The Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) has taken note of the comments made by Chair of the National Toshaos Council (NTC) Toshao Derrick John and Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and wishes to bring clarity to some of their misguided and misleading comments.
The APA is first and foremost a non-governmental organisation that advocates for the rights of indigenous peoples to be respected and will never seek to impugn those rights. In similarly penned statements, both Chairman John and Vice President Jagdeo accused the APA of seeking to block funding from the indigenous communities – a contention far from the truth.
In its complaint to Architecture for REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) Transactions (ART) Secretariat, APA recommended that the credits issued to Guyana that have not yet been purchased be frozen and suspended and that no further credits be issued until the government fully respects the rights of indigenous peoples. The call for the suspension of the issuance of further credits is premised on the fact that the government has failed to uphold the tenets of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) when engaging indigenous communities.
APA, in its complaint to ART, recommended that the revision process for the Amerindian Act 2006 continues to ensure that the law conforms to international human rights standards; that government resolve all outstanding indigenous land claims including land extension application under the Amerindian Land Titling (ALT) project; that mechanisms be put in place to implement the IACHR recommendations relating to mining in Isseneru and addressing UN CERD’s recommendations on the invasion of miners on Chinese Landing titled lands; and thorough engagement with indigenous peoples be conducted nationally to determine the most appropriate and informed method of benefit-sharing from the sale of carbon credits.
The APA wishes to inform both Chairman John and Vice President Jagdeo that the recommendation for the suspension of the issuance of further credits can be revised once the government begins to address the issues plaguing indigenous peoples of Guyana. The APA expects Chairman John, as leader of the NTC, to always advocate for indigenous peoples’ rights and respect those rights. Moreover, this includes the right of communities to legally represent their own interests and concerns through their Village Councils, as vested in the Amerindian Act 2006, which at times would distinctly differ from the actions of the NTC Chair.
The APA maintains its position that while the NTC serves a crucial advisory role, it does not have legal authority under Guyanese law to make decisions about indigenous lands on behalf of villages. In addition, the right to FPIC is vested in indigenous peoples under international law (not in a statutory body like the NTC), so any NTC resolution should not have been considered by ART to be an exercise of FPIC.
The NTC Chair also inaccurately states that the APA operates in only two Regions and has a handful of members. Chairman John is well aware that the Association’s work is currently spread across Regions 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 with strong collaboration with many Indigenous representatives from these regions including Toshaos and other leaders from within District Councils.
The APA’s triggering of the grievance mechanism was done in full conformity with its established standard operating procedures. Again, we reiterate that our membership is made up of indigenous leaders and District Council Executives among others. APA’s work in communities also undertakes consultation on plans and other redress mechanisms. Additionally, we reiterate that FPIC is one of the rights that the APA holds dearly and will continue advocating for the government to respect that right when engaging indigenous communities.
The NTC Chair and Vice President’s comments on FPIC also seem to reflect a misunderstanding of the rights of indigenous peoples recognized in international law. FPIC applies when a project, such as a REDD+ project, could affect the customary lands of indigenous peoples. APA’s request to the government and to ART is to pause just such a project until FPIC can be fully respected. It is incoherent to complain, as the Chairman and Vice President have, of a lack of FPIC in making a request for FPIC.
On the issue of FPIC and consultation, we wish to remind Chairman John that just last December the APA and South Rupununi District Council (SRDC) engaged the NTC and indigenous leaders across the country in the development of a national consultation proposal for the revision of the Amerindian Act 2006. We also remind him that the NTC had agreed to meet and discuss formally submitting this proposal to the government but never followed through with that despite the APA and its partners offering to provide support for the NTC Executive to meet and discuss this issue. Leaders expected the NTC, under Part IV, Section 41 (G)III of the current Amerindian Act 2006, to advise the minister on a consultation process for revising the AA 2006. This is still pending.
We find the NTC Chair’s comments on FPIC to be disingenuous and deliberately misleading since the NTC seems reluctant to engage the APA on matters of mutual concern and interest.
Vice President Jagdeo, in his statement on Saturday, said APA was selective in its participation in the Multi-Stakeholder Steering Committee (MSSC) and consultation with independent verifiers.
APA was invited to one meeting with independent verifiers on April 29, 2022, at 13:00h. That meeting lasted no more than 45 minutes and included representatives from two other indigenous bodies. APA asked the independent verifiers to present their plans for the verification process but never received them. Additionally, the team indicated to the APA that they would be engaging a few Indigenous communities as part of their process. APA had encouraged that the engagement of District Councils and other indigenous bodies would be important to ensure a thorough process is followed.
APA did submit its concerns about the process to the ART Secretariat, Board and donors.
As it relates to participation at the MSSC level, APA attended approximately three meetings where concerns were noted and feedback from the community was provided. However, the minutes of those meetings would not reflect it since the suggestions or any contribution from the APA were not included. We asked that provisions for an alternate representative be made given the fact that APA’s work is community-based which meant that our representative on that body would not always be available without considerable consultation. This was shot down by both President Irfaan Ali and Vice President Jagdeo.
Recognizing the reach of the APA, and by way of an offer from APA, the MSSC agreed to provide copies of the draft Low Carbon Development Strategy for the Association to distribute. We received an initial 20 copies followed by approximately 50 more. Those were distributed at meetings and workshops that the APA supported. We also received copies of the final LCDS 2030 document which were distributed. Contrary to the Vice President’s claim, the APA does not have hundreds of copies of the LCDS 2030 draft sitting in its office because it did not receive hundreds of copies. Additionally, APA did not receive funding or any resources from the government for consultation on the LCDS 2030.
In fact, APA utilised its own resources and had LCDS workshops with communities and provided feedback to the government.
We reiterate that Vice President Jagdeo, in his tirade against the APA, failed to address the substance of the Association’s complaint to ART which is his government’s failure to respect the right of indigenous peoples to proper consultations and failure to fully comply with TREES, among others. Additionally, Vice President Jagdeo has consistently failed to defend or remedy his government’s violation of indigenous peoples’ right to FPIC.
He has also failed to answer the APA’s questions relating to his government’s violation of the principles governing FPIC and effective participation.
The APA wishes to affirm that the organisation remains open to meeting with the Vice President, National Toshaos Council, Cabinet, and other officials to directly address our concerns and find constructive pathways towards resolving them for the benefit of Guyana’s Indigenous Peoples. Our open-door policy of lending support to any village leader and their councils or indigenous person in Guyana is well documented and most times we are approached with a plethora of needs that usually ends up in our work programme. We remain proud of our representation and work with communities over the years and envisage that this will continue robustly as we have done in the past and as mandated by our membership.
