Read... - University of Guyana

Transcription

AnInvestigationintotheLevelof
PreparednessofArtisanalSmall‐scale
GoldMiningOperations(ASGM)inMahdia
toTransformtoMercury‐freeMining
Techniques
Viola Amanda King
2012
AResearchProjectPresented
By
ViolaAmandaKing
To
TheFacultyofSchoolofEarthandEnvironmentalSciences
Of
TheUniversityofGuyana
InPartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsforthe
Bachelor’sDegreeofEnvironmentalStudies
9thJuly,2012
i Acknowledgment
The researcher wishes to acknowledge and extend sincere gratitude to the following
persons who rendered their assistance and support and in so doing, made the completion of this
research paper possible.
I thank my parents, Iris and Cornel King, for their unceasing moral and financial support
throughout the researcher’s life. I would also like to thank Devon Aguard and Jermanie
Critchlow for supporting me in my research endeavors and allowing me to choose a topic I am
truly interested in and passionate about.
The researcher is especially grateful to the supervisors, Dr. Therese Ferguson, Coordinator of
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences (SEES), University of Guyana and Dr. Patrick
Williams, Country Manager, WWF Guyana, for their constructive criticism, input, guidance and
knowledge.
I would like to thank all the people in Mahdia who took the time to participate in this study,
particularly those who facilitated my travel throughout Mahdia and to the mining sites I visited.
This study may not have been possible without their help.
I also wish to acknowledge my colleague and friends who had assisted the researcher through
this project. Finally, I am most grateful to the Heavenly Father JESUS CHRIST, who has always
made everything possible. I thank the Lord for giving me the inspiration, strength and
opportunity to complete this research paper.
ii Abstract
Mining activities play a significant role in the world’s global economy. In the Guianas,
small scale gold mining activities have been carried out for over one hundred years and over the
past fifteen (15) years there have been vast increase in artisanal small-scale gold miners, due to
the increase in gold prices1. Small and medium scale gold mining, (from here on referred to as
(ASGM) artisanal small-scale gold mining) provides an important source of income for miners,
particularly in rural communities. The sector is generally poverty-driven, comprising of
individuals with few, if any, employment alternatives, coupled with the wider economic
problems faced by the developing world.2 The use of mercury by ASGM has generated
enormous benefits however; these benefits over the past decades have resulted in high humanhealth and environmental costs. As a result, mercury usefulness is on the decline, to foster more
effective and reliable environmental friendly alternatives.3 The ban on mercury for the use in
gold mining activities by the European Union (EU) and the United States (US); 2011 and 2013
respectively creates an increase on the world price and scarcity of mercury; this can further be
compounded by a worldwide ban of mercury. Some believe such trends are likely to hasten the
adoption of alternative to mercury. The ASGM sector contributes significantly as a source of
income for thousands of people and a significant source of employment in Guyana. However, the
extensive uncontrolled mining operations are causing significant environmental, health and
socio-cultural problem. Which will be further discussed in the literature review, including some
of the institutional arrangements problems.
The aim of this study/ research is to examine the preparedness of artisanal and small-scale gold
mining (ASGM) operations in Mahdia, Guyana, in transforming to mercury-free mining
techniques. The principal questions are; (i) to what extent have the small-scale gold miners in
Mahdia been trained and made aware of alternative mining techniques to mercury use? (ii) Are
the small-scale miners in Mahdia willing to implement mercury-free techniques in their
operations? And (iii) what are the major challenges confronting small-scale gold miners in
transforming their operations from mercury use to mercury-free technologies?
1
Vieira, Rickford. (2004) Hilson, Gavin (2005) 3
Balistreri, Edward, J. & Worley, Christopher, M. (2009) 2
iii TableofContents
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 4 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2. Statement of the problem ............................................................................................................... 12 1.3. Background ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 1: ASGM Gold Production (1997‐2009) ..................................................................................... 16 Table 2: Showing Gold Production Of 2008 to 2010 ........................................................................... 17 Table 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 17 1.4. Significance of the Study .................................................................................................................. 17 1.5. Research Aims, Objectives and Questions ........................................................................................... 20 1.5.1. Aim: ............................................................................................................................................... 20 1.5.2. Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 20 1.5.3. Questions ...................................................................................................................................... 20 2.1. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 21 2.2. Overview of Major Issues ..................................................................................................................... 22 2.2.1. Environmental ............................................................................................................................... 22 2.2.2. Socio‐cultural ................................................................................................................................ 24 2.2.3. Economic ....................................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.4. Institutional Arrangements ........................................................................................................... 27 The GGMC and EPA ............................................................................................................................. 28 The Guyana Gold Board (GGB) ............................................................................................................ 29 Enforcement ....................................................................................................................................... 30 2.3. Education and Awareness of ASGM towards Mercury‐free Equipment ............................................. 31 2.4. Willingness of ASGM to Adopt Alternative to Mercury ....................................................................... 33 2.5. Challenges of ASGM to Mercury Alternatives ..................................................................................... 35 Health and Safety ................................................................................................................................ 37 1 3.1. Overview of Study Area (Mahdia) ........................................................................................................ 40 Location ................................................................................................................................................... 40 History ..................................................................................................................................................... 40 Geomorphology and Climate .................................................................................................................. 41 Soil and Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 41 3.2. Methodologies ..................................................................................................................................... 42 3.2.1. Research Methods and Instruments ............................................................................................. 43 Interviews ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Survey (Questionnaires): Quantitative Approach ............................................................................... 43 Field Visits ........................................................................................................................................... 44 Sampling Technique ............................................................................................................................ 44 3.3. Ethical Consideration and Risks Involved ............................................................................................. 45 3.3.1. Ethical Consideration in the Study Area ....................................................................................... 45 3.3.2. Risks Involved in the Study Area ................................................................................................... 46 3.4. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 46 3.5. Limitations ............................................................................................................................................ 47 4.1. Analysis and Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 48 4.1.1. Section A: Personal details and Section B: Socio‐economic details .............................................. 48 4.1.2. Objective One ................................................................................................................................... 50 Levels of education, awareness and training of ASGM towards mercury free alternatives .................. 50 Knowledge .......................................................................................................................................... 50 4.1.3. Objective Two ................................................................................................................................... 54 Willingness of ASGM to adopt alternative gold extraction methods to the use of mercury ................. 54 Attitude ............................................................................................................................................... 54 Table 4: Survey Data ........................................................................................................................... 55 Table 5: Survey Data ........................................................................................................................... 56 Practice ............................................................................................................................................... 56 4.1.4. Objective Three ................................................................................................................................. 61 Challenges confronting ASGM in transitioning to mercury free alternatives ......................................... 61 Section D: Challenges .......................................................................................................................... 61 Table 6: Survey Data ........................................................................................................................... 62 Table 7: Survey Data ........................................................................................................................... 62 2 4.1.5. Further Discussions ........................................................................................................................... 67 4.1.6. Section E: ASGM Recommendations ................................................................................................ 68 5.1. Conclusion and Recommendation ....................................................................................................... 70 5.1.1. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 70 5.1.2. Recommendation .......................................................................................................................... 73 5.2. References ........................................................................................................................................... 75 5.3.1. Annex 1: Maps .................................................................................................................................. 82 5.3.2. Annex 2: Mercury‐free technologies ................................................................................................ 84 5.3.3. Annex 3: Questionnaires and Interview sheets ................................................................................ 86 5.3.4. Annex 4: Picture of ASGM sites ........................................................................................................ 94 List of Abbreviations
ASGM
Artisanal Small-Scale Gold Mining
ERD
Environment and Responsible Development
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
GENCAPD
Guyana Environmental Capacity Development Mining Project
GGMC
Guyana Geology and Mines Commission
GGDMA
Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association
GFC
Guyana Forestry Commission
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GGB
Guyana Gold Board
GMP
Global Mercury Project
LCDS
Low-Carbon Development Strategy
NGOs
None Governmental Organizations
REED
Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
UNIDO
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
WWF
World Wildlife Fund
3 ListofTables
Table 1: ASGM Gold Production (1997-2009)
Table 2: Showing Gold Production Of 2008 to 2010
Table 3: Rank, value and contributions of exports for Guyana in 2009
Table 4: Reasons to implement alternatives
Table 5: The need for Hg alternatives * Preparedness to adopt mercury free technologies Cross
tabulation
Table 6: Various views of ASGM in the target population
Table 7: Personal views of the ban on mercury * When mercury is banned, what would you do
Cross tabulation
ListofFigures
Figure 1: Puruni River- extensive illegal mining near river banks
Figure 2: St. Elizabeth, Mahdia- forest are being cleared to undergo mining activities.
Figure 3: Occupation levels of the survey population
Figure 4: Years as a gold miner and present operation
Figure 5: Level of education
Figure 6: Miner’s awareness of the imposed ban on mercury
Figure 7: Knowledge and training in alternatives to mercury
Figure 8: Awareness of alternatives to mercury
Figure 9: Preparedness to adopt mercury free technologies
Figure 10: Use of protective gear
Figure 11: Type of protective gear
Figure 12: Motivation to use mercury free technologies
Figure 13: Stage at which mercury is added
4 Figure 14: Limiting factors preventing the adoption of mercury free technologies
Figure 15: Recommendations for making mercury free technologies more appealing to ASGM
Figure 16: AGM recommendations to encourage the use of mercury free technologies
5 Definition of Terms
Mercury (Hg): is a shiny, silver-white metal found in small amounts in the earth’s crust. It is
also known as quicksilver is a transition metal, an element found between Groups 2 (IIA) and 13
(IIIA) on the periodic table, and is known to be poisonous in some forms. For example, mercuric
chloride (corrosive sublimate) was often used to kill pests; some mercury compounds have been
used as medicines such as, mercurous chloride (calomel) which is used as a cure for skin
rashes.1,2
Retort: is a bowl or other vessel inverted over the burning amalgam in which the mercury
vapour is trapped and condensed; the retained mercury can be recycled or reused.3,4 It is a
simple system, assemble with a closed crucible connected to a condenser which produces
minimal mercury pollution; standard retort reduces mercury emission by 90% and the more
advanced ones are 99% effective.5
Sustainable mining: is described as present mine development that does not compromise the
resources that are available to present and future generation.
Mercury amalgamation: Amalgamation is the process to recovery gold and native silver from
gold/ silver ore; mercury combines with at least one other metal forming an amalgam. This
process is the primary method used by artisanal small-scale gold miners.6
Artisanal gold mining: is the main subsistence activity of particularly poor, hardworking,
illiterate, with little or no formal education, under health stress, malnourished and often
somewhat transient.7
1
Chemistry Expand‐ Foundation and Application Veiga, M. et al. (2006) 3
Module 3: Mercury Use in Artisanal and Small‐sale Gold Mining. 4
Veiga, M. et al. (2006) 5
Hilson, Gavin (2005) 6
6 Small-Scale Gold Mining (SGM): Small-scale gold mining was ignited in the mid-nineteenth
century, confined to scattered groups of nomadic pork knockers who prospected thick forest for
gold and diamond deposits, using pans, pick axes, shovels and simple sluices.8
In Guyana, it is the extraction of minerals from an area subjected to a claim license from which a
volume in excess of 20m3 but less than 200m3 (an area of 1500x800 feet on land and one mile in
length for river claims) of material, inclusive of any overburden is excavated or processed as an
aggregate in any continuous twenty-four hour period (GGMC).
Artisanal small-scale gold mining (ASGM): The extraction of minerals, mainly gold by miners
working in small/ medium sized operations; it is the unsystematic approach to explore and
extract for subsistence or income-generation.
Mercury-free technologies: are equipment and techniques that does not require the use of
mercury in gold extraction processes.
Land degradation: is the reduction or loss of biological or economic productivity of land. It is
where land becomes incapable of doing what it was once used for.
Land destruction: is the disturbance of land for economic benefits, in which the land may still
have economic benefits after disturbance such as, the planting of cash crops or hard wood which
can be harvested as lumber in later years; development of pasture for cattle and other economic
activities.
8
Module 3: Mercury Use in Artisanal and Small‐sale Gold Mining 7 CHAPTER1
1.1. Introduction
Gold is extremely rare; the average concentration of gold in the earth’s crust is
0.004g/tonne (0.004g of gold in one tonne of rock). The process of gold concentration happens
both above and below the surface of the earth. On the surface there is alluvial gold which has
been concentrated when gold bearing rocks are eroded or weathered, unconsolidated sand or
gravel placer deposits rich in gold can be formed. These types of deposits are mined by smallscale gold miners.
Below the surface underground gold veins or 'lodes' are produced in
association with various metallic deposits, often including sulphides and pyrites. Gold
concentration may occur as other minerals are leached away over a long period. These are often
formed in hard rocks, mining these ores requires long-term geological works (extensive drilling
and exploration) and high investment capital; associated by large-scale gold mining.9,10
Gold mining is vital to fragile economies in many countries of the world; it generates export
revenue, royalty and tax income to governments, technology transfer, work training and creation
of a skilled workforce. It also serves as a foundation that provides for developments of roads and
rail transportation in various regions, electricity, water and other aspects of a country’s economy.
In 2004 developing countries accounted for 72% of global gold outputs.11
Artisanal small-scale gold mining (ASGM) usually involves the use of substantial amounts of
mercury for mineral extraction (particularly gold). The rising price of gold from $260 US/oz. in
March 2001 to over $1000 US/oz. in March 2008 has resulted in a boom in gold mining
activities, particularly in communities and regions where economic alternatives are limited.
ASGM is the single largest intentional-release of mercury into the world;12,13 however most
miners are unaware of the consequences and dangers of mercury poisoning. The storage,
9
BillionVault.com (2011) Veiga, M. et al. (2006) 11
ResponsibleGold.org (2006) 12
Vieira, Rickford. (2004) 13
8 transport and handling of mercury provide opportunities for spills and the exposure to toxic
vapour. In many countries the use of mercury has been discouraged and even prohibited for use
in mining activities. Nevertheless, the demand for mercury by ASGM continues to increase
significantly (GGDMA).
