Massive concessions to gold industry not paying off

Aug 05, 2024 News

---

– GHRA points to widespread illegality

Kaieteur News – The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) has issued a statement denouncing the extensive incentives granted to the gold-mining sector by the Government of Guyana (GoG), particularly in light of environmental and human toll of the industry.

In a statement on Saturday, GHRA responded to a press release by the Ministry of Natural Resources, which highlighted the massive incentives that were put in place for the mining industry. The ministry’s statement dated July 31 outlined the various perks, concessions, and privileges extended to the gold-mining sector, such as tax reductions, duty-free concessions, and simplified licensing arrangements.

GHRA critised this and labeled the government’s support to the industry as inconsistent and detrimental to the country’s welfare. “…expansion of available mining properties in conflicted areas such as Marudi Mountains and removal of protective regulations are exhaustively listed. Road-building in interior regions has become mining-driven rather than influenced by community or environmental considerations,” it was stated.

The organisation stated that while the Environmental Protection Act of 1996 mandates Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Environmental Permits (EP) for every mining operation, the Guyana Geology & Mines Commission (GGMC) has failed to enforce these requirements for years, allowing extensive mining activities to proceed unchecked. To this, the statement draws attention to the Guyana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GY-EITI) annual reports, which document these failures.

“Most of Guyana’s prized large rivers have been reduced to health and safety hazards by gold mining,” GHRA said as it points out the severe degradation of Guyana’s rivers due to gold mining.  It was stated too that river banks and the actual course of rivers have been altered by illegal hydraulic mining and by failures to apply the several GGMC Codes of Practice to the waste in mine tailings now spilling polluted sediment into the creeks and rivers.

Notably, GHRA stated that no effort has been made to apply penalties for these transgressions despite the River Navigation Act (cap. 50:01, 1998) and the State Lands Act 1903/1972 (Section 22) states, “Everyone who willfully causes any impediment to the free use or navigation of any river or navigable creek, shall be liable to a fine of ninety-seven thousand five hundred dollars, unless he has previously obtained permission under this Act or the Forests Act to cause the impediment.”

Mining disruption of riverine ecosystems, including habitat destruction, reduced water quality, and biodiversity loss, is a critical concern. The GHRA calls for the consistent, rigorous, and transparent application of the EIA process, coupled with regular inspections and stringent penalties for non-compliance. However, it was underscored that the GGGMC’s understaffing hampers effective monitoring and enforcement, with only a handful of field officers and wardens overseeing thousands of mining claims.

GHRA stated that penalties for breaches of the various rules and regulations do not disincentivize breaches. As such, the organisation said there is a need for penalties to be much more severe.  “Prioritizing the restoration of mining sites and enforcing robust environmental regulations, can mitigate long-term environmental damage, protect our vital water resources, and promote sustainable development,” it was stated.

It was added that the cost to restore mining sites on a national scale can be assessed and a derisory token sum of $100,000 for restoration (the obligatory environmental bond) is treated by the majority of miners as payment to the GGMC to get the job done.

Moreover, the human rights body said that long-standing land ownership issues, particularly affecting Indigenous communities, are exacerbated by the mining sector’s expansion. GHRA notes that Amerindian communities face eroded land rights despite legal protections. Instances of mining concessions issued over titled and untitled Amerindian lands without community knowledge are cited, referencing High Court cases in 2009 (Arau Village) and 2012-3 (Isseneru Village).

It was underscored that the use of mercury in gold extraction further compounds environmental and human health issues, with significant mercury pollution in aquatic life, increased mortality, reproductive failures, and disrupted food chains. GHRA highlighted that despite the severity, mercury pollution does not receive adequate attention or remedial action.

Furthermore, the GHRA asserts that the gold industry and government fail to consider the environmental and human costs of mining. The organisation calls for an urgent explanation of the rationale behind government subsidies to the gold industry, deeming them contradictory to the Low Carbon Development Strategy 2030 (LCDS 2030).  “Environmental neglect and human suffering, together with bio-diversity and wildlife loss, is not even considered a cost by the gold industry or Government.  These costs should be added to legal and illegal export of profits from gold mining, at no benefit whatever to their sovereign owners – the citizens of Guyana,” GHRA said.

---

• Furthermore, GGGMC’s, GGMC, GHRA, Isseneru Village, Ministry of Natural Resources, the Organisation

---