AMERINDIAN PEOPLES ASSOCIATION

PRESS RELEASE

Amerindian communities not involved in discussions on
Protected areas in Southern Region

The Amerindian Peoples Association is deeply concerned about the signing of an MOU between the government and Conservation International that paves the way for the establishment of a protected area in the Southern Region of Guyana. There remain long outstanding concerns of Amerindians which must be addressed, including the resolution of Amerindian land rights issues and the equal and meaningful participation in and agreement to any process that may lead to a protected area. That CI and the Government have unilaterally set a date for establishment of a protected area demonstrates their disregard of the opinions of Amerindians who will undoubtedly feel, and live with, the effects of a protected area. Further, two key pieces of legislation which will impact heavily upon the establishment and development of protected areas in Guyana, the (Draft) Protected Areas Regulations and the Amerindian Act, are in the process of being formulated and revised respectively. Nonetheless, the government insists on relentlessly pushing ahead in this area without key pieces of legislation in place.

Since time immemorial, the lands in question have been the home to two Indigenous peoples: the Wapishana and the Wai Wai. The proposed protected area overlaps the ancestral lands of the Wapishana communities of Shea, Maruranawa, Awarenawa, Aishalton, Karaudanawa and Achiwib and has the potential to affect the way of life of these communities as well as the Wai Wai communities. This is especially true should, as has occurred to date, they not fully understand, participate in and agree to the development of this project and their land rights issues are not addressed.

While one Wai Wai community was listed in the schedule to the Amerindian Act in 1977, it was explicitly denied any legal title to its traditional lands. No explanation was offered other than they were too 'unsophisticated' to understand the concept of title. The six affected Wapishana communities do have title, but only to a small portion of their traditional lands, the same traditional lands that are now partly encompassed within the proposed protected area. It is hoped that this and other issues will be positively addressed in the new Amerindian Act, however, communities will not be given a fair chance in this regard if a protected area system is prematurely foisted upon them.

It is important to note that the Government of Guyana has specific international legal obligations to recognize and respect the rights of indigenous peoples to own lands traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used. This principle is repeated in the major policy statements of international conservation organizations. The IUCN World Conservation Union - of which Guyana is a member - and the World Wildlife Fund, for instance, adopted a set of principles for establishing protected areas in 2000, which state unequivocally that "The establishment of new protected areas on indigenous and other traditional peoples' terrestrial, coastal/marine and freshwater domains should be based on the legal recognition of collective rights of communities living within them to the lands, territories, waters, coastal seas and other resources they traditionally own or otherwise occupy or use" (principle 2.3). CI is a major exception; it has no policy on indigenous peoples' rights in conservation. Why?

The Wai Wai community of Massakinar was visited by CI in August 2002 and a letter from the community was sent to the Government supporting the idea of a protected area in the southern region. After learning about this letter, the Deep South Toshaos (Captains) informed CI that they were concerned about the proposed site, which overlaps Wapishana ancestral lands. These communities are yet to be visited by CI or the government on this issue.

While the Wai Wai have every right to support such a proposal, it is imperative that they do so with a full understanding of the issues and impacts, both positive and negative, that may result. This cannot be achieved by only a few visits to the community by an organisation whose primary aim is to establish a protected area regardless of the position or rights of the human inhabitants therein. The deep south Wapishana communities are equally important stake and rights-holders who must also fully understand, be involved in and agree to any process regarding a protected area within their lands.

That CI refuses to acknowledge the Wapishana communities as key stake and rights-holders sets a dangerous precedent for future protected areas on and around Amerindian lands. This constitutes gross disrespect for the six Wapishana communities by CI, which the government apparently supports. It is time that organisations like CI respect the views of Amerindian communities, fully acknowledge that they are key stake-/rights-holders in the process, and take the time and effort to work with these communities in a manner that promotes the communities' understanding of the proposed protected area system. These communities will have to live with a protected area long after the employees of such organisations have retired.

In 1996, at the consultation with Toshaos on NPAS in Paramakatoi, the Toshaos clearly stated, among others, that the issue of Amerindian lands must be resolved before the development of any protected area near Amerindian communities and that they must fully participate in and agree to such developments. The 1999 National Toshaos Conference reaffirmed this position and added that protected areas should only be established after direct negotiation with and agreement by all affected Amerindian communities. The Conference also emphasized that protected areas can be, in appropriate cases, owned or co-owned, in full or part, by Amerindians as a way of reducing conflict and resolving Amerindian land rights issues while also creating protected areas. Is the focus of the government and CI establishing protected areas in keeping with internationally accepted standards or is it the denial of all rights of Amerindians attached to a protected area?

Almost all of the areas identified for protected area status in Guyana overlap traditional Amerindian lands. The Roraima area is presently sub-judice, yet there is still no discussion about the rights of the Akawaio and Arecuna traditional owners nor is there any discussion with them. The Amerindian communities of Moruca, Region 1, recently filed a formal land claim with the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs that includes part of Shell Beach. The expansion of the Kaiteur National Park sparked protest from the Amerindian communities affected and may lead to litigation.

It is difficult to understand why the MOU sets June 2003 as a target for establishing a protected area in the southern region while so many burning issues remain unresolved. If these issues are not seriously addressed, protected areas and conservation of biological diversity will not only be at the expense of the rights and ways of life of Guyana's first peoples, they will also be unsustainable.

Executive Committee
November 28, 2002