Amnesty International Report on Guyana’s Indigenous People distorts the truth

Jul 11, 2011 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
I have just perused, for the second time, Amnesty International’s Report 2011 on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Guyana with its special focus on demarcation of their lands.
The A I report assigns responsibility for the statements made and shrewdly seeks to divorce itself from these statements by its declaration, inter alia, that ‘Indigenous Peoples alleged that poor demarcation processes were allowing the Government to take over traditional lands and that in some areas demarcation had taken place without the free, prior and informed consent of the communities affected’.
It is incomprehensible; nay unforgiveable, that despite (a) the many continuous interventions of the PPP/C Government since its democratic election to the seat of Government in October 1992; interventions which helped to bridge the development gap between our Amerindians of the Hinterland and their fellow Guyanese in the rural and urban areas of Guyana; a gap occasioned by their wanton neglect by the PNC Government; and (b) in spite of the progress and improvements that are evident in the Amerindian Villages and Communities in the area of Social Services and Infrastructure Development, and more recently in the Village economies; Amnesty International could only acknowledge the appointment of members of the Indigenous Peoples Commission and  pronounce on land demarcation issues in a manner that belies truth and facts.
Consultation, participation and autonomy are the cornerstone of our 2006 Amerindian Act. Indeed the Policies, Programmes and Development Strategies arising out of this important Legislation, in large measure, guides the way our Government deals with our Amerindian people.
It drives the actions we have been taking in ensuring we work with our Amerindian people to promote and protect their rights. We have always demonstrated overt respect for our Amerindian peoples’ right to determine and to develop priorities and strategies whether at the level of the Village Council, the Village General meeting or the National Toshaos’ Council, for the development of their lands and other resources.
Ours has been a rights based approach to bring development to our Amerindian people and in so doing to integrate them into the mainstream of national life.
The 2006 Amerindian Act sets out the requirement for Titling which includes extensive consultation with villagers to establish, inter alia, traditional communal Amerindian ownership and the cultural and spiritual attachment to the land.
Let me here also emphasize that our Amerindian Villages are not Reservations: they are Settlements developed over many years of occupation. Our Amerindians are free to leave, to travel and to live in any part of Guyana.
Their COT allows them indisputable control over their lands to use as they deem fit for their own development, giving them land tenure, security and choice in their development plans.
And that is why I find the statements emanating out of the Amnesty International 2011 Report and attributed to some of our’ Indigenous peoples’ distasteful and I could only view them as another attempt to mislead the Guyanese public, and moreso, our Indigenous people.
My fellow Guyanese: the
granting of Title to Amerindians lands involves two distinct steps, viz. (i) the issuance of an absolute Grant of land to the Amerindian community by the President under the State Lands Act which make such Titles ‘absolute and forever’ (ii) the demarcation of the land described in the Grant Title and the subsequent issuance of a Certificate of Title to the Village. The ultimate objectives are to set the boundaries of the Village
This issuance of a Certificate of Title (COT) involves several procedures after the Community would have received their Grant. These include:
a) The Village Council, following consultation with the residents at a Village General meeting at which two-thirds of those present agreed to demarcation, writes to the Minister of Amerindian Affairs requesting that the Village Lands be demarcated;
b) The Minister informs the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC) of the Village’s request
c) GLSC prepares the required estimates for the demarcation, advertises for and selects  surveyors and informs the Minister that it is ready to commence the survey
d) The Minister arranges for payment of demarcation costs to GLSC from the Amerindian Development Fund.
e) The Minister informs the Village that a Surveyor has been selected to conduct the survey and introduces the Surveyor to the  Village
f) There is consultation among the Village, GLSC and MOAA in order to discuss the demarcation process. At this stage, some members of the Village are selected and employed as part of the surveying team. At each of the above process, the Village still has an opportunity to opt out of the process which is clearly defined and set out. This is in spite of the fact that the State Lands Act clearly specifies that the issuance of a grant of State Lands requires that the land be surveyed by a surveyor ( Section 18(1); unless the area has been previously surveyed ( Section 19(1) or unless the land is bounded by creeks or other well defined limits (Section 19(2)
On completion of the survey in accordance with the State Lands Act, a Plan or Map showing the boundaries of the area demarcated is prepared by GLSC. This Plan must be certified correct by the Village Council.
It must also be noted that the Certificate of Title when prepared is sent to the MOAA which hands it over to the Village Council.
In any event, Section 64 of the Amerindian Act provides for the Village Council acting behalf of the Village, to challenge the decision of the Minister in the High Court.
The same processes apply in respect of the demarcation of extensions of lands granted to a Village.
Government has thus far demarcated the lands of 77 of the 96 Titled Amerindian Villages at cost varying from $ 4.4 M to $ 35.3 M per Village. For us as a Government, the benefits of meaningful medium and long term planning made possible as a consequence of knowing with certainty the natural resources owned and controlled by the Village are pivotal to acceleration of development in the Villages. For us also costs could hardly be a prohibiting factor. We have been delivering on obligations to our Amerindian people; obligations borne out of our frequent engagement with the Amerindians and with their free, prior and informed approval.
Tell me: what’s wrong with that approach?
Norman Whittaker M.P.,J.P.

---

---