New draft Amerindian Act gives communities more responsibility - Rodrigues
- also seeks more accountability
By Andre Haynes
Stabroek News
January 4, 2005
Amerindian Affairs Minister Carolyn Rodrigues says that the new draft Amerindian Act will invest more responsibility in communities, which will be entrusted with more land rights.
Meanwhile, the Amerin-dian Affairs Ministry on Friday announced that the consultations on the draft of the new law have been postponed until February.
The ministry had originally planned to begin consultations from today to January 25.
Indigenous organisations had been calling on the ministry to grant an extension of the time to properly study the draft of the new law, but the statement offered no reason for the postponement.
Touchaus from Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 who were scheduled to travel to the city were asked not to do so, but no new dates were given for the consultations.
St. Ignatius Touchau Tony James in a letter to Stabroek News last week wrote that under the new legislation the minister has at least 52 powers, the village council 46, the district council 7, the National Touchau's Council 13 and the Community General Meeting 16.
But Minister Rodrigues told Stabroek News that about half of the instances that call for the minister's intervention are cases where the communities are unable to reach an agreement.
She contended that the new laws are in fact intended to get the councils to make rules and decisions to properly govern their inhabitants.
The law proposes that councils will be empowered to make rules to govern in keeping with its functions. But the draft says that the minister must approve all rules before they can be enacted by the council.
Rodrigues pointed out that this provision is to ensure that a rule is not in conflict with any other law or the Constitution.
She said that one community for example recommended that any person employed outside the community must contribute half of his/her salary to the community.
She added that for years councils have been making decisions without consulting the people in the communities and the new provisions seek to make them more accountable in this regard.
She also noted the recent cases of two indigenous persons who were denied land in their respective communities by councils that acted arbitrarily.
In one case the female applicant Petronella Michael was disallowed land because she did not fit the character-based criteria that were set out by the St. Ignatius Council.
Rodrigues said that in many cases like this one the actions of the councils have been discriminatory, particularly in the cases of indigenous women who have taken non-indigenous men as husbands.
Sub-soil rights
She said that under the new law the councils will have to make rules to govern functions like land allocation which is not covered under the current legislation.
She noted that for years communities have been trying to put rules in place but so far many have been unsuccessful as none of them are currently gazetted.
One of the major criticisms of the new legislation is the failure to recognise sub-soil rights that groups and organisations have been pushing for.
Rodrigues explained that the ministry was looking towards a benefit-sharing arrangement similar to the type that has been used in Brazil.
In this regard the new law makes provisions for small and medium-scale miners to pay the community a tribute of at least 7% of the value of any minerals that are obtained from the community's lands.
Large-scale miners meanwhile have to negotiate the amount of tribute to be paid for minerals they recover from the community.
Also, the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) is required to transfer 20% of all royalties from the mining activities to a fund designated by the minister for the benefit of the indigenous communities.
Rodrigues said that miners have already complained that there is no way they can make a profit if they are required to turn over the tribute, but the GGMC has said that the figure is workable.
Rodrigues added that the law will give communities de facto rights over their lands as two-thirds of the village will have to consent to all mining concessions on their lands.
She noted that in the past there have been situations where the village captains have granted concessions without the knowledge of the councils or the rest of the village and the new provisions are intended to guard against such occurrences.
There is however a proviso for overruling the council where the minister with responsibility for mining finds that such activities are in the best interest of the public.
The minister said this is intended to ensure that no community can hold the state to ransom where there is a potential for tremendous benefit for the country.
"If you cannot exploit the land for the benefit of the country you will end up in a situation where people can claim discrimination," Rodrigues pointed out.
The new law also sets out the conditions for the grant of leases of land not exceeding ten percent of that owned by the community.
This is for agriculture, tourism or other productive and sustainable use of land that is consistent with the community's cultural attachment to the land.
The councils are required to call a community general meeting, where 75% of the residents have to approve leases to any non-indigenous persons. Only 60% of the residents have to approve leases to indigenous persons.
But before granting any lease the councils must obtain the consent of the minister which is another sore point in some quarters.
Rodrigues however said that there have been some problems in this area as well.
She recalled one case where the leaser had gone through every process but the community was none the wiser about the grant, since the captain had completed the transaction on his own causing a conflict in the community.
She added that the potential danger that existed in allowing the communities to lease as much as they wanted was also recognised given the international consultant's experience in Peru and Mexico and it is for this reason there is a 10% limit on all grants. Rodrigues also added that this was one of the consequences of communal ownership of land that most of the communities opted to maintain during the consultations on the draft act two years ago.
Another criticism of the draft has been its failure to take on board most of the recommendations that were made during the consultations.
Rodrigues explained that the consultations exposed a disparity: while some communities offered studied proposals others veered in the direction of requests that would be unconstitutional if they were ever enacted.