Tomado de:
Bad faith’ by gov’t sparked Bartica protest – McWilfred
stabroeknews. Com del 08-02-2010
Posted By Stabroek staff On February 8, 2010
It was because of the “bad faith” actions by government that miners felt that they had to protest, spokesman for the Committee of Concerned Barticians, Frederick McWilfred says.
[1]
Frederick McWilfred
As miners rev up their campaign to force the administration to withdraw contentious new mining regulations, that those in the sector say will destroy the industry, the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA) has also rejected assertions that it is a major contributor to the degradation of the environment and with a production target of 500, 000 ounces of gold, says this could earn $100B this year.
A government proposal that prospectors give six-months notice before mining commences has miners up in arms with a massive protest in Bartica last week. Since then there have been several exchanges and advertisements in the media by supporters and opponents of the proposal. President Bharrat Jagdeo is set to meet miners on Thursday at the International Convention Centre at Liliendaal where miners hope to hear a pronouncement that their concerns have been heard.
Speaking with this newspaper yesterday, McWilfred rejected an assertion that their protest was premature and that they acted in bad faith. Outlining the events that culminated in last Monday’s protest in Bartica, McWilfred stated that on December 4 last year, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds wrote to Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) Head, William Woolford in an initial attempt to implement the contentious new mining regulations.
He said that it was only after strong objections were raised by several prominent miners who were members of the GGDMA and who knew that their association was not consulted on the matter; that Hinds’ letter was put on hold. A Land Use Committee to look into these issues was then hurriedly set up with Minister of Transport and Hydraulics, Robeson Benn as chair.
McWilfred declared that if anyone acted in “bad faith” it was the government, who in spite of claims of a “…commitment to the consultative process”, tried to implement the new regulations without consulting anyone in the gold mining sector. He pointed out that a formal objection to the lack of consultations with specific reference to the most contentious of those regulations was contained in a letter send by then GGDMA President, Norman Mclean to Benn on January 4.
On January 8, he said, the Bartica miners attended a GGDMA general members meeting to discuss the intended new regulations and along with the other members, rejected the proposals articulated at the meeting by Woolford. They, however, agreed to let Benn’s committee do its work, he stated.
However, according to McWilfred, in the days that followed, the miners were told by the GGDMA’s representatives on the Committee that there was no “serious” work being done by the Committee. They were given a copy of a letter sent to Benn on January 12 by Executive Director of the Association, Edward Shields in which he stated among other things that the invitation to the GGDMA to participate in the committee was a “charade”. McWilfred declared that this sequence of events along with the pronouncements at the highest levels of government including by Jagdeo and Cabinet Secretary, Dr. Roger Luncheon of the administration’s intention of proceeding with the new regulations regardless of objections by the parties in the consultative process by the holding of “any small protests”, led the Bartica miners to feel that they had no choice but to protest.
He said that they were subsequently informed that the Committee only began to seriously address the issues of concern to the miners when it was made known that there were plans to protest in Bartica. Stating that it is up to persons to decide whether the protest was in bad faith or premature, McWilfred asserted that to have allowed the process to travel its natural course was to have allowed the government to “act out its charade and proceed with the action that it intended in the first place”. Miners are looking to the February 11 meeting with Jagdeo, McWilfred said, noting that the president has not indicated a reason for the meeting but it is generally believed that he will use the opportunity to pronounce on the proposed new regulations.
National Land Use Plan
Meantime, the GGDMA and the Forest Products Association (FPA) in another joint statement yesterday again called on government to urgently address the issue of a permanent National Land Use Plan. They noted that several representations have been made to the authorities by both entities to adopt a medium to long term approach towards addressing the necessity of the land use issue. They said that in order for such an approach to materialize, the GGMC and the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) need to advance the level of collaboration and coordination between themselves as this is pivotal to both sectors. “In doing so the government agencies must give serious consideration to proposals made by both mining and forestry associations as they are more familiar with ground and economic realities”, the statement said.
They had noted that it is deeply regrettable that the FPA was not allowed to represent its views on the Land Use Committee comprising the GGMC, the GFC, the GGDMA, and others, which is examining mining and forestry matters.
