster. Golden Star is also in
dispute with environmentalists in French Guiana (see, FPP, Urgent Action,
22 April 1997) after they requested a concession in an area slated to be a
Nature Reserve and listed as an important wetland site under an
international environmental treaty.
Golden Star has not escaped criticism in Guyana in areas other than OMAI.
Indigenous village Captain's from Akawaio communities in the Upper
Mazaruni have expressed alarm about Golden Star's activities in the past.
In the words of a petition submitted to Late President Jagan, dated 9
September 1994, Akawaio leaders said that: "We see such actions as a
threat to our very survival as a people, as diminishing our right to a
healthy life and culture and as a threat to our pristine and unspoilt
environment." The petition implored the President to act so as to "assist
in saving us as a people from the evils of cultural alienation and
genocide." To date the Guyana Government has done nothing to address the
concerns of the Akawaio and the Akawaio continue to report the presence of
persons they believe to be working for GSR.
In Guyana, the State is legal owner of all subsurface resources, including
those underlying titled Indigenous territories. Mining concessions are
routinely granted without notfiying, let alone consulting or obtaining the
consent of Indigenous communities, even if the village itself lies within
the concession. The mining companies seem to have no scruples about
taking advantage of this flagrant violation of Indigenous peoples' human
rights. The Arawak community of Santa Rosa in Northwest Guyana, for
instance, only discovered that their land and village had been granted in
concession to Golden Star and BHP when GSR sent them a letter notifying
them of their intent to work in their area. In a letter to the
Government, the community demanded that GSR's concession be revoked and
stated that they were not welcome in the area. The letter went on to say
that multinational mining companies "in general have a record of only
providing temporary employment for some of our people, but have long term
negative impacts of undermining our culture and leaving permanent
destruction and devastation of animals and the environment on which we
depend for our continued survival." GSR's response was to, "at this point
in time," abandon plans to take samples in Santa Rosa village in light of
community objections to their presence - they did say IN the village!
Presumably, they are open to returning and taking samples in the village
ata later date.
Not only is the Government handing out concessions to all comers and
soliciting additional investment, it is also going out of its way to
personally invite certain companies to acquire concessions in Guyana. On
14 February 1997, the Government offered IBI Gold Guyana Ltd., a
subsidiary of Canadian mining giant, Placer Dome, a 20 square mile
concession at Pereroombe on the Mazaruni river. The Mazuruni region is
heavily populated by Amerindians. Late President Cheddi Jagan even flew
to Canada for meetings with Placer Dome, the Mining Association of Canada
and others, where he extolled the virtues of investing in Guyana' mining
sector. IBI has not taken up the offer yet.
The incredible expansion of mining and logging (see, FPP Urgent Action 25
April 1997 for more information of logging in Guyana) in Guyana has led to
the bizzare situation of mining and logging companies signing deals so
that their respective activities can take place simaltaneously in the same
area. GSR and Barama Company Ltd., a Malaysian-owned logging company,
signed a deal last year allowing GSR to prospect for diamonds and other
minerals within Barama's timber concession. 4 of the 5 prospecting
concessions granted to GSR in July of 1996 fall within Barama's
concession. BHP, as GSR's JV partner also became a party to the deal.
Concerning this arrangement, then Prime Minister and (still) Minister for
Mining, Sam Hinds stated: "for me today and this moment is a very happy
one, because we made a big step in resolving contradictions in
development." Apparently, the contradiction involved not being able to
simaltaneously conduct logging and mining operations in the same area
rather than the contradiction between a Government policy of unrestrained
and out of control resource exploitation and sustainable development and
the rights of Indigenous peoples.
Although Guyana enacted an Environmental Protection Act in 1996, its
ability to monitor compliance with law and the contracts signed with
multinationals remains extremely limited. Guyana has also been dragging
its feet in operationalizing the Environmental Protection Agency created
by the Act and funded by the Inter-American Development Bank. It has yet
to appoint a director despite receiving applications from over 90 persons,
some of them well qualified for the job. Some also question the will of
the Government to enforce the law and monitor the operations of these
companies given the tremendous amount of effort it has put into getting
them into Guyana in the first place and keeping them happy once there.
These concerns are reinforced by the example of the manner in which the
Government dealt with the OMAI Mine disaster, whose operations were
suspended after the August 1995 cyanide spill. After establishing a
widely criticized Commission of Inquiry - described by the Guyana Human
Rights Association as little more than symbolic and partly staffed by
persons with close ties to OMAI's owners - the Government appeared to go
out of its way to do everything to get the mine operating and producing
again in conformity with the wishes of the companies involved. It even
permitted the company to begin regular discharges of cyanide wastes into
the Omai and Essequibo rivers. Those who bore the brunt of the damage
caused by the spill, mostly Amerindians living along the Essequibo, are
now forced to seek redress through Guyanese and Canadian courts and the
long-term effects of exposure to heavy metal contamination has been
ignored.
The Government has also done little to implement a World Bank financed
protected areas project, that aims to create a national parks system in
Guyana. Guyana's lack of progress in this area and the fact that it has
recently granted timber concessions in areas proposed for national parks
has, according to inside sources, alarmed World Bank staff raising
questions about Guyana's commitment to the environment, Indigenous rights
and sustainable development. Others have also been questioning whether
recent initiatives and rhethoric in Guyana on the environment and
Indigenous rights are nothing more than a public relations exercise by the
Government intended to placate international donors and NGOs while it
gives out the entire country to multinational miners and loggers, further
complicating efforts to recognize and respect Indigenous rights and
formulate and implement a sustainable and enviromentally responsible
development stategy.
While this quetion is pondered and appropriate responses developed, what
is clear is that Amerindians and the environment in Guyana will continue
to suffer the negative effects.
For further information, please contact:
Forest Peoples Programme
1c, Fosseway Business Centre
Stratford Road
Moreton-in-Marsh, GL56 9NQ
United Kingdom
Tel. 44. 1608. 652. 893. Fax. 44. 1608. 652. 878
Email : wrm@gn.apc.org
Forest Peoples Programme / World Rainforest Movement (UK Office)
1c Fosseway Business Center, Stratford Road, Moreton in Marsh, GL56 9NQ,
UK Tel: 44 (0)i608 652893 Fax: 44 (0) 1608 652878 Email:
wrm@gn.apc.org
The World Rainforest Movement's International Secretariat is at:
Casilla de Correo 1539, Montevideo, Uruguay
Tel: 598 2 496192 Fax: 598 2 419222 Email: rcarrere@chasque.apc.org