Amerindian groups take issue with the Lands Commission

Mar 13, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
We, the undersigned organizations write to express our deep concern in relation to the Lands Commission.  From various public pronouncements and as part of the stakeholder interest participating in meetings of the Amerindian Land Titling Project Board, we understand that this commission will focus on indigenous peoples’ land rights and also likely “address issues of land extension in indigenous communities and ancestral lands in coastal communities”.
To be clear, we strenuously object to the intention that the commission will address both “land extension” for indigenous communities and “ancestral lands in coastal communities.” These issues are not connected, nor should they be, and we will not accept their linkage in the commission or otherwise. We see no basis for any link between these disparate issues and consider that this course will only result in further delay on desperately needed action on indigenous land rights. If the Government is of the view that the concept of “ancestral lands in coastal communities” warrants attention, this can and must be done separately from the actions it has promised and is obligated to undertake with respect to indigenous lands.
Moreover, we stress that there has been no attempt to secure the participation of indigenous peoples and organizations in this commission or its terms of reference.  Indigenous peoples had been calling for an Indigenous Lands Commission for some time now and had said that such a commission must be established with the participation of our peoples from its inception. Any such participation must be done at the earliest stages of the development of any plan or proposal that may affect indigenous peoples’ rights. This has not occurred. The vague public statements made in the recent past about plans to establish a commission did not constitute even basic consultation as they provided no information on which indigenous peoples could assess its necessity, utility, or potential effectiveness as a mechanism to fairly resolve outstanding land tenure rights. There also has been no attempt so far to discuss what plans may exist to realize indigenous peoples’ participation moving forward. This substantial deficiency, which violates a basic tenet of our constitutional democracy and human rights, requires immediate correction.
To its credit, the Government has previously stated its intention to resolve indigenous land tenure rights finally and fairly and to do so in accordance with the State’s commitments under international human rights law. From our perspective, this must be the primary and overriding purpose of any lands commission. We fully endorse and support any efforts that are designed and aim to achieve this end. Conversely, we will oppose any efforts that are not so designed and directed.
Statements made ostensibly on behalf of the Project Management Office within the Ministry of the Presidency in relation to the Amerindian Land Titling Project intensify our concerns. In a communication dated 15 February 2017, a representative made a number of sweeping statements about the “Lands Commission of Guyana,” including by designating it as “the national Competent Authority” on indigenous title extensions and (unspecified) disputes about indigenous lands.
Without new legislation or a valid delegation of powers to this commission there is no basis to claim that it has any competence or authority, even more so given the failure to secure indigenous participation in decision making to date. Moreover, legislation currently exists – the Amerindian Act 2006 – that confers competence and authority over these matters to the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs (MIPA).  There is the contention that “Land issues, including dispute of all lands, is resident by law with GLSC….” Again, indigenous land issues, at least processing and authoritatively deciding on applications for title or extension of title, are resident by law with the MIPA, and it is best equipped in this regard given its superior knowledge of indigenous issues.
Additionally, while there are defects in the Amerindian Act relative to indigenous peoples’ internationally protected rights – defects that the Government has committed to correct – it nonetheless contains a procedure for receiving, assessing, and deciding on title or extension applications. The pending adoption and implementation of the Guideline developed through the Representative Platform under the ALT Project is an important step forward in this process and which we support.
We have no doubt that the MIPA – and other State agencies – must build capacity to effectively comply with its statutory duties and the State’s obligations pertaining to indigenous peoples’ rights. Likewise, capacity within and coordination among different ministries and agencies need to improve. This especially includes developing collaborative arrangements to enhance effectiveness, to weigh and resolve competing rights or interests in land, and to ensure that the titling of indigenous lands is facilitated, not hindered by contradictory policies or actions (e.g., precipitous grants of mining permits or concessions). We strongly urge that this should be the focus of our collective efforts, not misdirected claims about where authority may reside or inappropriate and opaque attempts to join distinct issues that will only cause further delay and confusion.
Earl Thomas (Secretary)
Amerindian Peoples Association.
Mary Valenzuela (Chief )
Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples

---

---