According to the statement, it is absolutely important for the Land Use Committee to recognize that areas allocated for mining within forestry concessions cannot be subjected to the same stringent rules enforced by the GFC, as has been echoed in letters from several loggers who requested to harvest the timber resources. It pointed out that whenever the GGMC issues a mining claim/permit it is with the understanding that the prospective miner locates valuable minerals within the property and that mining will take place. The Land Use Committee and the GFC must accept openly therefore that sustainable forestry practices are no longer possible, the statement said. It pointed out that the GFC has “waived” sustainable forest management practices in predominantly mining areas such as Mahdia, Konawaruk and Aroaima/Berbice River.
Noting that both sectors employ over 125,000 persons and have potential for much more, the Associations stressed that it is important that the government urgently address the issue of a permanent land use plan for all regions of Guyana so that needed development can be assured.
Ambitious
Meanwhile, the GGDMA, in a separate press release said that the Association has set an ambitious production target of 500,000 ounces of gold for 2010, which at the current price of gold, is worth $100B. It explained that this projection is motivated by the outstanding performance of the industry last year and the expectation that this year, better recovery systems and greater productivity, will ensure a better year.
The Association has also reiterated its call for the removal of the six months notice prior to mining requirement. It stated that if this is allowed to go ahead, it will promote stagnation of the industry while the invested (financial) resources accrue interest resulting in the bankruptcy of miners.
Additionally, it called for the removal of the GFC as the final veto authority over the commencement of mining in any particular area. According to the Association, the peculiarities of mining and logging are as different as night and day. The GGDMA also reiterated its demand that government set aside seven to ten percent of state lands for mining in a mechanism that will allow for greater productivity and sustainable management.
The GGDMA stated that it remains committed to productive work with the Land Use Committee to reform the local mining sector. It pledged to continue to work with the government and other agencies to improve mining practices and environmental sustainability. It asserted that mining is not a major contributor to the degradation of the environment pointing out that gold and diamond mining is regulated by the GGMC and subject to the environmental laws of Guyana.
The GGDMA pointed out that mining is an extractive industry and the gold in Guyana lies beneath the surface and can only be removed by disturbing the land. “Once the area has been mined, the land is restored and re-vegetation of the area is visible in as little as six months after restoration. (Additionally) mining disturbs only about 6000 acres of land annually and not the 60,000 acres as has been maliciously articulated”, the association stated.
The statement said that the mining sector is Guyana’s largest export earner and noted that the industry has developed several interior townships like Bartica, Mahdia, Matthews Ridge, Port Kaituma, Kwakwani, which, today continue to depend on the revenues of the industry to sustain their development. “The contribution of mining to the Guyanese economy can be seen in revenues paid to the national coffers, employment of over 100 000 persons, employment and investment in almost every sector of Guyana. The GGDMA is demanding that our industry be recognized for its contribution and treated with the same level of respect and interest given to the other productive sectors in Guyana”, the statement said.
Nota del editor del blog: Al referenciarse a la República Cooperativa de Guyana se deben de tener en cuenta los 159.500Km2, de territorios ubicados al oeste del río Esequibo conocidos con el nombre de Guayana Esequiba o Zona en Reclamación sujetos al Acuerdo de Ginebra del 17 de febrero de 1966.
Territorios estos sobre los cuales el gobierno Venezolano en representación de la Nación venezolana se reservo sus derechos sobre los territorios de la Guayana Esequiba en su nota del 26 de mayo de 1966 al reconocerse al nuevo Estado de Guyana . “...por lo tanto, Venezuela reconoce como territorio del nuevo Estado, el que se sitúa al este de la margen derecha del río Esequibo y reitera ante la comunidad internacional, que se reserva expresamente sus derechos de soberanía territorial sobre la zona que se encuentra en la margen izquierda del precitado río; en consecuencia, el territorio de la Guayana Esequiba sobre el cual Venezuela se reserva expresamente sus derechos soberanos, limita al Este con el nuevo Estado de Guyana, a través de la línea del río Esequibo, tomando éste desde su nacimiento hasta su desembocadura en el Océano Atlántico
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario