A timely warning

Editorial
Stabroek News
June 19, 1999


In a letter in our Sunday issue four persons who have a detailed knowledge of the National Protected Areas System (NPAS) project for Guyana said that the government had been misled by one of the organisations representing Amerindians in relation to the extension of the Kaieteur National Park. They said that the Amerindians at Chenapau village had been consulted, that the village hunting and fishing grounds would not fall within the proposed extension and that the park would benefit the villagers. The essence of their case was that hard line elements in the Amerindian community were now routinely opposing projects of this kind and seeking to link them with the broader issue of Amerindian land titles even where there is in fact no connection.

It is a timely warning. Objections to almost any kind of development project in the interior are now predictable on the often vague and entirely unproven ground that they conflict with Amerindian rights. These rights are either claims to title to the land or claims that the Amerindians once hunted or fished there, or now do so. The letter makes it clear that these claims must be vigorously investigated in future before being accepted.

The growth in the last decade or so of movements representing the Amerindians, and in a related phenomenon the environment, needs to be carefully examined. After the most appalling treatment of their own indigenous peoples from the time of settlement, in some cases almost amounting to genocide, and the contamination of the world's atmosphere in the industrialisation process from the nineteenth century onwards the prosperous Western countries have now developed strong ethical positions on both issues. They now recognise and support the rights of indigenous people to land and fair treatment and want developing countries to preserve their forests. Their spokesmen have persuaded the international financial institutions to take a strong position on environmental issues and to introduce sustainable forestry as one of the conditions in their loan agreements. And they sponsor and support movements overseas that espouse these two causes.

Bernard Shaw would have appreciated the irony, like the arms manufacturer who becomes a philanthropist in his old age after he has made his fortune. The paradox here is that both issues are perfectly valid in their own right, the Amerindians have a case and it is in the interest of everyone that the ozone layer should not be further damaged and that forests should be preserved. However, a fully environmental approach stands in potential conflict with some of the other forms of development which are currently being pursued in the hinterland. The government needs with some urgency to craft an interior policy which would set the parameters for interior development, and provide the framework within which any conflicts could be resolved.

Let us turn then to the Amerindian case. The case for land title is recognised by all. Any current analysis must begin from the Report of the Amerindian Lands Commission in 1969 which recommended the issue of communal titles for the various areas that were being occupied or used. This was partly implemented by the 1976 Amerindian Act. The award to the Akawaios was not made because of the Mazaruni project which was then current but they were later given land. The Amerindian population has continued to expand dramatically and may now be as high as 50,000. There has been some increase in land occupation beyond what existed in the sixties.

In view of the time that has passed what is needed, we believe, is a new Amerindian Lands Commission to update the position finally and definitively. It perhaps should also include within its brief a review of current indigenous hunting, fishing and gathering patterns, which represent another area of possible difficulty between the communities and the new concessionaires of the interior. Moreover, in areas like the North West where some of the communities are more developed, entrepreneurially speaking, the possibilities of individual titles being awarded, in addition to the communal title which was in keeping with the traditions of the communities could be considered in some instances. Seeking to base title on historical occupation and usage, as is being done in a pending court action as distinct from current occupation could open a Pandora's box in this and other areas.

The Amerindians have a good case but their representatives and advisers must be careful not to overstate it. That can do more harm than good. They are a part of the Guyanese community and will benefit from development of the interior that does not encroach on their rights. The whole interior cannot be sacrosanct. What is needed most is an updating of their titles and the completion of the necessary surveys.


A © page from:
Guyana: Land of Six Peoples