Guyana: Indigenous Peoples Fight Land Grabs

Guyana indigenous demand say over land
Sat Jul 3, 2010
By Neil Marks, Reuters

GEORGETOWN (Reuters) - Guyana's indigenous people are agitating for more land rights as the World Bank prepares to spend hundreds of millions to help nations benefit from a U.N. program to help slow deforestation.

The World Bank has granted Guyana $200,000 (131,587 pounds) to help refine its proposal to reduce emissions from deforestation. But Amerindian leaders insist the government's proposals do not address its international obligations to indigenous people.

"We have urged governments and international agencies to protect our traditional practices and help resolve outstanding land issues," Tony James, president of the Guyana's Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) said at a World Bank meeting.

Guyana, a former British colony perched next to Venezuela, is about 80 percent covered with forests and has one of the most varied biodiversities in the world. Amerindian communities make up about 10 percent of the population.

Indigenous leaders accuse the government of snatching their traditional lands through poor demarcation, saying in some areas, communities were demarcated without their knowledge.

The Amerindian Act of 2006 gives Amerindian villages legal powers to manage and conserve their lands.

"Some community lands are being sliced by half, some by quarter, some by three-quarters," said John Adries, the leader in the Parima community, inhabited by 600 Arekuna people.

Guyana's government is seeking international partnerships for incentives to keep alive 15 million hectares of untouched forest. Amerindian communities have been told they can opt into the initiative or choose not to be part of it.

Amerindian communities have in the past been sharoly critical Guyana's low carbon strategy, a forest saving deal with Norway that could give the country $250 million over the next five years.

---------------------

Guyana's indigenous people charge land abuses 

Friday, July 2, 2010
By Neil Marks

GEORGETOWN, Guyana (Reuters) -- Guyana's indigenous people are accusing the government of snatching their traditional land through poor demarcation as the authorities try to benefit from a UN program to preserve the country's rainforests.

The World Bank has given Guyana $3.6 million to help prepare a plan for the UNprogram to slow deforestation. But Amerindian leaders insist the government's proposals do not address its international obligations to indigenous groups.

"We have urged governments and international agencies to protect our traditional practices and help resolve outstanding land issues," Tony James, president of Guyana's Amerindian Peoples Association (APA), said at a World Bank meeting.

Amerindian communities make up about 10 percent of the population of Guyana, a former British colony next to Venezuela.

The country is mostly covered by forests and boasts one of the world's most varied biodiversities.

Indigenous leaders say the government is taking over traditional lands through poor demarcation, and that in some areas communities were demarcated without their knowledge.

The Amerindian Act of 2006 gives Amerindian villages legal powers to manage and conserve their lands.

"Some community lands are being sliced by half, some by quarter, some by three-quarters," said John Adries, the leader of the Parima community, which numbers 600 Arekuna people.

In an example of what they said was poor planning, they said a hospital that serves indigenous people in the mountain village of Kato was left out of land demarcated by government.

Guyana's government is seeking international partnerships and incentives to protect 15 million hectares (37 million acres) of forest.

Amerindian communities have been told they can opt into the initiative or choose not to be part of it.

Amerindian communities have in the past been sharply critical of Guyana's low carbon strategy, a forest-saving deal with Norway that could earn the country $250 million over the next five years.

Guyana: APA & GOIP respond to Persaud on Barama Controversy

From the Stabroek News, Georgetown, Guyana:

Who did Mr Peter Persaud really represent?
Thursday, June 7th 2007

Dear Editor,

I refer to a letter captioned, "These groups are wrong to call on Barama to cease operations in Akawini village lands" (07.05.28) by Peter Persaud of The Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana.

First of all the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) and the Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples (GOIP) are not surprised that Mr. Persaud did not have the guts to personally confront the two organisations with his opinions when he had ample opportunities to do so. He is only following his modus operandi of seeking to cast blame on others while trying to make himself look good. An opportunity for Mr. Persaud to clear the air had presented itself when two senior members of the APA had asked him about his alleged connections with the Barama Co. based on questions that arose from among the Akawini community about what appeared to be his representation of the company and not the community's interest in the Barama issue. He had denied any connections with the company.

In his earlier meetings with the team that met with the Akawini community, Mr. Persaud had claimed that he was the "indigenous representative" in the discussions even though it is not clear who had appointed him as such a representative.

There was another opportunity for Mr. Persaud to state his opinions when he travelled for two days in the company of two senior members of the APA and GOIP on the recent Barama-led tour of its operations in Buckhall and to the Akawini village. All along none of the two persons knew that Mr. Persaud harboured such opinions of the organizations and that a letter was already in the press. Nonetheless his position is not difficult to understand as it was clear during the trip that he was very familiar with the Barama officials and vice versa. We cannot say the same for his closeness with the Akawini council which he claims to represent and wonder what it took for him to finally clear the air on where his allegiances lie. We trust that the wider indigenous community takes note of this.

Just to clarify for Mr. Persaud, the opinions of the APA and GOIP are based on how Barama chose to operate in the Akawini community rather than on what any "critic" may have said about the company. If Mr. Persaud had truly been representing the community, surely he would have supported them as well. He should now tell the public what was his role as a so called "indigenous representative" which resulted in an unconscionable agreement signed between Akawini and the Interior Woods Products Inc in which the community only stood to lose. Mr Persaud had said that he had never seen the contract yet he had made several visits to Akawini, one clearly on behalf of Barama, to try to convince the Toshao that he should meet with Mr. Lalaram for a one-to-one discussion to try to sort out the problems being encountered. How could Mr Persaud not have asked to see the contract when this was the main source of the problem for the community? This further raises questions about this ability to represent an issue, given his admission that he has never seen the contract.

Mr Persaud questions the representation by our organizations but we urge him to tell us when last his "organization" held an assembly of its members to elect an executive body, where is his constitution that guides the operations of his "organization", and what is his membership like? It appears that Mr. Persaud is "president for life" or otherwise he is the epitome of leadership in his "organization" and cannot be replaced.

Mr. Editor, it has never been the policy of our organizations to raise matters like these in the public but we feel compelled to respond to Mr. Persaud's baseless accusations as others may go on to believe his ravings. We know that he will continue to use the press to spread his groundless statements, or perhaps even use a pen name to spread his misrepresentations but we do not wish to continue anything in public, not because we have anything to hide or are not proud of the work of our organizations but because we simply do not feel that cheap politicking and accusations will get us anywhere.

Yours faithfully,

Tony James

President APA [Amerindian Peoples's Association]

Alan Leow

Chief, GOIP [Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples]

Guyana: Wrong to Ask Barama to Cease Logging?

A letter to the editor of the Stabroek News, by Peter Persaud, President of The Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana (TAAMOC), was forwarded today, strongly contradicting a previous post on this blog about calls for a cessation of logging by the Barama company.

This is the text of the letter:

May 28, 2007
I wish to refer to your newspaper article under the caption "Amerindian groups call on Barama to cease Akawini logging" in your issue of Thursday May 24th 2007.

I am disappointed with both the APA and GOIP for allowing themselves to fall prey to a known anti-Barama critic. But whether deliberately or not both of these organizations instead of finding solutions for the development of indigenous peoples are now carrying out the wishes of Barama's detractors and critics.

These so called indigenous groups not knowing the truth about the Akawini situation call on the Barama Company to cease its harvesting operations in the Akawini village lands. But it must be known to the Guyanese public and the international community that the root cause of Akawini's squabble with the IWPI is as a result of competing logging interests wanting to do business with the village council. Nevertheless the truth has to be revealed and it is unfortunate that the Toshao of Akawini while he was in Switzerland did not tell the society of Threatened peoples and the Bruno Manser Fords the truth surrounding the Akawini - IWPI fall out. Why didn't the Akawini Toshau tell these two Swiss NGOs and the international forum which he attended that the Akawini village had prior knowledge which was told at the Community Consul-tations that the Barama Company would have engaged in sustainable forest harvesting in Akawini. Why now this big cry about 'sub contract documents' when the Akawini people knew about Barama's involvement in the harvesting of commercial forests. For the Akawini village council to say that they knew nothing about Barama's role in Akawini is lying to the Guyanese public as well as lying to the international community.

But what is contradictory about both the APA and GOIP is that while they target Barama, they allowed the pillage and plunder of the commercial forests of Kwebanna, Bethany, Orealla, Cabacaburi, Manawarin and Wakapau Amerindian communities by their continued silence over this forest crime. Why didn't these two organizations stand up for the rights of their constituencies amidst the plundering of their forest by indiscriminate coastland loggers? Is this the policy position of both the APA and GOIP that forest destruction by coastland loggers is acceptable to them, while sustainable forest management by the Barama company is not allowed?

What do APA and GOIP have to offer the Akawini people should Barama decide to leave Akawini? This is what the village council should think about and stop being used by the APA and GOIP as their political football. Since Barama's operations in Akawini the village has earned millions which should be used for their community development as well as to provide small grants to grass-roots organisations of the village to fund their projects.

Both the APA and GOIP are aspirants to serve on the Indigenous Peoples Commission (IPC) and I am now concerned with the level of their maturity to effectively discharge the IPC's functions which in the final analysis will enhance the well being of Guyana's indigenous peoples.

I am appealing to the Akawini village council to let good sense prevail for an amicable solution to their concerns with the Barama Company.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Persaud

President

The Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana (TAAMOC)

Guyanese Amerindians Call for Halt to Logging in Akawini

Amerindian groups call on Barama to cease Akawini logging
STABROEK NEWS--Georgetown, Guyana--Thursday, May 24th 2007

The Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) and the Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples (GOIP) are calling on Barama Company Limited and Interior Woods Products Limited (IWPI) to immediately cease all logging operations in the titled lands of Akawini Amerindian Village in Pomeroon Region 2.

A release from the two groups said yesterday that Barama began logging in Akawini in February 2006 "ostensibly" on a subcontract it signed with the IWPI. According to Akawini Toshao, David Wilson, the Akawini Village Council has never seen this subcontract "and we were never consulted before IWP entered into this subcontract with Barama."

Read more in The Stabroek News...

Guyana Forestry Blog

Janette Bulkan, much of whose work currently focuses on indigenous rights and forestry management issues in Guyana (see http://www.centrelink.org/resurgence/guyana.htm), alerted me to the fact that a new blog has been created at http://guyanaforestry.blogspot.com/. The author(s) remain(s) anonymous. As Janette explained, "for too long the forestry sector in Guyana has been protected by strict State opacity and control." This particular blog consists mostly of letters to the editor, "an indication of the lack of alternative space for civil society to articulate its concerns," as Janette explained. The letters themselves remain unchallenged by the government, which can lead one to the interpretation that the letters are in fact truthful, and that the government has not yet found a way to keep their authors silent.