Jagdeo’s idea of Amerindian land rights is flawed

Mar 26, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – At his last press conference, Bharrat Jagdeo sought to portray the PPPC as a champion of Amerindian land rights. He laid claim to the PPPC’s superior management of indigenous lands rights over that of the APNU+AFC pointing to the PPPC’s record of increasing the amount of titled lands to Amerindians and the granting of subsurface rights under the Amerindian Act.

To that can be added the PPPC’s boast of allocating revenues to Amerindian communities from revenues derived from the proceeds of the LCDS and from the sale of carbon credits. However, a closer examination reveals that these claims are not only misleading but also fail to address the major shortcomings inherent in the policies touted by the PPP/C regime.

Jagdeo’s assertion, that indigenous communities have benefitted more under the PPP/C’s governance than under the APNU+AFC due to increased land titling, warrants critical scrutiny. While it is true, Amerindians enjoyed titles to more lands under the PPPC’s, the PPPC had 23 unbroken years in office to do so, compared to a mere 5 years  of the APNU+AFC coalition.

Despite the increase in land titling under the PPPC, there has been a plethora of complaints about this process. Many indigenous communities have voiced dissatisfaction with the limitations of titled lands and continue to demand extensions of their boundaries.

One key aspect overlooked by Jagdeo is the cultural significance of land boundaries within indigenous communities. The concept of fixed boundaries is often at odds with traditional practices that prioritize free movement for sustenance and livelihood. By imposing rigid land demarcations, the government risks impeding indigenous autonomy and perpetuating colonial notions of land ownership.

Jagdeo’s emphasis on subsurface rights under the Amerindian Act fails to acknowledge the inherent limitations surrounding these rights. While he touts these rights as a significant advancement, they are circumscribed by provisions within the State Lands Act and the Mining Act. Rather than granting indigenous communities full autonomy over their resources, these laws perpetuate state control and exploitation of mineral wealth.

Contrary to Jagdeo’s portrayal, these rights do not afford indigenous communities the full spectrum of ownership and control over their land’s resources. Instead, they are subject to a convoluted process wherein the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) retains significant authority over mining activities on indigenous lands.

Under the Mining Act, the state reserves ownership of minerals on all lands, including those belonging to indigenous communities. This provision effectively undermines any semblance of genuine autonomy, as the state retains the power to grant licenses and permits for mineral extraction.

The subsurface rights, under the Amerindian Act, does not grant the autonomy which Amerindian communities should enjoy to mineral rights. The requirement for consent for small and medium scale mining does not guarantee meaningful participation or decision-making power for indigenous peoples, further perpetuating a system of exploitation and marginalization.

Therefore, Jagdeo’s portrayal of increased land titling and subsurface rights as triumphs for indigenous communities is misleading at best and disingenuous at worst. Rather than genuine empowerment, these measures serve to entrench state control and undermine indigenous autonomy, self-determination and economic empowerment.

The PPPC’s idea of economic empowerment was to allocate annual Presidential Grants, donate a few tractors and ATVs and other equipment and, to seek to manipulate the work of the National Toshaos’ Council rather working with the indigenous people towards the creation of a plan for economic empowerment. The PPPC’s idea of economic empowerment of Amerindian communities is to keep indigenous people dependent on the government, giving enough to achieve some amount of development but keeping them tied to dependence on the government.

From the sale of carbon credits, indigenous communities receive only 15% of the benefits. Criticisms have arisen regarding the consultations for this program, which are said to fall short of ensuring free, prior, and informed consent. Moreover, the scheme fails to provide indigenous communities with autonomy over the allocation of funds. Village plans and projects still require central approval, limiting community control.

Whatever criticisms can be made about the APNU+AFC government, it was the APNU+AFC that proposed a comprehensive ten-point development framework for consideration by the National Toshaos’ Council. The PPPC has had no comparable plan for indigenous empowerment.

It was the APNU+AFC that began the process of building a proper Secretariat for the National Toshaos’ Council. It was the APNU+AFC that replaced the PPPC’s controversial Community Support Officers (CSO) scheme with the Hinterland Employment and Youth Service (HEYS). It was the APNU+AFC that launched income generating economic ventures such as a cassava processing facility, a sun-dried tomato facility, coffee production and a crab and a fish processing facility.

If Jagdeo truly prioritizes the development of indigenous peoples, he should shift his government’s approach from one that fosters dependence and control to one focused on greater empowerment and autonomy for Amerindians. But please do not dare mention that to him before we get another rehash of the same old diatribe.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

• Amerindian, APNU+AFC, Bharrat Jagdeo, PPPC, ress conference

---