Globally, artisanal small-scale gold mining (ASGM) is estimated to be 10-15 million miners in
approximately 70 countries, making it the largest demand sector for mercury.14 However,
according to estimates by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
2004, they are about 20-30 million ASG miners in more than 55 countries.15 At least quarter of
the world’s total gold supply comes from ASGM; that is approximately 500- 800 tonnes per
annum16; representing about one third of global mercury consumption, an estimated 650- 1,350
ton/year with an average of 1000 tonnes, of which 40% is released into the atmosphere and the
remaining 60% to aquatic systems.17 This grave misuse of mercury represents about 30% of
anthropogenic releases of mercury in the world.18
In 2005 ASGM consumed an estimated 650-1000 tons of mercury, though mercury free solutions
are available. This stems from the fact that mercury is relatively cheap (in Guyana mercury is
priced between G$2,500 to $3,000 per pound in 2005); it is easily accessible, independent and
easy to use19. Mercury is highly effective in capturing gold; it is the easiest and quickest method
for extracting gold from alluvial ores. It is also the simplest way of transportation of gold across
borders and other areas20. Mercury is used to separate and collect the gold from the rocks in which it is found. It binds to
the gold to form an amalgam which helps it to separate from rock, sand or other material. The
amalgam is then heated to vaporize the mercury leaving the gold behind. There are a number of
14
Veiga, M.M, et al. (2005) Spiegel, S. and Veiga, M. (2009 b) 16
Telmer, K. (2008) 18
Veiga, M.M, et al. (2005). 19
9 different techniques used, which result in varying degrees of mercury releases21. Further, most
ASGM uses mercury because of the lack of knowledge and awareness of the health risks and
environmental problems associated with mercury, combined with the lack of information of
possible mercury-free alternatives.
In the Guianas, small scale gold mining activities have been carried out for over one hundred
years and over the past fifteen (15) years there has been a vast increase in artisanal small-scale
gold miners, due to the increase in gold prices22. Although the ASGM sector contributes
significantly as a source of income for thousands of people, the extensive uncontrolled mining
operations are causing significant environmental, health and socio-cultural problem23.
Research has shown that mercury causes damage to the nervous system, brain and has long-term
physical effects on unborn children whose mother was exposed to inhalation of toxic fumes
during the process of separating mercury from gold24. The severities of clinical symptoms are
dependent on the form of mercury and the kind of exposure. The most toxic form of mercury is
methyl mercury; it has serious adverse effects on the central nervous system and the area of the
brain that regulates the senses25.
Guyana is one of the few countries in the world that have escape most of the brunt of the current
ecological difficulties being experienced by many other countries. Nevertheless, Guyana is not
insulated from the impending environmental problems. At present many of the country’s forests
and rivers are still intact, logging and mining play an increasing role in economic development.
Mining contributes to mineral production, exports and employment for over 9000 persons thus,
poverty alleviation. There are approximately 950 ASGM land and river operations in Guyana
and are the main contributor to export earnings.26,27
21
Module 3: Mercury Use in Artisanal and Small‐sale Gold Mining. Vieira, Rickford. (2004) 23
Lowe, Sherwood. (2008) 24
Woolford, W. (2010) 25
Ouboter et al. 2007 26
(2008) Environmental Conservation in Guyana: Selected WWF Publications 27
(2011) Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Mining Supplement 22
10 Howeverr, the inapp
propriate mining
m
practices of artisanall small-scalee gold
miners in
n Guyana, has
h resulted
d in a
number of environ
nmental imp
pacts;
turbidity in riverss and streeams;
alteration
n to river ch
hannels by taailing
heaps; crreation of stagnant
s
poo
ols of
water wh
hich serves as
a breeding places
p
for malarria vectors; land
l
degradaation;
destructio
on of river dams
d
(Figurre 1);
deforestaation
and
destruction
n
of
habitats (Figure
(
2) thus,
t
migration of
Figure
e 1: Puruni Riveer‐ extensive illeegal mining nearr river banks, thus likelyy to result in eroosion of river dams. wildlife, birds and lo
oss of biodiveersity
of both flora
f
and fau
una, and priimary
mercury contaminatiion of minerrs and
the
teerrestrial
and
aq
quatic
environm
ment. Of all these imp
pacts,
special emphasis
e
is being placeed on
addressin
ng mercury
y contaminaation,
due to the fact th
hat, in ordeer to
om the mercu
ury it
separate the gold fro
has to bee burnt (usuaally done in openo
air) thuss, releasing
g toxic meercury
fumes in
nto the air as well ass the
Figure
e 2: St. Elizabethh, Mahdia‐ largee areas of forest are being cleareed to undergo mining activiities. spillage of
o mercury into
i
waterwaays during reemoval or exxtraction proocesses. Theey are reportts that
some miiners are dirrectly applyiing mercury
y in the slurrry sump, sluuice box annd on the grround
during jeetting operatiions. Such activities
a
can
n have seriouus environm
mental impliccations on suurface
and grou
und water. Mercury
M
foun
nd in water ways and thhe atmospheere can be eeasily transpported
making it a local as well
w a globall concern.28,229
28
29
Ouboterr, P. et al. (2007
7) Spiegel, S. and Veiga, M
M. (2009 b) 11 1.2.Statementoftheproblem
The most popular form of ASGM method use in Guyana is land dredging; a combination of
hydraulicking and suction dredging that employs chiefly the use of mercury. The metal
(mercury) is used in various ways; (i) applied on the pit floor to amalgamate gold particles before
processing; (ii) placed on or behind the riffles in sluice boxes; and (iii) at the final stage to
amalgamate the gravity concentrate.30,31 During these processes a significant amount of mercury
is released into the environment, affecting miners and their communities.32,33
Poor mining practices in Guyana have resulted in several environmental, socio-cultural and
economic issues (discussed in greater details in the literature review). In which the county’s
forest and waterways are under threat by ASGM activities. There are roughly 40,000 to 60,000
Guyanese that are involved in ASGM, affecting approximately 650km of river and one million
hectares of rainforest. The lack of monitoring and enforcement by the government is an
opportunity for ASGM, who requires little start-up capital to become rampant within the interior
locations thus damaging and polluting forested and water areas.34
In response to global effects of mercury contaminations on both humans and the environment,
the 27-member of states, European Union (EU) has imposed a ban on the export of mercury as of
July 2010. The Inter-governmental Negotiations commenced in June 2010, with a second session
in January 2011. The negotiations at the second session were centered around a draft document
“Draft elements for a comprehensive and sustainable approach to a global legally binding
instrument on mercury.”35 An international negotiating committee was expected to begin formal
negotiation on the treaty from 2010 lasting on to 2013. The committee will be responsible for
devising modalities for phasing out mercury by addressing the anthropogenic sources of
emission, capacity building, technical and financial assistance to various countries.
30
Vieira, R. & Hays, P. Mercury contamination, A Legacy to Handicap a Generation Vieira, R. & Fontaine, M. Mercury‐free gold mining technologies 32
Ramessar, Candice. Small and Medium‐scale Gold Mining in Guyana 35
Woolford, W. (2010) 31
12 The UNEP Global Mercury Treaty objective is to, “protect human health and the environment
from anthropogenic releases of mercury and its compounds.” The Treaty stated that only
elements such as, elemental (metallic) mercury, mercury chloride, mercury oxide, mercury
sulfate, cinnabar ore, and mixtures of elemental mercury with other substances can be traded
between parties/ states; only for the purpose of environmentally sound storage. In addition,
during the transitional period parties may continue to use mercury only for which they have
allowed-use under the UNEP Global Mercury Treaty.
States however, can only import mercury from existing stock; they are not allowed to produce
mercury through primary stock within their territories. This approach is believed to yield local as
well as global environmental benefits; hence preventing the release of significant amounts of
mercury into the environment. However on the other hand, the convention will not allow the
import or export of mercury for the use in artisanal small-scale gold mining operations.
Therefore, states/ parities are required to take steps in preventing any permissibly import or
export to be diverted to the use in artisanal small-scale gold miners.36
Over the past decade, several multilateral institutions, NGOs and governments have pledged
millions of dollars to address the issues of mercury contamination problems by ASGM in the
Guianas. Despite these efforts mercury pollution has intensified within the mining sector, and
educational initiatives have failed. Most ASGM operations are carried out by individuals with
little or no education of the health hazards and environmental consequences of the overuse and
misuse of mercury within the mining sector. They are mostly unconvinced of the dangers of
mercury thus, do not respond positively to educational seminar on health and the
environment.37,38
The effectiveness of mercury education and awareness is dependent on the degree of which
information is presented. The medium by which information are presented should also be
considered. Moreover, one of the reasons for the poor performance of ASGM Projects in
addressing mercury abatement is the fact that, “most of the emphasis have been placed on
36
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) 2011 AGENDA (2010) 38
13 finding technical solutions, with little attention being paid to the underlying economic, social,
and labour issues.”39
Mahdia, a community located in the Potaro Mining District # 2 Guyana has a long history of
small-scale gold mining operations. Any positive or negative impact endure by the community
be it social, economic or environmental, it will be noticed/ observed. The area is ideal for the
study because over the past decade the community has been the center of government efforts in
developing and transforming the area to a model of sound environmental management and
appropriate mining practices.40 This research would therefore highlight issues which would
likely hinder the ASGM operations in Mahdia on the smooth transition towards mercury free
technologies.
1.3.Background
About 80% of Guyana’s forest remains virtually intact, making it one of Guyana’s most valuable
resource or asset. A great portion, “of the forest is suitable for timber extraction and post-harvest
agriculture, and a significant mineral deposit exist below its surface”.41 Guyana’s former
Present, Bharrat Jagdeo has developed a strategy to combat climate change through a low-carbon
economy. The Low-Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) “set out the framework for further
consultation and strategy development on Guyana’s long-term low-carbon development.” In the
first draft of the LCDS (2009), a number of conditions were outlined, that if met, places almost
the entire Guyana forest under long-term protection; and to use the payments receive for the
forest climate services to transform the country’s economy into a low-carbon, environmentally
sound trajectory.42
Guyana’s economy relies on three main pillars; rice, sugar and gold mining which replaced the
bauxite industry during the 1980’s. Gold mining has shown rapid growth ever since, with output
39
Hilson, Gavin (2005) Lowe, S. 2008 41
2010 LCDS 42
2010 LCDS 40
14 rising from 17,244 ounces in 1989 to 453,500 ounces in 2002, making it the main prop in
Guyana’s economy.43
The forestry and mining sectors is a major contributor to Guyana’s economy. “They provide
employment for tens of thousands of Guyanese citizens, income for tens of thousands of families,
and generate significant Government revenue that is invested in public services.” As such the
implementation of the REED+ mechanism and the LCDS is a significant transition as well as a
hindrance to these two sectors as it strives to balance development and employment.
The LCDS does not say that forestry and mining activities should cease, however the industries
must adhere to laws and regulations governing the sectors. To improve coordination between
mining and forestry operations an inter-sectorial land use committee has been established to
provide support to the sectors. A number of measures were formulated such as; restoration of
post-extraction site; introduction of prospecting before mining; a general support to optimize
mining recovery (environmentally appropriate gold-mining techniques); and the phase out of
mercury.44
The mining industry of Guyana can be divided into three sectors; the large scale sector; the stone
and sand sector; and the small and medium scale gold and diamond mining sector, known as the
Artisanal and small scale gold mining.45 ASGM exploits minerals such as gold, diamond, and
quarry materials. Much of Guyana’s diamond and quarry comes from ASGM and of September
2005 (closure of Omai Goldmines Ltd) they produced the majority of gold as well.46
Guyana consist six (6) mining districts (Annex 1); the Northwest Mining District # 5; Cuyuni
Mining District # 4; Mazaruni Mining District # 3; Potaro Mining District # 2; Rupununi Mining
District # 6; and the Berbice Mining District # 1 (GGMC Land Management/ Cartography
Department).
43
Lowe, S. 2008 2010 LCDS 45
Lowe, S. 2008 44
15 Table1:ASGMGold
dProductio
on(1997‐2
2009)
So
ource: Guyana Geology and Mines
M
Commission (GGMC)
In 2009, there weree approximaately 950 sm
mall and meedium scale, gold and diamond m
mining
operation
ns; 837 land
d dredges (88% of overaall operationns) and the remaining 112% accountts for
river dred
dges. Of thee total amount, 114 dred
dges are opeerated in Am
merindian titlled land, som
me of
which aree owned by residents.47
mployed abo
out 8,000 peersons, accouunting for a significant 80%
In 2009, the mining industry em
ment within the
t industry. Over 6,000
0 persons w
were directly employed, ccreating jobs and
employm
alleviatin
ng poverty. The industrry also prov
vides indireect incentivees for job ccreation succh as,
repairs an
nd maintenaance; road an
nd river transsportation; suupply of foood and manyy other servicces.48
The tablee below show
ws the annu
ual productio
on in gold off the overalll mining inddustry in Guuyana,
including
g large, meedium and small
s
scale explorationn (GGMC M
Mining Suppplement, 20010a,
2011b).
47
48
(2010) G
Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Mining Supplemeent (2011) G
Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Mining Supplemeent 16 Table2:ShowingGoldProductionOf2008to2010
Year
Budget (ounces)
Actual (ounces)
Variance
% Variance
2008
230,000
260,000
30,387
13.2
2009
250,000
305,178
55,178
22
2010
300,000
308,438
8,438
2.8
2011
320,000
___
___
___
Table3
49
1.4.SignificanceoftheStudy
For a developing country such as Guyana, mining, moreover gold mining plays an important role
in that; it is a major economic contributor to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 2008 the
output from Guyana’s mining industry was valued at approximately G$73,113 billion (US
$366.9 million), an 18% increase from 2007 contributing 45.9% to export earnings and 11.3% to
the GDP.50 On the other hand, it decreased in 2009 to 10.5% GDP.51 In 2010 mining contributed
9% of GDP and Income Tax Revenue; as a result there were high investment, creating direct and
indirect employment, and accounts for a significant 50% of foreign exchange earnings.52
49
Clifford, Martin J. (2011) (2010) Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Mining Supplement 51
(2010) A Low‐Carbon Development Strategy 52
17 Moreover, 2011 was the record year of gold production, recording 347,850 ounces that yielded
US$517.1 million, surpassing the OMAI gold mine highest output of 2004 by 2.5 percent. A 49.3
percent increase over 2010.53 The need to ensure the sustainability and viability of mining
therefore becomes important, in relation to Guyana’s development. This has become more
pressing for the past decades since more environmental considerations have been placed on
mining practices.
The environmental and health effects of mining in Guyana includes; a drastic increase in the
sediment content in river water, increased levels of mercury in river water, creation of sandbars
in rivers, deforestation and land degradation as well as mosquito infestation and malaria. These
phenomena are particularly prevalent in the Upper Mazaruni region and Mahdia. An aquatic
study was conducted on the Potaro River by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission
(GGMC) in 2001 found that 57 percent of the carnivorous fish had mercury levels above the
accepted levels stipulated by the World Health Organization (WHO).
As a result GGMC
embarked on the process of designing and developing alternative techniques and applications for
use by miners in extracting the gold.54,55,56
Traditional methods of gold recovery which are still being used presently are expected to be
phased out by 2013. The phasing out of these methods can significantly affect the gold mining
sector. This research is important in that it seeks to assess the level of preparedness of artisanal
miners in adopting new strategies of gold recovery in light of this transitional period.
In May, 2010 GGMC developed a proposed strategy for the gradual phasing out of mercury
amalgamation in gold recovery, initiated by Guyana’s LCDS. However, this approach is not
welcomed by small-scale gold miners, mainly because of their perception that mercury is the
most effective means of gold recovery. The aim of the proposed strategy is to target miners and
inform as well as to convince them that the proposed alternative techniques are more efficient
than mercury amalgamation. Taking into account the following guidelines; (i) miners must be
53
(2012) “Kaieteur News online” Human Rights Programme (2007) Gold Mining in Guyana 55
Woolford, 2010 56
Samaroo, T. and Johnson, Q. (2010) 54
18 informed of the various techniques, their acquisition and cost of implementation; (ii) provide
steps and actions on how to educate miners of the use of these techniques; (iii) establish a time
frame for effective gradual change.57
This research will highlight the extent to which ASGM in Mahdia are willing to reduce their use
of mercury and subsequently the overall ban of the metal It will also highlight some the issues
which are likely hinder the smooth transition to mercury free technologies (Annex 2). The
information gathered would then become useful to sector agencies such as GGMC and GGDMA
who can implement measures to remedy the issues raised during the research. The advantage of
this is that the sector agencies would then have a more proactive approach to mining and issues
related to mining.
The importance of this research to the artisanal miners should not be overlooked. ASGM
practices stand to be improved through recommendations of this research, once implemented by
the sector agencies. The research is also timely in that it coincides with developmental strategies
such as the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS), which basically sets some protocol for
artisanal small-scale mining. However, it is important that development strategies which are
produced for the mining sector are specifically geared for that sector. More so, if there is a lack
of willingness by current and intended miners the successful implementation of said strategies
can be significantly affected.
In the following chapters the researcher will attempt to answer the above mentioned principal
questions. In chapter 2, the general framework of major issues that are relates to artisanal smallscale gold mining will be discussed. Among these issues are: environmental, socio-culture,
economic and institutional arrangement. The focus of discussion will then be gravitate towards
chapter 3, the methodology and various research instruments used in this research. Chapter 4
entails the analysis and discussion of the findings in this study and finally chapter 5 involves the
recommendations of the researcher and conclusions.
57
Samaroo, T. and Johnson, Q. (2010) 19 1.5. Research Aims, Objectives and Questions
1.5.1.Aim:
 To determine the extent to which artisanal small-scale gold miners in Mahdia have
developed the capability and are willing to adopt alternative technologies to mercury use
as a means of gold extraction.
1.5.2.Objectives
 To assess the level of education and awareness of small-scale gold miners of
environmentally appropriate gold-mining techniques.
 To determine the extent to which the small-scale miners are disposed to adopt alternative
gold extraction methods to the use of mercury.
 To determine the challenges that confronts the small-scale gold miners in transitioning
their mining operations from mercury use to other techniques.
1.5.3.Questions
a) To what extent have the small-scale gold miners in Mahdia been trained and made aware
of alternative mining techniques to mercury use?
b) Are the small-scale miners in Mahdia willing to implement mercury-free techniques in
their operations?
c) What are the major challenges confronting small-scale gold miners in Mahdia in
transforming their operations from mercury use to environmentally apposite techniques?
20 CHAPTER2
2.1.LiteratureReview
The exact amount of how many people are directly and indirectly involved in ASGM and
baseline data as well as research on the dynamics of ASGM are still not fully understood. There
is a pressing need to determine how many gold miners are there, who the gold miners are and
what drives and maintain the ASGM in Guyana. Lowe (2005) as cited by Clifford (2011)
explains, “unlike in several developing countries, subsistence (poverty- driven) mining is not
significant in Guyana.” This was based on the observation that miners have solid basic
knowledge or trade skill.58 According to the United Nations, a developing country (Guyana) is
defined as a country with a very low standard of living, a poor industrial base and a moderate to
low Human Development Index which is a measure of poverty, literacy, education, life
expectancy among other factors.59 Guyana ranked the lowest in the Caribbean and South
America in the UNDP’s Human Development index, and there is no official figure for poverty
and unemployment in Guyana.60
Gold mining plays an important economic role with a significant source of employment in
Guyana. One of the major problems facing the Guianas is the release of mercury from alluvial,
colluvial or elluvial gold mining activities. The most popular form of ASGM method is land
dredging; a combination of hydraulicking and suction dredging that employs chiefly the use of
mercury. Gold extraction via the use of mercury is conducted in four stages; (i) amalgamation;
(ii) separation of amalgamation; (iii) removal of excess mercury; and (iv) burning the remaining
amalgamation to produce gold sponge or bullion. At all of these stages mercury is being emitted
into the environment therefore, it is necessary for the implementation of mercury-free
technologies61.
58
Clifford, Martin J. (2011) Educational Pathways International (2010) 60
Clifford, Martin J. (2011) 61
21 2.2.OverviewofMajorIssues
2.2.1.Environmental
The environmental impacts caused by ASGM (at each stage of their operations) are of
great concern to government agencies in Guyana, including governmental, non-governmental,
local and international bodies of neighbouring countries.62 Collectively ASGM operations are
more likely to do more environmental damage than large-scale mining companies, reason being
that, small miners tend to focus more on their immediate concerns rather than the impacts of
their actions.63 Land degradation and mercury pollution are the most severe environmental
problems in Guyana, which can have serious implications on the development of the LCDS and
the Country’s biological diversity of both flora and fauna.64 Norway has committed to provide
financial support to Guyana of US$250 million by 2015, only if the country achieved its goal
reduction in emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. As such, reforming the mining
sector (including the forestry sector) so that it can operate at the standard necessary to
sustainably protect Guyana’s forest is necessary.65
All mining activities require the cutting of forest to process mining pits, tailing heaps, construct
facilities, settling ponds and access roads. The mining regulation has limits on the size of
individual claims but no regulation exists for the distance of adjacent claims. This allows/
encourages the clearance of enormous areas of forest. Such trends are prevalent in Mahdia
location, an air craft team observed large areas resembling a moonscape of barren, mounded sand
and mud. EPA official expressed concerns of the situation since rehabilitation in mining areas
are very slow and expensive; often requiring the planting of “hard grass” to restore nutrients to
begin the process of restoration.
Deforestation by mining activities, result in landscape destruction, soil erosion, loss of habitat
and endangered plant and animal species, including species that have not yet been
62
Ramessar, Candice. Small and Medium‐scale Gold Mining in Guyana Vieira, R. & Fontaine, M. Mercury‐free gold mining technologies 64
2010 LCDS 63
22 discovered.66,67 Generally, the levels of deforestation and biodiversity loss are unknown
however, given the environmental impacts experienced in other countries. Guyana should also be
concerned since the environments in the mining regions are similar in nature, thus there may be
an escalating environmental burden being piled onto Guyana’s ecosystems. For instance, Brazil
has a law which forbids the use of mercury and cyanide without previous licensing, to some this
seems as a good law, however survey showed that 99.3% of gold miners uses cyanide and
mercury without any permit. This clearly shows that “without proper preparation, education and
enforcement, laws related to ASGM cannot be effectively applied and may in fact be obstacles to
progress.”68
Mercury is emitted into the environment at each stage of mining operations; adding large
quantities of mercury on the ground/ pit floor or placing mercury in sluice boxes with the
perception of capturing more gold contributes to significantly levels of mercury being emitted
into the environment; resulting in emissions of up to three times more or equal to the amount of
gold recovered respectively finding its way into waterways and soil. Pollution of waterways
(rivers and streams) can bioaccumulate within fishes, and consequently affect Amerindians and
local communities that depends on fish as part of their daily diet. Mercury is also emitted into the
air at final during burning however; by using a retort emissions may be as low as 0.001:1 in
compared to a ratio of 1:1 when a retort is not use.69,70
In addition, ASGM generates enormous amount of waste, both solid and liquid (Annex 4)
through surface runoff and leaching, toxic pollutants find its way into waterway resulting in
water siltation and sedimentation impeding river navigation and in some rivers, turbid waters
have decline fish stock. Water dredge (missile mining) also results in same, including destruction
of river banks, changes in river morphology and hydrology and profound impacts on aquatic
habitats.71
66
Ramessar, Candice. Small and Medium‐scale Gold Mining in Guyana Vieira, R. & Fontaine, M. Mercury‐free gold mining technologies 68
Sousa, Rodolfo. et al. (2010) 69
Vieira, R. & Fontaine, M. Mercury‐free gold mining technologies 70
Spiegel, S. and Veiga, M. (2009 b) 71
23 2.2.2.Socio‐cultural
Mining in Guyana has had widespread negative impacts in indigenous communities.
Amerindians and indigenous communities rely upon hunting and subsistence farming. Most of
their villages are located along rivers within interior locations. Gold mining (ASGM) have
severely impacted numerous communities. For instance in Big Creek, Region 1, a major gold
rush during the 90s resulted in significant ASGM activities. The majority of miners were coastlanders and illegal Brazilian immigrants, all of whom gained access to the area through the roads
build by the Barama Logging Company. Mining, subsequently became an alternative to
traditional forms of employment (farming and hunting) since there was limited farmlands
available thus, erosion of traditional methods of agricultural farming.
Increased mining activities also disrupt hunting and fishing through over-gaming to provide food
for miners. Some miners later gained claims, forcing many persons to relocate. As one resident
stated in Whiteman (2004), “mining had robbed the Amerindians of their lands”, another said,
“Now we can’t even farm. Nobody really has land around here. You can’t do anything.” The
shift from traditional subsistence activities to gold mining has impacted many social structures
and family life. Mining also affected the water quality (polluting drinking water). Significant
increases in malaria were prevalent throughout the area, due to stagnant pools of water
(containing by-products of dredging activities) which serve as breeding grounds for mosquito,
the vector that transmits malaria.72,73
Similar cases are prevalent in Mahdia area, where mining pits have been mined out and are left
open to flooding by creek and rain waters and subsequently became breeding grounds for
mosquitoes. Malaria and typhoid became rampant in the area since the gold surge. Even the
Amerindian village, Campbelltown has experienced an increase in malaria cases. Alcohol, drug
and sexual abuse, human trafficking and prostitution are other problems associated with ASGM
including sexual transmitted diseases, often introduced by miners.74
72
Whiteman, Gail. (2004) Forestry, Gold Mining and Amerindians Ramessar, Candice. Small and Medium‐scale Gold Mining in Guyana 74
Human Rights Programme (2007) Gold Mining in Guyana 73
24 2.2.3.Economic
The issue of miners smuggling gold across Guyana’s borders has been a major issue for
many years. There are a large number of Brazilian nationals in Guyana’s mining sector, with
many of them operating illegally. Large amounts of gold from Guyana are reportedly smuggled
to Suriname, Brazil, possibly Venezuela, Colombia, and the United States. Royalties in Suriname
are 2.5 percent lower compared to the 5 percent levied in the neighboring countries. This makes
it far more attractive for small miners to smuggle gold to Suriname. In 2004, gold production
declared by the Guyana Gold Board (GGB) and its licensed dealers reached 116,000 ounces
which represents only two third of total production, meaning that one third of all gold produced
in Guyana is sold illegally. The Government of Guyana has highlighted the issue of gold being
undeclared and it might be related to gold being smuggled out of Guyana to various
neighbouring countries, such as Suriname, to avoid the accompanying royalty. Recently
authorities caught a smuggler attempting to carry twenty-five pounds (25lbs) of gold to Suriname
illegally.
In 2011, Suriname’s small-scale gold mining industry exported close to 19,000 kilograms of
gold, valuing over US$ 914 million that yielded US$ 9.2 million in royalties and close to 22.3
million in taxes for the state. Further the number of illegal shops in mining areas is a contributor
of gold smuggling out of the country, gold are sold or exchanged at shops for goods and services. Geographical location is another factor why gold are sold illegally, the absence of the GGB in
mining areas result in miners selling their gold illegally since the cost of travelling to
Georgetown is expensive in order to process their gold. Saving up of gold for periodic trips to the
GGB makes miners vulnerable to bandits hence, smugglers may offer cash in exchange for the
anticipated gold yield, a service the GGB does not provide. The GGB also suspects that some
licensed dealers are acquiring the gold and not declaring true/ accurate quantities in order to sell
to smugglers. The agency however, lacks the investigative capacity to verify such suspicions.
However, an official stated, there could be many reasons for the low production or declaration by
some miners, pointing specifically to methods used to recover gold. They are disadvantages of
reworking lands due to the presence of mercury powder/ flour, adding to the methods used by
25 miners is archaic hence, recovery of gold is low or inefficient. It is believed that the increase in
the number of persons that have begun mining over the last five years is related to the benefits
accrued from smuggling gold, including the high unemployment levels in the city and coastal
areas coupled with the high demands for precious metals (gold).75,76,77,78,79
The lack of policy enforcement and national security by the GGMC to monitor operations
because of their remoteness, inaccessibility and geographically-scattered nature serve as
opportunities for neighbouring gold mining operators thus, the illegal export of much of the
country’s gold extracted, contributing to economic leakages. “The gold rush with many persons
becoming small-scale miners coupled with the exhaustion of accessible placer ore in Brazil is
pushing Brazilian gold miners to invade neighbouring countries such as, Guyana and Suriname.”
Brazilian operators also have access to more advanced equipment, which extract gold more
productively that is, capturing more gold. This implies that the Brazilian economy may be
benefiting more from small scale gold mining in Guyana than the Guyana’s economy. The
equipment used in mining operations are normally imported from neighbouring countries (such
as Brazil) hence; much of the revenue generated by mining in general is spent overseas, again
contributing to economic leakages.80,81
Further, the lack of appropriate interaction between gold miners and the authorities (GGMC) is a
contributing factor to deforestation problems occurring within interior locations. Small-scale
miners do not have access to appropriate geological data and mineralogical information as such,
they are unable to locate and acquire economically viable claims. If authorities and gold miners
cooperate and interact with each other there will be enormous benefits to gold miners, authorities
and the economic development of Guyana. Such benefits include; increase profits for small
miners, as such they will be in a better position to pay their taxes, invest in cleaner equipment
75
Gordon, A. (2012) Guyana Times News (2012) “Kaieteur News online” 77
Business Guyana (2012) 78
Human Rights Programme (2007) 80
Vieira, R. & Fontaine, M. Mercury‐free gold mining technologies 81
26 and other investments; and the avoidance of deforestation and environmental degrading
practices.82
2.2.4.InstitutionalArrangements
Mining activities in Guyana were solely the responsibility of the Guyana Geology and
Mines Commission (GGMC) in which several documents of policies exists; first, the Mineral
Policy and Fiscal Regime (MPFR) of 1997 (fiscal framework for investments, multiple land use,
the environment, Amerindian lands, mining titles and the marketing of gold). Secondly, two
National Development Strategy (NDS) 1996 and 2001, which outline comprehensive
development plan for Guyana’s economy, and the mitigation of harmful consequences related to
mining activities. In October 1997, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed
between EPA and the GGMC, the country’s first comprehensive inter-agency collaboration. At
present the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA remain the two main institutions for environmental management in Guyana.
Several efforts were made to enhance the capacities of the MOU in environmental management
however, all auspices fell under the GENCAPD (Guyana Environmental Capacity Development
Project) which started in 1998 and concluded in 2004. One major outcome of the GENCAPD
Project is the Mining (Amendment) Regulations 2005 for environmental management that
involves ten (10) codes of practice. Some of which are; tailing management, mercury use, mine
reclamation and closure plan, mine effluent, waste management and disposal, contingency and
emergency response plans and a few others. These codes are supposedly the way forward to a
better understanding and performance in the mining sector to yield benefits in environmental
management, so that mining can be sustained and achieve growth in a Low Carbon Development
environment.83,84
82
Clifford, Martin J. (2011) Lowe, Sherwood. (2008) 84
27 TheGGMCandEPA
Mining (Amendment) Regulations 2005 mainly addresses the environmental issues of mining,
including the regulation of poisonous and the reduction of water pollution however, little
improvements have been made on the living conditions for miners and the protection of
indigenous communities. It also fails to address the major structural issues in the administration
of mining, including the problems of enforcement and corruption that undermine regulatory
efforts. The failure of the government to provide an integrated plan for granting mining licenses
have resulted in a haphazard placement of mining claims causing unnecessary environmental
damages. The scattershot location of claims makes it difficult for mining officers to inspect mine
operations regularly in order to detect illegal miners.
The Mining Regulations, MPFR fail to protect the environment adequately from the effects of
mining operations. Some restrictions are placed on the use of poisonous substances and pollution
of water sources, but have little expectation that miners should take responsibilities for their
impacts/ harm caused to the environment. The Mining (Amendment) Regulations 2005 however,
provides greater environmental protection. The regulation holds miners responsible for all
damages to the environment that result from mining activities carried out in the area where his or
her operation is legally permitted. On the other hand, the Regulations did not stated exactly what
the responsibility entails.
In addition, the regulations limit the use of mercury by ASGM and impose fines for violations, a
problem that has long been a subject of concern. The use of safety measures such as a retort is
also required by law. All mine operators are required to submit a reclamation plan and a bond to
help rehabilitate mining sites after mining activities have ceased. The plan should include
measures for filling in mining pits and replanting as well as restoring water courses, including
contingency and response plan for spills of hazardous substances. The EPA is responsible for
the reviewing and monitoring of these plans and mining operations but lack the human resources
(field officers) to do so. As such the delegation is left to the supervision of the GGMC. In
practice, the EPA rarely investigates or settles environmental problems connected with gold
mining. Further, all small scale mining is required to pay reclamation bond of G$25,000. Such
band is a step in the right direction but the amount is very small in comparison to the damages
28 that are likely to occur. This sum is likely to be inadequate even in the absence of unexpected
environmental damage. GGMC head counsel (Benjamin) had admitted the bond of G$25,000
will not cover the cost of reclamation and government may have to subsidize the clean-up cost of
environmental damage cause by miners.85
TheGuyanaGoldBoard(GGB)
The primary function of the Guyana Gold Board is to purchase all the gold produced in Guyana
and to sell the majority to the International market, setting aside a small percentage which are to
be sold to the locals/ domestic jewelers. The GGB was initially setup to ensure the capture of
government’s share of royalties and taxes by preventing the sale of gold on the black market
however the GGB do little to ensure enforcement. Although the GGB pays the London fixed rate
for gold as an incentive for miners to sell their gold to the Board. Miners often choose to
circumvent the GGB by selling their gold abroad in order to avoid paying royalties and taxes. It
is unclear how much gold are smuggled across Guyana’s borders. All miners are required to
submit worksheets (that are issued by the GGMC and which give miners the permission to sell
their gold to the GGB) documenting their gold production to the GGB. If a miner comes in
without a worksheet, the GGB still buys the gold. The board does this in order to ensure that the
gold remains within the legal system. There are many illegal miners who sell their gold to the
GGB.86
Another problems facing the sustainable development of the mining sector is the lack of
coordination among agencies, particularly the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) in which
section 4(f) of the GFC Act states, “It shall be the function of the commission to identify,
establish, maintain and manage forests, including national parks, wildlife areas and natural
resources, for the purposes of production, protection of the environment, education recreation,
the provision of amenities, and matters of scientific, historical or special value.”87
The commission has no legal stance on the matter of ASGM activities and it is not listed as a
matter of concern by the commission. The responsibilities of the GFC and the EPA are unclear
since the two agencies have duplicating responsibilities in several areas.88 The GGMC mining
85
Human Rights Programme (2007) Human Rights Programme (2007) 87
Laws of Guyana (1979) 88
29 officers are expected to monitor the entire Kaieteur National Park, an area of 30,000 square miles
to ensure that miners do not encroach on the area.89
Enforcement
A major issue facing Guyana is the legislative framework, the existence and the enforcement of
the legislation remains largely a hindrance to the country’s development towards
environmentally appropriate gold mining practices. For instance, GGMC is severely
underfunded, understaffed and overstretched. The GGMC has an annual estimated income of
G$3.5 billion; equivalent to US$17.4 million but how the budget is stretched and its
effectiveness of authorities are largely questioned. There are a number of functions required to
perform by the GGMC with limited human, information, transportation, materials and other
resources hence, the staffing of various mining district stations remains a problem.90,91
The high labour turnover of staff within the GGMC, attributed from poor pay and other
conditions, result in staff leaving to pursue similar roles in private companies locally and
internationally, some even become miners themselves. This high labour turnover often
diminishes the technical skills of the authority and encourages corruption.92 In the Transparency
International “Corruption Perceptions Index”, Guyana is ranked 134th of the 182 countries,
making it the most corrupted country in the Caribbean region except Haiti which ranked 175th.93
Corruption among GGMC field officers is a global scenario; the low wages combined with the
lack of supervision of mine officers in the field are strong incentives for corruption. Miners in
Mahdia alleged that mines officers often collect money from miners in exchange for overlooking
violations of the Mining Act or Regulations.94,95
Furthermore, the Mining (Amendment) Regulations 2005 are enforced by two ways. First, is a
comprehensive check list of enforcement and monitoring that includes environmental and tailing
89
Clifford, Martin J. (2011) Clifford, Martin J. (2011) 91
Sousa, Rodolfo. et al. (2010) 92
(2011) “Corruption Perceptions Index” 94
30 management, the use of mercury and retorts, turbidity monitoring, mining and mineral
processing methods used, sanitation, safety and health, technical assistance to miners, mineral
processing and education and awareness.96 The check list has over 100 points consisting 16
pages that are to be completed for every claim; the degree to which this checklist is administered
and the ease with which miners can interpret it is questionable. Although most miners are
registered, the majority struggle to comply with the regulations, even the most experienced
miner’s challenges in following requirements without timely assistance.97 Secondly, the GGB in
which has no staff to preform enforcement duties. These two enforcement bodies have been
inadequate in regulating the mining activities within the Guyana. Mines officers are
overwhelmed by administrative duties. The current enforcement system relies too heavy on
mines officers, lending to under-enforcement and corruption. As of October 2005, there were
only eleven (11) in field mines officers in charge of all the aspects of mining operations in the
country.98
2.3.EducationandAwarenessofASGMtowardsMercury‐freeEquipment
The effectiveness of mercury education depends to a large degree upon the content of
information presented to small miners.99 For example in Sudan 2004, the (GMP) Global Mercury
Project educational campaign was implemented to teach local trainers and media professionals;
geological research authority, and nurses of the issues of mercury poisoning. The campaign
taught trainers how to deliver awareness campaigns as well as demonstrations onsite, screening,
sluicing, and panning technologies. Local television assisted by broadcasting across the state a
45 minute documentary of events that featured interviews with community leaders following the
week of the campaign; a number of other activities were also conducted. “The GMP has
increased awareness of sustainable practices by promoting an understanding of ecosystem factors
of health, and by building the capacity to embrace technological solutions that increase
productivity and protect the environment”100, henceforth, mining activities are proliferating.
96
(2011) Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Mining Supplement Clifford, Martin J. (2011) 98
Spiegel, S. and Veiga, M. (2007 97
31 Mining and mineral processes are often carried out by uneducated people, with little or no
knowledge of environmental impacts and health hazards associated with poor and irresponsible
use of mercury. There are some miners who know the dangers of mercury but lack the
knowledge of the importance of using protective gear hence expose themselves, other miners and
community members to mercury contamination.101
Generally in most cases, the amount of money spent in promoting education and awareness
among small-scale gold miners is often limited or low; even though mercury education is
necessary for raising environmental awareness in mining communities. When relevant
authorities are informed of the general lack of education and awareness among small-sale miners
and community members; researchers are often told that the miners already know and they are
pretending not to know or were never informed.102
A knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) study on mercury-free technologies showed that 78%
of miners in the Mahdia, Guyana are unaware of alternative techniques to mercury use. On the
other hand, those who have knowledge of the mercury-free techniques only knew of cyanidation,
jig and the shaking table. This raise the question of how knowledgeable are those miners of
available mercury-free techniques since 72% to 73% of the miners do not attend workshops and
awareness campaigns that are carried out by GGMC.103
Over the past decade, several multilateral institutions, NGOs and governments have pledged
millions of dollars to address the issues of mercury contamination problems caused by gold
miners. Most ASGM operations are carried out by individuals with little or no education of the
health hazards and environmental consequences of the overuse and misuse of mercury. They are
mostly unconvinced of the dangers of mercury thus, do not respond positively to educational
seminar on health and the environment.104,105 Effective mercury education and awareness are
dependent on the degree of which information is presented and by the medium. Moreover, one
of the reasons for the poor performance of ASGM Projects in addressing mercury abatement is
101
Agenda for ERD (2010) Hilson, Gavin (2005) 103
Corlette, J, 2010 104
AGENDA (2010) 105
32 the fat that, “most of the emphasis have been placed on finding technical solutions, with little
attention being paid to the underlying economic, social, and labour issues.”106
In addition the majority of the miners in Mahdia have little/ no educational background.
Therefore, it can be assumed that this is the reason why a small amount of miners attended
demonstration programmes and awareness campaigns offered by GGMS thus, miners have less
knowledge and awareness of alternative techniques.107
2.4.WillingnessofASGMtoAdoptAlternativetoMercury
The nature of ASGM activities must be understood in order to successfully apply any
given measures or methods to mining operations; for miners it means, the methods must be fast,
easy and cheap including greater returns. The availability of materials (equipment) and operation
cost also have a direct influence on the adoption of mercury alternatives by artisanal small-scale
miners. In addition, the geographical characteristics of each deposit in a mining community
differs, thus, it is irrational to advocate a universal technical solution for ASGM activities. For
any technology or method to be successful, it has to be accepted and effectively applied by gold
miners through pretesting and sufficient training. If demonstrations are effective, miners will
inevitably be encouraged to implement the method and may be willing to attempt other
innovations.108
Generally miners who are aware of the potential dangers of mercury pollution and contamination
are ready to abandon mercury and adopt better and safer alternatives if they are affordable, easily
accessible and easy to use.109 However, due to the lack of or insufficient knowledge and
awareness programmes (despite works done through the GENCAPD, WWF and GGMC) many
miners remain largely unconvinced of the dangers of mercury exposure, as such, they are
reluctant towards adopting abatement practices. It is therefore incorrect for one to assume that
106
Hilson, Gavin (2005) Corlette, J, 2010 108
Hinton, Jennifer J. et al (2002) 109
Agenda for ERD (2010) 107
33 miners will adopt mercury alternatives following a single demonstration. For instance, retort are
widely known and available and yet still only a few gold miners use it.110
Miners often use whole ore amalgamation and sometimes repeatedly rework processed gold ore
in order to maximize recovery. Mercury analyses done in Tanzania and the Philippines showed
that up to 20g per ton of gold had been discharged into tailing as well as 400g of mercury per
ton.111 Milling mercury produces mercury powder/ flour. Reprocessing milled gold ores provides
little benefits, the mercury powder present within tailing make it difficult to form gold amalgam,
simply because mercury powder cannot coalesce with mercury or the gold captured by the
mercury powder thus, cannot be recovered.112
The borax method has been used for over thirty years by thousands of small-scale gold miners.
By using borax no mercury powder is produced, hence gold recovery increases.113 Using borax is
very simple and easy since the steps or processes are basically the same as those of mercury,
except at the final stages, instead of adding mercury borax is added. However, the amount of
borax chemical used is higher, almost twice the amount of that of mercury to recover the same
amount of gold (amalgamation has a ratio of 1:1 (Au: Ag) Gold: Mercury). This creates some
concerns since they will have to buy more borax.114
It is therefore necessary to consider the level of knowledge and perception of individuals in
ASGM communities since it is fundamental to the successful development and implementation
of technical assistance.115 Miners are willing to adopt cleaner and better technologies and
practices, if they are familiar and comfortable with the new technologies. It also must be
financially beneficial, in that it must be affordable and efficient in gold recovery. Moreover,
miners have continuously requested assistance from relevant authorities on education and
awareness programmes on environmentally safer practices, onsite training, and financial
110
Clifford, Martin J. (2011 GEUS. Borax Replacing Mercury in Small‐scale Mining 112
Appel, Peter. Gold extraction with BORAX 113
GEUS. Borax Replacing Mercury in Small‐scale Mining 114
Hinton, Jennifer J. et al (2002) 111
34 support.116 Education and awareness about the negative impacts from their work can help them
realize the importance of sound environmental practices. However, even with improvements in
education miners need to see tangible results before they are willing to change their methods.117
2.5.ChallengesofASGMtoMercuryAlternatives
The major obstacles in adopting mercury-free technologies by ASGM operations are;
“miners lack of educational, technical and financial resources; a lack of understanding or
environmental awareness; the historical structure and lack of planning; miners organisation;
government capacity, organisation and corruption.” These barriers often overlap and one may
exacerbate the difficulty in overcoming another.118
In Ghana it was found that the major challenges were the lack of self-generated funding and
difficulties in obtaining or securing access to credit facilities. Lovitz (2006) also found same in
Ecuador, miners lack the financial resources to invest in more expensive mercury-free
technologies. In additions both countries found that there is a widespread lack of knowledge or
appreciation of the benefits of adopting appropriate technologies, particularly among illegal
miners, who have little or no access to technical support provided to legal miners. Thus, ASGM
are reliant on the metal mercury because it is inexpensive, does not require any special skills, fast
and effective. This practice also stems from the fact that miners are only interested in obtaining
mineral (gold) and are not really concerned about the environment.119,120
The implementation of cleaner practices has been slow because of the lack of advanced
technologies in the sector. However, financial constraints are the greatest obstacle in improving
mining operations. Improvement depends on the capital available for technical improvements
because machineries are expensive. Several attempts to introduce gravity concentration
equipment in ASGM operations to eliminate mercury amalgamation have been unsuccessful.
These methods can reduce mercury consumption but still not effective enough since it requires
116
117
118
Clifford, Martin J. (2011 Lovitz, Sara B (2006) Lovitz, Sara B (2006) 119
120
Aryee, Benjamin N.A. et al (2002) Lovitz, Sara B (2006) 35 the use of mercury at the final stage to amalgam the gold. Of all the gravity concentration
equipment, centrifuges (Knelson and Falcon) have demonstrated the capacity to be most
effective (concentrate fine gold and reduce the volume of material needed for amalgamation) but
it is very technical so miners need to know how to use it. The major obstacle in adopting and the
widespread use of the equipment by miners is cost. In Brazil however, they are manufacturing a
crude and slightly less effective replicas. The GGMC is demonstrating to ASGM that gold
recovery can be improved through the modification of sluice box, the introduction of shaking
table and the Knelson or iCON centrifugal concentrators.121,122
The lack of information on alternative technologies seems to be one of the most important
reasons why small-scale gold miners continue to use excessive amounts of mercury in their
operations. During a training in Tanzania on the best alternative technologies (BATs) and best
environmental practices (BEPs) for ASGM, participants urged the government to help smallscale miners to obtain financial assistance and on hand technical assistance as well as to make
available alternative chemicals and equipment to improve productivity and effectiveness in their
gold mining activities.123
In Guyana, the transition to mercury-free techniques, are expected to be challenging. As stated
by Shields (cited in Woolford, W. 2010), the primary issue that arises with the replacement of
mercury in mining is that of cost and finance. Financial institutions are unwilling to provide
miners with credit due to the high risk factors of these operations as an investment. Nevertheless,
miners are willing to adopt mercury-free techniques. A knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP)
study on the use of mercury-free technologies showed that 74% of miners in Mahdia and its
environs are willing to make the change; providing that the relevant agencies (GGMC) convince
them, that the alternative techniques are efficient and cost effective.124
There are various measures to reduce mercury pollution that exists such as a retort, of which
have many different types being commercialized by companies. However the best retort is those
121
122
Hinton, Jennifer J. et al (2002) (2011) Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Mining Supplement 123
124
Agenda for ERD (2010) Corlette, J, 2010 36 made locally at low cost and easily accessible and demonstrated. The use of a retort might be
simple but requires training before use. When using a retort some amount of preparedness is
required such as, placing a wet rag on the outlet/ lid to prevent explosion, this potential effect
often deterred miners, inter alia, from adopting to retort.125
In the Guianas, retorts are not welcome primarily because of cost, extra time required, the lack of
experience, absence of regulations among other thing. Hinton, et al. (2003) cited by Hilson
(2005) states that “an artisanal miner will not pay out a dollar for a piece of equipment or
technique that does not return two dollars.” This stems from the fact that the small-scale gold
mining sector generally comprised of individuals struggling to earn a daily wage.
In addition, countries such as, Boliva, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Papua New Guinea and the Philippines
miners have voiced their concerns that gold is potentially being lost from the enclosed circuit of
retorts. This perception or misperception arises from the fact that amalgamation is not visible in
iron retorts.126 Several other arguments were made by ASGM for not using retorts, these are:
amalgamation takes longer time because of low temperatures/ heat (retorts are too thick) thus
miners are vulnerable to bandits attack; the gold gets sticks to the retort’s crucible; mercury loses
its coalescence after it condensed from retorts; and in some cases gold becomes brown.127
HealthandSafety
The basic driving force for the use and misuse of mercury in ASGM includes poverty, lack
access to alternative technologies and lack of education of proper use and long-term health
consequences of exposure to mercury.128,129 Poverty is also a limitation why persons don’t use
protective gear; they cannot afford them and those that can, accessibility seems to be the
problem, hence miners have to travel long distances to acquire basic protective gears at high
transportation costs.130
125
Veiga, M. et al. (2006) Hilson, Gavin (2005) 127
Veiga, M. et al. (2006) 128
Veiga, M. et al. (2006) 130
37 The worldwide reduction of mercury use and pollution by miners was first called for by
the Global Mercury Project (GMP) hence, the EU ban on mercury use in mining activities.131 For
this reason and other environmental, social and economic impacts as mentioned earlier, the
urgency to affirm sustainable and mercury-free techniques are necessary. States therefore, have
to cooperate in a global effort to combat mercury pollution and its associated impacts through the
GMP Action Framework. The framework consist of four (4) categories; international guidelines
on mercury management; capacity-building and institutional strengthening; policies on mercury
and artisanal and small-scale gold mining; and global partnerships for development.132
The use of mercury in artisanal small-scale gold mining is common in Guyana, Suriname, and
French Guiana. Appropriate regulations and restrictions of mercury use for gold extraction
processes in the Guianas are lacking and where they are laws present, the enforcement is often
inadequate. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) through WWF Guianas Regional Programme
Office has provided technical and financial assistance for promoting environmentally sound
mining methods, for the use by artisanal small-scale gold miners; thus, minimizing health threats
and environmental impacts.133 While the GGMC has begun to make some progress in developing
management policies and monitoring of the environmental impacts, there is less evidence of any
real change in dealing with the social impacts.134
In addition, the WWF Guiana Forestry Project, through its Gold mining Pollution Abatement
Component has been working in collaboration with several regulatory agencies, educational
institution, miners associations, indigenous and maroon groups and several other stakeholders to
reduce the impacts of mercury on the environment. Such initiatives include: education and
awareness campaign on mercury and other environmental issues; support for improving mining
regulation; support regulatory institutions on improving management sector; promotion of
mercury free techniques and best practices of miners; monitoring of mercury in the environment;
and other initiatives. Despite these efforts by the Guianas and various government agencies (such
as GGMC), poor mercury management practices continue to be widespread throughout the
131
UNDP (2007) Global Mercury Project: Spiegel, S. and Veiga, M. (2007 133
Vieira, Rickford. (2008) Situation Analysis of the Small‐scale Gold Mining Sector in Guyana 134
Colchester, M. & La Rose, J. (2010) 132
38 region, resulting in an enormous challenge for both artisanal small-scale gold miners and sector
agencies.135
The ban and/or the phase out of mercury amalgamation can have serious impact on the gold
mining industry in Guyana. Artisanal and small-scale gold miners are heavily, if not completely, reliant on mercury to extract their gold. With an increasing population of ASGM (legal and
illegal) operations and limited resources (human and financial) and enforcement by authorities,
the challenge will be more or less a demanding one. Ever since 2000, several efforts have been
made by WWF Guiana, GGMC and other regulatory agencies to address the problems of
mercury pollution, but were unsuccessful. There will be a greater challenge for artisanal smallscale gold miners in Mahdia to cope with this transition, since the area predominantly consists of
small mining operations.136
The literature review highlighted the education and awareness levels, the willingness and the
major challenges of ASGM in adopting mercury-free technologies. The challenges associated
with the use of expensive mercury-free technologies have been highlighted globally. The
challenges identified were attributed to the fact that ASGM consists primarily of poverty-driven
individuals with poor educational background who cannot afford these alternative technologies.
The literature lacks specific research on individual countries in analyzing the environmental
education and awareness of mercury-free technologies by ASGM as well as their willingness/
behavioural changes towards adopting the new technologies. This research will fill the gap that
exists within the literature by determining exactly how willing are the miners in the proposed
study to adopt new technologies; and what are some of the recommendations that will help them
in their transition. As such the research is undertaken to specifically determine the extent to
which artisanal small-scale gold miners in Mahdia have developed the capability and are willing
to adopt alternative technologies to mercury use.
135
136
Ouboter, P. et al. (2007) (2008) Environmental Conservation in Guyana 39 CHAPTER3
3.1.OverviewofStudyArea(Mahdia)
Location
Guyana has an area of 216,000 km2.
Mahdia is located within the Potaro
Mining District of region 8. It is 200
km south-west of Georgetown (Veiga,
M.M. 1998), of latitude 50 N and
longitude 580 W. It is approximately 6
to 7 hours from Georgetown via minibus on laterite road; about an hour via
small aircraft and by boat from
Tumatumari to Garraway Stream,
followed by a short road trip.137
History
Mahdia was established by freed slaves in 1884; first by free Africans and their descendants
from Berbice and the East Coast Demerara; second were the British and Islanders from the
Caribbean (such as, St. Lucia) and in recent years, Guyanese from across the country and
Brazilians resides in the area. It is estimated that the population of Mahdia is around 2,191
persons.138 However, due to an increase in artisanal small-scale gold mining, Mahdia currently
has about 900 permanent residents, with approximately 4000 to 5000 persons in the
community.139
Mahdia has been extensively mined for many decades. During the 1980’s Golden Star Resources
(GSR) explored Mahdia and its surrounding environs thus, provided an outline of alluvial
deposits. As a result, Proto-Mahdia, a gold rudimentary channel was developed. However the
137
GGDMA, 2011 Lowe, Sherwood. (2008) 139
GGDMA, 2011 138
40 company failed and was subsequently handed over to the government of Guyana, which later
surveyed the area and mining blocks were set-up. Local miners were allocated to these
demarcated blocks; the remaining areas that were not demarcated were left available for claims
by other miners. The area is divided into 34 mining blocks of 20 hectare each.140
GeomorphologyandClimate
Guyana has five (5) natural geographic regions; The Coastal Plain; Hilly Sand and Clay Region;
the Highland/ Pakarama Mountains Region; The Tropical Savannah Region; and The Forested/
Pre-Cambrian Lowland Region of which Mahdia is situated. Geologically the region forms part
of the Pre-Cambrian Shield, which composed crystalline basement complex rocks. The
landforms in the northern half of the region were formed by ‘intrusives’141 as dykes and sills.
These intrusives manifest themselves as ridges, hills and ‘outcrops’142 on the surface. The most
significant ridges are Mahdia-Tumatumari-Omai and Upper Puruni-Supernaam.143
The most remarkable landforms are the Mahdiana Mountain (548m high) and Eagle Mountain
(716m high). These mountains were formed by magmatic intrusions. There are two main
geographical domains in Mahdia; the highland range which is symbolized by the Konawaruk
Mountain and is elevated up to 1,000m and the lowland range, represented by the Mahdia River
Valley is distinguished by its broad U-shaped form.144
Mahdia has equatorial climate; where temperatures are warm and humid throughout the year.
The warmest months are in the dry seasons late in the year and temperatures ranges from a
maximum of 400C to a minimum of 200C. Precipitation is high throughout the year, with rainfall
being highest during the periods of May to July and December to January.145
SoilandVegetation
The Pre-Cambrian Lowland Region has wide and differing soil characteristics. The most
common type of soil found on the shield is deep soil with-well developed horizons. The high
140
Lowe, Sherwood. (2008) Liquid rocks that forms under the earth’s surface. Magma from deep under the surface pushes up into cracks and spaces. 142
The exposure of bedrock (rocks underlining the surface) on the earth’s surface. 143
Daniel, J.R.K. (2001) 144
41 precipitation pattern in Mahdia provides favourable conditions for leaching, thus removing the
bases of the soil, mainly lime and iron. Overtime the extensive leached soil with ‘lateritic
tendency’ develops as latosols. The soils are reddish brown in colour.
Most of the area is covered with Tropical Rainforest consisting of; three stories and occasionally
a fourth storey. The tallest storey is mainly mora (Mora excels), green heart (Notendra), and
Purple Heart (Feltogyne app). The middle consists of wild guava (Psidium spp.), ginep tree
(Genipa Americana) including other trees; and the third storey with low forest, mostly swampy
area consisting of several palm species.146
The researcher chooses this area for the project research because it is predominantly a mining
area of artisanal small-scale gold miners and it is more or less easily accessible. The area also
provides an ample amount of mining operations to be sampled so as to obtain sufficient
information in order for this study to be effective.
3.2.Methodologies
For the purpose of this research, the researcher used a mixed method approach (quantitative and qualitative methods). By using these two approaches the researcher gained a
broader perspective of the study. Primary data was collection during the research study via field
visits (direct observations) and surveys (questionnaires), which will be discussed in further detail
in Chapter 4. The secondary data was collected from books, journals, reports, magazine,
newspapers, mining projects and other sources.
A small pilot survey was conducted, before the main field research was undertaken. The pilot
survey was done on the Mahdia bus park in Georgetown, with gold miners for the study area
(Mahdia), comprising mainly of dredge owners, who travel constantly from Mahdia to
Georgetown and vice versa. This was done to ensure that the survey questions were appropriate,
measurable, understandable and achievable in order to acquire meaningful information related to
the research aim and objectives.
146
Daniel, J.R.K. (2001) 42 3.2.1.ResearchMethodsandInstruments
Interviews
The qualitative approach, through the use of interviews, both structured and nonstructured were used to gather in-depth information related to the research topic, particularly in
answering the research questions. It also allowed the researcher to ask questions and to verify
various issues as they arose. Interviews were done in order to gather information or questions
that aided in developing questions for the questionnaire and also to derive possible
recommendations at the end of the research. The interviews were conducted before and after (as
a follow-up to certain responses in the questionnaire) field visits. Interview sheets were
categorized in terms of; (i) policies, (ii) gold miner’s attitudes, and (iii) the issues as well as the
impacts/ challenges the ban on mercury will likely to have on the target population and their
community. The sheets were administered to the relevant authorities GGMC, GGDMA and
members of the Mahdia community (See Annex 3).
Survey(Questionnaires):QuantitativeApproach
The questionnaire is a formalized set of questions designed to address all of the
objectives and questions of the study. It was aimed at gold miners in the study area and was
administered by the researcher (face to face) in order for the respondents to ask or clarify, if any,
questions that were not understood. And to also give the researcher a better understanding and
first hand insight of the miners overall thoughts of the various issues surrounding the aim of the
research.
In
addition,
the
questionnaires were separated into
various categories, including both open
ended and closed questions. Section A:
Demographic
details;
Section
B:
Socio-economic details; Section C:
Knowledge, Attitude and Practice
(KAP); Section D: Challenges; and
Section E: Recommendations (Annex
3). Each of these sections will be
discussed separately below, under the
43 corresponded objective. Further, the secondary data were compared against the primary data to
draw inferences. The KAP section aims specifically to objectives one and two. The researcher
use miners attitude, practices and their personal views to determine the willingness of artisanal
small-scale gold miners to adopt mercury-free alternatives. FieldVisits
Field visits were carried out from the 13th to 18th April, 2012. The visit was done in order
to conduct field samples (questionnaires), interviews and to have firsthand experience of the
various gold mining processes carried out by artisanal and small-scale gold miners. As well as
the environmental issues associated with these processes. In addition, field visits enhanced the
information collected from the surveyed population.
SamplingTechnique
The type of sample used for this research is the simple random sampling approach; which
will enable each individual or mining operation in the tangent population of Mahdia to have a
probability of being selected/ sampled. According to Mr. Shevy Duguid from the Land
Management/ Cartography department at GGMC, there are one hundred and seventy five (175)
legal gold mining operations (land dredges) in Mahdia. The map (Annex 1) shows some of these
dredges in and around Mahdia and its environs. However, the numbers are expected to be much
higher than 175 with the inclusion of illegal miners.
The formula for the representative sample is as follows:
Confidence level 95%; Confidence interval 5%
The sample size is determined by
SE = standard error (confidence interval) = 5%
N = (population; total number of registered dredges) = 175
Therefore,
However, a total of eighty (80) samples or questionnaires were administered, for reasons listed in
the limitations of the study.
44 3.3.EthicalConsiderationandRisksInvolved
There are several ethical issues and risks which were considered when executing the project.
Some of the ethical considerations and the risks involved, including the ways in which they were
addressed are as follows.
3.3.1.EthicalConsiderationintheStudyArea
 All relevant authorities concerned must be informed about the nature of the research. It is
important when conducting any type of research, especially in hinterland areas,
permission must be granted from the relevant sector agencies in charge. In this case, it
would be the GGMC and GGDMA Mahdia district office.
The researcher informed the relevant authorities/ interviewee from GGMC and GGDMA
beforehand in order to solicit their participation. Before the field visit, the researcher requested
permission from the GGMC Office in Mahdia, through the GGDMA office, Georgetown. This
was done in order for the researcher to have accommodation, transportation and assistance in,
observations within the Mahdia community and infield data collection (questionnaires and
interviews).
In addition, on arrival at each camp site the researcher enlighten the managers and other miners
about the research. And assure them that all responses will be treated with the highest confidence
in order to protect their identity. The researcher also requested the permission of each respondent
before the survey was administered.
 It is important to seek permission of persons who will be interviewed before interviews
are conducted. Giving persons an understanding of the basis/ nature of the research will
determine their willingness to participate.
As such, the researcher informed various community members on the purpose and areas in which
the researcher required information. This was done to prepare individuals beforehand in order to
have meaningful participation and communication among members of the community.
45 3.3.2.RisksInvolvedintheStudyArea
 The nature of the study area creates security issues hence, the researcher or research team
is liable to security threats. For the past years Mahdia has been plagued with several
criminal activities.
Thus, necessary precautions were taken by the researcher in order to safeguard and to prevent
any negative outcomes. As mentioned above, the researcher was escorted at all times with
members of the GGMC officers.
 Generally, the area is susceptible to flooding and prolonged rainfall. If the study was
carried out at the wrong period (rainy season), the researcher may not have been able to
undergo the necessary field visits. As gold miners often closed their operations/ evacuate
their work place during the rainy seasons which often result in flooding.
The researcher carefully planned the field visit to avoid such an outcome. Since such an
event could have severely affected the infield data collection processes.
3.4.DataAnalysis
The data collected by the researcher was analysed using multiple approaches. Data from the
questionnaires are represented in the form of tables, bar-graphs, pie charts, etc. By doing this it
will be easy to proceed with the interpretation and analysis of the data. The use of SPSS software
to aid correlation analysis and Microsoft excel programme assisted in the fulfillment of the
research. Interviews conducted with key stakeholders were analysed and inferences drawn from
the data obtained from questionnaires and other survey instruments. Since the data obtained from
interviews are more qualitative it is important that this information be properly represented and
interpreted. The data collected were grouped in relation to the main research questions derived
from the research objectives. By doing this the data analysis was guided by the specific
objectives of this project, thus achieving the overall goal of the research.
46 3.5.Limitations
The nature of this research lends itself to several limitations, which are as follows;
 The spatial distribution of mining operations in the area influenced the amount of
samples collected (80 questionnaires was collected out of the 121 that should have been
collected). Analysis of the mining distribution map of the area shows that, there is
generally a wide distribution of miners in the area however, travelling from one mine site
(mining block) to another was quite difficult (some areas were separated by trenches
/canals with no access to cross over, except by walking across waist height in water, as
well as degraded access roads) and time consuming.
 The research was bounded; as such limits were placed on the extent of the time/ duration
period of the surveys in order to complete the survey in time.
 Information from the water dredge miners was inaccessible; the water dredges which
were visited comprised mainly of Brazilian miners, thus communication with these
miners were impossible. It is required by law (GGMC), that all Brazilian operations must
have an English speaker on site to relate necessary information to authorities when
visited. However at the time the researcher visited the operations, the translators were not
on site.
47 CHA
APTER
R4
4.1.An
nalysisandDiscusssion
The anallysis of the data
d
will be discussed below
b
in acccordance witth the categories; Sectioon A:
Personal details; Seection B: Socio-econom
S
mic details; Section C
C: Knowledgge, Attitudee and
(
Secttion D: Challenges; and Section E: R
Recommendaations.
Practice (KAP);
4.1.1.SectionA:P
Personald
detailsand
dSectionB
B:Socio‐ecconomicd
details
Firstly, all
a of the infformation gaathered, (10
00%) are froom land dreddge operatioon; with labbourer
being thee highest 39.8%, follow
wed by dredg
ge owners 222.6% and m
managers 17.2% (figure 3). It
should bee noted that some of thee dredge ow
wners are claiim owners aand managerrs. From thee total
populatio
on sampled there were also a 2.5%
% of female respondentss. Of the total responddents,
81.2% deepends direcctly on their mining operations for iincome; whiiles 18.8% w
worked otherr jobs
such as lo
ogging, farm
ming and oth
her activities (carpentry aand transporrtation servicces), 3.8%, 33.8%,
and 11.2%
% respectiveely.
Occupaation Leevels
40
No. of Persons
30
20
10
0
Labourer
Operator
Manager
Claim
Owner
Dredge
Owner
Figure
e 3: Survey Dataa
48 The majo
ority, more than half th
he miners have only prrimary educaation 56.2 ppercent, andd 27.5
percent having
h
secon
ndary educaation (figuree 5). A com
mbined total,, 81.3 perceent of minerrs are
living ou
utside of Maahdia in areaas such as Georgetown,
G
, Berbice annd other locaations whereeas, a
total of 11.2 percent is living in Mahdia.
M
on, 41.2 perccent of total population started mininng less than five (5) yeaars ago, withh total
In additio
operation
ns (65%) being establish
hed within a five (5) yeear period (ffigure 4). Thhis clearly sshows
that the artisanal
a
smaall-scale gold mining op
perations in G
Guyana is inndeed increaasing and maay be
as a direcct result of the
t high uneemployment levels in thee city and cooastal areas coupled witth the
high dem
mands for preecious metalls as highligh
hted in the liiterature reviiew.
Ye
ears as aa Miner aand Pressent Opeeration
No. of Responses
60
50
Yearrs as A
Gold
d Miner
40
30
Yearrs of
Preseent
Operration
20
10
0
5 Years
< 5
5‐1
10
Yeaars
11‐15
Years
16‐20
Years
> 20
Years
Figure 4: Survey Daata 49 Level o
of Educaation
45
Primaryy
40
Commu
unity High
No. of Respondents
35
30
Secondary
25
20
Techniccal/
Vocatio
onal
15
None off the
Above
10
5
0
Education Leve
els
Figure 5: Survey Daata 4.1.2.O
ObjectiveOne
Levelso
ofeducation,aware
enessandttrainingofASGMtowardsme
ercuryfree
e
alterna
atives
Section C:
C Knowled
dge, Attitude and Practtice (KAP)
Knowledge
The geneeral populatiion had littlee or no know
wledge of thee proposed bban on merccury. 46.2 peercent
were som
mewhat awaare of the ban
b on the mercury. M
Miners statedd, that they heard abouut the
mercury ban from friiends, whilees 20 percentt were not aw
ware of the ban at all (F
Figure 6). A
All the
respondeents use merccury in theirr operations, with the maajority, 37.5 percent usinng 3-4 ouncees per
amalgam
mation. And 30 percent use more than
t
9 ouncces but lesss than two ppound (2lbss) per
amalgam
mation, or in
n the gold miner’s
m
term
m, “wash doown”. Durinng extensive interaction with
miners, one
o to two pounds
p
(1-2
2lbs) of merrcury usuallyy last for a month and operations (gold
extraction
n processes)) run on a peeriodic basis..
50 Miner'ss Awarn
ness of Im
mposed Ban on Mercuryy
Aware
28%
Somewhat Aware
46%
Fully Aware
6%
Not Aware
20%
Figure 6: Survey Daata
m
(56.2%) eat, drin
nk and smokke in work aareas where mercury is bbeing
More thaan half the miners
used. Th
his further highlighted the generaal lack of kknowledge and awarenness of meercury
poisoning
g and contam
mination am
mong ASGM..
In assesssing the know
wledge basees of mercurry and its prroposed alternatives the responses oof the
target po
opulation weere alarming.. Even thoug
gh 92.5 perccent believedd than mercuury is dangeerous,
31.2 perccent do not know that the
t impropeer use and sstorage of m
mercury is daangerous to their
health an
nd other life forms. Moreeover, 21.2 percent
p
knew
w what was mercury poisoning how
wever,
more thaan half thatt amount (2
21.2%) did not know tthe symptom
ms associateed with meercury
poisoning
g, the majoriity listed maalaria and dengue symptooms instead..
The GGM
MC has developed sev
veral tools and
a initiativves, formulaated in com
mpliance withh the
Guyana’ss LCDS to enhance
e
thee levels of performance and compliiance in the mining secttor to achieve its
i goal reduction (by 2015), in emissions from ddeforestationn and forest degradation. One
such inittiative is thee, “applied research an
nd field dem
monstration ffor improveed gold recoovery
without mercury
m
usee.”147 A seniior official from
f
GGMC
C further exxplained thatt in each M
Mining
District, the Mine Offficers are reesponsible fo
or informingg the artisanaal small-scale gold mineers of
natives and demonstratio
d
on sessions in
n which the officers seess best.
the altern
147
(2011) G
Guyana Geologgy and Mines C
Commission Mining Supplem
ment 51 Howeverr, finding shows that 93..8 percent off the minerss are unawarre of mercurry-free alternnative
technolog
gies, and 90
0 percent neever received any inform
mation from
m the relevaant authoritiees. In
addition, 100 percent of the resp
pondents nev
ver received any trainingg in how to use mercuryy-free
technolog
gies (Figuree 7). On thee other hand
d, this does not say thaat the authoorities or relevant
agencies are not doin
ng their job or that the miners are lying, but siimply becauuse of the laack of
informatiion dissemiination amo
ong authoritties and miiners; and among the dredge ow
wners/
managerss and their workers.
w
The pilot survey wh
hich comprissed mainly of dredge oowners, whoo travel connstantly backk and
forth from Mahdia to
t Georgetown are the ones who aare fully aw
ware of the pproposed baan on
mercury and some of the alterrnatives. Their main cooncerns werre the high prices, expertise
ments and fraagility assocciated with the
t technoloogies. Whereeas field surrvey showedd that
requirem
almost no
o one knew of the altern
natives to meercury, hencce their mainn concerns aare quite diffferent
(See Secttions D and E) to those emphasized
d during the ppilot survey..
Kn
nowledge aand Trainin
ng in Alterrnatives to
o Mercury
80
No. of Respondents
No of Respondents
70
60
50
40
Yes
30
No
20
10
0
Aw
wareness of
alternaatives to Mercuryy
Informend of Mercury
free technologies by
ncies
agen
Had trainingg in
Mercury freee
technologyy
a
the resspondents, ho
ow and whyy is it they arre not trainedd nor inform
med of
The reseaarcher also asked
the altern
natives? Theeir responsess were, “we are
a trying too make a liviing, and we ain’t got thee time
52 and money to travel to Georgeto
own for the mining meeeting.” The mining worrkshops and other
awarenesss programm
mes facilitated by the GGMC annd other aggencies are usually held in
Georgeto
own, one to three times per
p year. Th
he miners’ fuurther state tthat only thee “boss man””, the
dredge ow
wner or cam
mp manager attends these programm
mes and whenn they comee to the workk site,
it is to co
ollect their gold.
g
They do
d not inform
m workers oof educationn and awarenness program
mmes
that may
y have been
n conducted. As a resullt gold mineers (laboureers) remain iignorant tow
wards
mercury--free technollogies and th
he importancce of such tecchnologies.
Howeverr, the respon
nses given by
b dredge owner
o
and c amp managgers were the opposite. They
stated thaat notices prrovided by authorities
a
on
n various woorkshops andd awarenesss programmees are
often inssufficient. As such, they
y are unable to attend. O
On the otherr hand whenn the gold m
miners
were ask
ked specificaally, if they are aware of specifiedd equipmentt/ mercury-fr
free technoloogies,
there werre some leveels of awaren
ness of the sh
haking tablee and the jigss (Figure 8)..
Awarnes
A
ss of Alternativees to Meercury
2%
%
3%
19%
G
Gravity Concenttration
Shhaking Table
M
Modified Sluicee Box
58%
18%
Jigs
Cyanidation
Sppiral Concentrator
0% 0%
N
None of the Abo
ove
In additiion, the sen
nior official from GGM
MC stated thhat gold miiners are beeing informeed of
mercury--free techniq
ques/ techno
ology throug
gh educationnal awareneess program
mmes, workshops,
postures,, pamphlets, and infield
d guidance on
o how to m
minimize the use of meercury. Lastt year
(2011) th
here was thrree awarenesss programm
mes and fivee infield dem
monstration sessions in O
Omai
53 and Mahdia, all of which are funded by the GGMC. As it relates to further awareness and
demonstration actives within each mining areas, the district engineer is responsible for
coordinating his/her own activities.
During an interview with the mine officer in Mahdia he concurred the finding that the miners in
the area were never trained, he said there was never any training or demonstration done in the
area presently. However a shaking table was set-up on a miner’s claim for him to use and to
show other miners of its efficiency and the know-how. This was done mainly because the
Commission does not want to employ persons to work (demonstrate) on/ encroach on miner’s
claims hence, inconveniencing miners work activities. He added, the majority of miners also
prefer to “see things in action,” meaning, they have to work with the technology/ equipment and
develop the expertise and to have first hands experience in the efficiency of the technology. In
this way miners would be more motivated in adopting the alternatives.
4.1.3.ObjectiveTwo
WillingnessofASGMtoadoptalternativegoldextractionmethodstotheuseof
mercury
Attitude
The study shows that gold miners are largely unprepared to adopt mercury alternatives. As seen
in (Figure 9) 49 percent were somewhat prepared and 30 percent are not prepared at all. When
asked what factors would motivate them to switch or to implement mercury-free methods in the
operations, various responses were given; (1) assurance that the mercury-free methods have a
higher recovery rate than that of mercury use; (2) the fact that mercury is dangerous to health; (3)
if education and training is provided on how to use the mercury-fee technologies and (4) if the
mercury-free methods are affordable and accessible. A few even mentioned that mercury is outdated and as such, Guyana’s artisanal and small-scale gold miners should be up to date with new
technologies, where by some said, “nothing”, because they will never switch.
54 Prreparedn
ness to A
Adopt to
o Mercu
ury Free Tech
hnologiees
Fully Prrepared
30%
Prepareed
49%
4%
Somew
what
Prepareed
Not Preepared
17%
Nevertheeless, 65 perrcent of min
ners saw the need to im
mplement meercury-free aalternatives. With
the main reason bein
ng that mercury is dangeerous. Of thee 65 percentt of miners tthat saw the need
to implem
ment the alteernatives, 5.8
8 percent aree fully prepaared and 21.22 percent aree prepared w
whiles
51.9 perccent of the reespondents were
w somewh
hat preparedd.
Table4::SurveyDa
ata
Reaso
onstoimp
plementa
alternativ
ves
Cumulative
Frequ
uency
Valid
Perc
rcent
Valid Percent
Percent
There is no
n alternative
4
5.0
5.0
5.0
0
Mercury is
s dangerous
52
65.0
65.0
70.0
0
12
15.0
15.0
85.0
0
Hg is prov
ven to be effecttive
12
15.0
15.0
100.0
0
Total
80
100.0
100.0
Hg is the only
o
metal for
capturing gold
55 Table5:SurveyData
Do you see the need for Hg alternatives * Preparedness to adopt mercury free technologies Cross tabulation Preparedness to adopt mercury free technologies
Fully
Prepared
Do you see the Yes
need for Hg
Count
% within Do you see the
alternatives
need for Hg alternatives
Prepared
Somewhat
Not
prepared
prepared
Total
3
11
27
11
52
5.8%
21.2%
51.9%
21.2%
100.0%
100.0%
78.6%
69.2%
45.8%
65.0%
0
3
12
13
28
.0%
10.7%
42.9%
46.4%
100.0%
.0%
21.4%
30.8%
54.2%
35.0%
3
14
39
24
80
3.8%
17.5%
48.8%
30.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% within Preparedness to
adopt mercury free
technologies
No
Count
adopt mercury free
technologies
Total
Count
adopt mercury free
technologies
Practice
The Mining (Amendment) Regulations 2005 specified the use of safety measures such as a
retort, gloves and respirator. Yet 72.2 percent of the population do not use protective gear,
mainly because they are not accessible, accustomed to not wearing any and because they are
uncomfortable, 39%, 39%, and 18% respectively (figure 10). This supported the findings of the
Agenda for Environmental and Responsible Development (2010) that argued poverty was a
56 limitation
n why perso
ons do not usse protectivee gears. Acc essibility annd lack of aw
wareness is aalso a
major pro
oblem.
Use of Pr
U
rotectivee Gear
40
Too Expensivve
No. of Responses
35
Not Accessib
ble
30
Not aware off any
25
They are
uncomfortab
ble
Accustomed to not
wearing any
Others
20
15
10
5
0
Miners noted
n
that pro
otective geaar are unavaiilable, as succh they cannnot leave theeir operationns and
travel lon
ng distances (high cost) to acquire the gear whi ch are even more costlyy. It thereforre can
be conclluded that this
t
form of
o practice is
i directly rrelated to tthe lack of educationall and
awarenesss programm
mes on the importance
i
of using prootective geaar thus, minners are exposing
themselv
ves, other miiners and co
ommunity members
m
to m
mercury conntamination. In additionn, the
miners who
w do wear protective gear
g use a resspirator.
Moreoveer, when min
ners were asked about th
he use of a rretort, 83 peercent of minners knew w
what a
retort waas and 75.5 percent usee a retort. Of
O the 75.5 ppercent, 54 percent of m
miners uses it to
prevent wastage
w
of mercury
m
and
d 46 percent uses it for oother reasonns, such as fo
for protectionn and
because it
i is required
d by law to use
u the equip
pment (retortt).
57 Tyype of P
Protectivve Gear
Chemical SSafety Goggle
es
0%
Gloves
15%
None of tthe Above
61%
Resp
pirator
2
24%
Full body suit/ C
Coveralls
0%
Howeverr, from field
d discussion
ns between the
t researchher and goldd miner, thee 75.5 perceent of
respondeents that use a retort is expected
e
to be
b much low
wer. Since m
miners expreess their conncerns
and prob
blems associaated with thee retort. Firsstly, the retoort is quite thhick and takees extensivee time
and requires high lev
vels of heat energy
e
in orrder for the ggold to be am
malgamated,, thus lots off coal
are requiired. Second
dly, gold miiners like to
o see their ggold as it buurns and thhe use of a rretort
prevents that from haappening. Thirdly, retorrts are costlyy (G$25,0000.) thus, theyy cannot affoord to
me miners too use.
purchase one sine they got familly and other expenses; itt is also diffficult for som
This supp
ported the arrguments maade by Veigaa, M. et al. (22006).
In additio
on, retorts arre also purch
hased and sto
ored as an “ ornament”. For instancee, in the Brazzilian
Amazon a famous teerm used by
y gold minerrs is, “Lei paara Ingles veer” in English means, ““to do
somethin
ng just for show”.
s
Government oftten writes m
many laws iin addressing the healthh and
environm
mental probleems associatte with merccury and it offten appearss as if approppriate governnance
is being implemented
d but that is often quite the contraryy.148 In Mahhdia, the retoorts are bougght to
prevent authorities
a
for
f hassling them sincee they cannoot afford to pay for brribe. This fuurther
supported
d the statem
ment that, corrruption amo
ongst GGMC
C field officeers is rampannt, if gold m
miners
148
Sousa, R
Rodolfo. et al. (2010) 58 are caugh
ht violating regulations such as, req
quired proceddures and eqquipment, a payment off cash
or gold assures
a
mineers that the matter woulld be forgottten.149 This clearly shoows that “wiithout
proper preparation, education and
a enforcem
ment, laws rrelated to A
ASGM cannnot be effecttively
applied and
a may in fact
fa be an obstacle to pro
ogress.”150
On the other
o
hand, there
t
are som
me factors th
hat will mottivate minerrs to implem
ment mercuryy-free
technolog
gies (figure 12). The assurance thatt the technollogy will haave greater reecovery ratee than
that of mercury,
m
while other say
ys, “Because mercury iis dangerouss but GGMC
C need to teell us
more abo
out the dang
gers so miners will kno
ow that we should swittch.” Once aagain the lack of education
n and awarreness of mercury
m
con
ntamination hinders thee adoption of mercuryy-free
technolog
gies.
There aree some mineers who are adding merccury directlyy to the grouund or pit flooor (marack hole)
and in th
heir sluice bo
ox, 19% and
d 35% respecctively (figu
ure 13). Once mercury eenters the groound/
open air it evaporates, miners aree unaware of
o the fact that airborne m
mercury is hhighly toxic w
when
inhaled.
Motivvation to
o Use Meercury FFree Tecchnologyy
16%
%
5%
%
41%
13%
Alternativves have
higher reccovery
rate
Dangers o
of
Mercury
Provision of
n and
Education
Training
Affordable and
accessiblee
alternaticces
Will never switch
2
25%
149
150
Clifford, Martin J. (201
11) Sousa, R
Rodolfo. et al. (2010) 59 Figure 13: Survey D
Data Stage at which
h Mercu
ury is Added
50
The gro
ound or pit
floor
30
Sluice b
box during
jetting operations
No. of Respondents
40
20
Jig Box
10
Final Sttage
0
Stages
o the surveeyed populattion (Mahdiia) are largeely unawaree of the danngers of meercury
Miners of
exposuree as such; theey are resistaant towards abatement ppractices. In their opinioon, mercury is the
only and most effective method for gold recovery, particcularly fine gold. They ffurther notedd that
there is no
n real reaso
on for them to change th
heir method,, mainly sinnce they are small and ddo not
have the capital to veenture onto other alternaative. The onnly method they know oof and can aafford
60 is the use of merury. “Therefore, miners are willing to adopt cleaner and better technologies and
practices, if they are familiar with it. It also must be financially beneficial, that is, it must be
affordable and efficient in gold recovery (better recovery rate of gold than that of mercury)”.151
Further, an official from the GGDMA elaborated that the average miner does not know about
mercury-free technologies and about the mercury abatement/ ban. He went on by saying, it is a
difficult task in getting small miners to adopt procedures which they are not aware of, especially
when considering cost factors. During the demonstration session held in Georgetown (2011), an
interviewee said, there were miners who showed some amount of interest in the new
technologies however; the majority was concerned about the price, which they said is too
expensive. In addition, the GGMA official believes greater attention should be focused on
mercury alternatives rather than the technologies which are very costly and still requires the use
of mercury at the final stage to produce gold sponge or bullion.
Despite several demonstration sessions done last year (2011), which proves that the technologies
were more efficient than the use of mercury, a combined total of 78.8 percent (See figure 6) are
somewhat/ not prepared/ dispose to adopt mercury-free technologies. “It is therefore, incorrect
for one to assume that miners will adopt mercury alternatives following a single
demonstration.”152 The majority of miners fail to adopt and carry out basic procedure and
guidelines outlined in the mining regulations. The monitoring and enforcement of the mining
regulations by authorities have been inadequate within Guyana.
4.1.4.ObjectiveThree
ChallengesconfrontingASGMintransitioningtomercuryfreealternatives
SectionD:Challenges
The table below gives the various views of the small-scale gold miners in the target population of
Mahdia. Even though 20 percent of the population was unaware of the ban on mercury, some of
them still voiced their views. Their responses are as follows.
151
152
Clifford, Martin J. (2011 Clifford, Martin J. (2011 61 Table6:SurveyData
Supportive of the ban
Against the ban
Because of the dangers of Because
there
Neutral about the ban
are
no Need more information as to
mercury however, alternatives alternatives to mercury.
why mercury is being ban
must be provided first.
from gold mining activities.
The cost and finance of
adopting mercury free
If or when mercury is banned
It will cause a lot of problems,
alternatives place a strain on
gold miners will continue to
not only for gold miners but
small miners. Therefore,
use mercury because it will be
also for others.
systems must be put in place
sold on the black market.
to make alternatives to
mercury affordable to small
scale gold miners.
Because mercury is the only
metal or method of capturing
fine gold.
In addition, 41.2 percent of persons will adopt the alternatives when and if mercury is banned;
whereas 21.2 percent are unsure and needs more information on the nature of the mercury ban.
Table7:SurveyData
Personal views of the ban on mercury * When mercury is banned, what would you do
Cross tabulation Count
When mercury is ban, what would you do
Personal
Against- there are no
views of the alternatives
adopt the
Adopt whatever
Adopt, if
will not
Stop
new system
is affordable
effective
adopt
mining
10
6
6
3
Total
8
33
62 ban on
Against- mercury is the only
mercury
metal for capturing gold
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
3
10
2
2
0
3
17
3
0
0
0
0
3
It will cause a problem
8
2
0
0
0
10
Do not know about the ban
0
0
0
2
0
2
No answer
6
0
0
0
0
6
40
13
8
5
11
77
Support- mercury is
dangerous but need
alternatives first
Need more information
Support- make alternatives
affordable
Total
There are many challenges faced by the ASGM in adopting mercury-free technologies. Previous
studies have shown different factors that can be attributed to non-use. During this study which
included questionnaire and semi-structured interviews it became apparent that there were
essentially a number of barriers miners face with regards to mercury-free technologies. This
research found several reasons for the unpopular use of alternative technologies; (1) inadequate
training and demonstrations programmes; (2) the lack of knowledge about mercury-free
technologies; (3) lack of education and awareness campaigns; (4) lack of available technologies
and (5) lack of financial resources. These findings are supported by Hinton, J. et al (2002),
Agenda for ERD (2010) and Hilson, Gavin (2005).
63 Lim
miting FFactors P
Preventin
ng Adop
ption of Me
ercury Frree Technologiess
Lack of K
Knowledge
about Altternatives
0%
19%
Lack of F
Financial
Resources
29%
15%
Lack of A
Available
Technolog
gies
Lack of E
Education
and Awarrness
12%
Poor Infrastructure
25%
%
Inadequa
ate
Demonstrrations and
Training
mes
Programm
Inadequate training
g and demon
nstrations programmes
p
s
The pie chart
c
above shows, out of
o the 80 wh
ho participatted in the suurvey, 29 perrcent believee that
the inadeequate training and dem
monstrationss programm
mes offered by authoritiies are the main
barriers for small-sccale miners. Such findin
ng supporteed the argum
ment which states, “Forr any
technolog
gy or method to be successful, it hass to be acceppted and effeectively applly by gold m
miners
through pretesting
p
an
nd sufficientt training. Iff demonstratiions are effeective, miners will ineviitably
be encou
uraged to imp
plement the method and may be willling to attem
mpt other innnovations.”153
153
Hinton, Jennifer J. et aal (2002) 64 The lack of knowledge about mercury-free technologies
The second most important obsticle or challenge (25 percent) is the lack the knowledge about
alternative methods to mercury use in their gold recovery processes. Miners highlighted that they
were not aware of any alternative method other that what they know of, mercury use which is
cheap simple and effective. Miners said the only alternative they know of was cyanide, but that is
much more dangerous than mercury.
Lack of education and awareness campaigns
There were 19 percent that lack the understanding of the severity of the environmental and health
effects of mercury. In their opinion, the method used was the most effective one, and though they
often hear mercury is dangerous there was no real reason for them to change their procedures.
Some miners explained, “For years miners have been using mercury, my father worked with it, I
have been working with it and we all healthy.” They went on by saying, ‘even if they want we
switch, what it is we switching to, we don’t know of anything else other that mercury.” Once
again the failure by authorities in educating ASGM on environmentally sound practices stand as
an obstacle to progress.
Lack of available technologies
Only 15 percent of the population believes that the lack of available technologies is an obstacle
but with a population that have little or no knowledge of these technologies one can see why.
However, during an interview with a mine officer at GGMC there are available technologies but
the miners are more concern with the price of these technologies.
As seen in (figure 14) inadequate training and demonstrations programmes and the lack of
knowledge about mercury-free technologies are the main factors. This supported the argument
that, miners are willing to adopt cleaner and better technologies and practices, if they are familiar
and comfortable with the new technologies.154 The lack of financial resources was not the major
obstacle as mentioned by Lovitz, Sara B (2006). This may have been attributed from the fact that
miners are not aware of mercury-free technologies thus, they are not aware of the cost/ price
attached to these technologies.
154
Clifford, Martin J. (2011 65 The senior official from the GGMC had said, gold miners are being informed of mercury-free
technology through educational awareness programmes, workshops, posters, pamphlets, and
infield guidance on how to minimize the use of mercury but given the fact that the study
population is largely unaware of mercury-free technologies and the majority has only primary
education. This raises two questions, which group of miners are being informed and by what
means/ medium?
In addition, the GGDMA official explained that artisanal small-scale gold miners need more
awareness on the need for mercury free technologies, a major phase in adopting new
technologies. He also believes that the LCDS would force miners to adopt new technologies
since the levels of deforestation will determine whether the LCDS can be accomplished.
Challenges of competing land uses will have a negative impact on the mining sector. Since there
is specified amount of land areas to facilitate economic development such as, forestry (lumber
production), road construction, bauxite, manganese, and sand mining, including other activities
that requires clearing of forest thus, small-scale gold miners are at a disadvantage.
Moreover, the official also disagrees with the ban on mercury, explaining that miners use small
quantities of mercury and mercury-free technologies which are being proposed does not
eliminate the metal (mercury) all together. During discussions with the miner they pointed out
that they cannot reduce the amount of mercury they use. In order to capture the fine gold they
have to use a certain amount or else the gold would be lost. Again better education and
awareness on the dangers of mercury is desperately needed.
The challenges faced by artisanal and small-sale gold miners in Guyana, is a hurdle for both
authorities and miners themselves. The lack of education and awareness on mercury-free
technologies and inadequate training and demonstrations programmes provided by the GGMC
coupled with an increasing population of ASGM (both legal and illegal) operations and limited
resources (human and financial) and enforcement by authorities, the challenge will be a
demanding one.
66 4.1.5.FurtherDiscussions
During an interview with a senior official from the GGDMA, who stated that if mercury is
banned many miners will have to leave the sector, lending the opportunity only to large scale
mining. The fall/ decrease in ASGM operation will have an impact on Guyana’s economy since
gold mining is the main contributor to export earnings. This will also increase the levels of
unemployment.
The mining sector in Guyana is connected to several other sectors in which gold mining
activities play a major roll. Such sector is the transport sector, particularly the aircraft services.
Most of the aircraft services within interior locations are greatly supported by mining activities
since the majority of travellers are gold miners. In addition, the gold that is located in Guyana’s
alluvial deposits can only be mine by artisanal small-scale gold miners.
However, community members had different views on the ban on mercury. They emphasized
that, despite gold mining activities have some negative impacts (deterioration of roads and pipe
lines) on the community, the positive impacts must be recognised. Gold mining activities not
only provide income for families but it also serves as an incentives for criminals to change their
way of life. “The ban on mercury will put a strain on these poor small-scale men and a lot of
them are not going to be able to continue mining.” Most of the residence felt worried, as one man
said, “You ain’t see the government wants people to go back to their guns.”
The Mahdia community did not see the reason as to why mercury should be banned and the
abatement practices. With mercury-free technologies being costly and the fact that miners cannot
reduce their use of mercury because of the risk of losing their gold, the transition towards
environmentally sound practices seems merely impossible. More importantly there is a greater
need for education and awareness of the fatality of mercury contamination among ASGM and
their communities in order for abatement practices and the subsequent ban on mercury be
accomplished.
67 4.1.6.SectionE:ASGMRecommendations
A number of general recommendations were made by the ASGM for the relevant authorities.
The percentage of respondent are stated at the end of each recommendation. They are as follows;
1. Offer incentives to small scale gold miners such as, provide the alternatives to mercury
free of cost to a few small miners so that they can learn how to use it and teach other gold
miners as well. Since this the way of life of ASGM for many years, everything they
know, they learn from one another. (20 percent)
2. Gradually implement mercury-free technologies so that small-scale gold miners can have
firsthand experience of the benefits, effectiveness and processes of the various methods.
(9%)
3. Have regular in field training and demonstration sessions and give gold miners adequate
notice of meetings and awareness programmes so that they can be present. (17 percent)
4. Make alternatives to mercury available (12 percent) and provide financial support (5
percent) to small-scale gold miners.
5. Educate and make gold miners more aware as to why they should adopt alternative gold
extraction methods to the use of mercury. (22 percent)
6. Assure the small-scale gold miners that the mercury free technologies will provide
greater returns than that of mercury. (19 percent)
68 Recomm
mendations for Makiing Mercurry Free Tecchnologiess More Appeaaling to Miiners
25
2
Assurance of Efficiency and Effectiveness
Education and Awareness
Financial Support
5
Availability of Alternatives
10
1
p y
g
Capacity Building
15
1
Gradual Implementation of Technologies
Provide Incentives
No. of Responses
20
2
0
Mine
er's Recommendation
ns to Enco
ourage Usee of Mercury Free TTechnologiies
Regular
Demonstrattions &
Training Ca
ampaigns
Recommendations
Accessible & Available
Technologiees
0
Efficient Ed
ducation &
Awarness C
Campaigns
Better Instiitutional
Infrastructu
ure
20
40
No. off Responses
60
80
Figure 16: Survey Daata Financial &
Technologiccal
Assistance
69 CHAPTER5
5.1.ConclusionandRecommendation
5.1.1.Conclusion
This paper highlighted several issues surrounding ASGM operations in Guyana as well as
their level of education and awareness, their willingness to adopt and the challenges they face in
adopting mercury-free technologies. Findings showed that the majority of the population, 92.5
percent, believed than mercury is dangerous, yet more than half the miners (56.2%) eat, drink
and smoke in work areas where mercury is being used. Further, 93.8 percent of the miners are
unaware of mercury-free alternative technologies, and 90 percent never received any information
from the relevant authorities. No one from the survey population was ever trained in how to use
mercury-free technologies. This is mainly because most, if not all, of the training and awareness
programmes on mercury-free technologies are held in Georgetown rather than in mining areas.
As a result, most miners do not attend these programmes thus, miners are ignorant of
environmentally appropriate gold mining technologies and the brunt of mercury on their health
and the environment.
In addition the study also shows that gold miners are largely unprepared to adopt mercury
alternatives since 49 percent were somewhat prepared and 30 percent are not prepared at all. For
instance, protective gears (retort, gloves and respirator) are required by Law to be used by
artisanal small-scale miners, yet 72.2 percent of the population do not use protective gear, mainly
because they are not accessible or miners are accustomed to not wearing any. Nevertheless, 75.5
percent use a retort however, while the majority uses it to prevent wastage of mercury, 46
percent uses it for other reasons, such as for protection and because it is required by law to use
the retort. On the other hand retorts are not willingly accepted by miners despite the importance
of a retort. Once again the lack of education and awareness of mercury contamination hinders the
adoption of mercury-free technologies.
70 Moreover, based on the recommendations given by the population, miners are willing to adopt
cleaner and better technologies and practices, if they are financially beneficial, that is, it must be
affordable and efficient in gold recovery (better recovery rate of gold than that of mercury). They
also believed that if mercury-free technologies are gradually implemented and regular in field
training and demonstrations secessions are carried out, they will be willing to adopt the
alternatives.
Furthermore, there are several challenges confronting the miners in Mahdia in adopting mercuryfree technologies such as; inadequate training and demonstrations programmes; the lack of
knowledge about mercury-free technologies; lack of education and awareness campaigns; lack of
available technologies and lack of financial resources. In most countries, the lack of financial
resources is the primary barriers/ challenges in adopting new technologies however, inadequate
training and demonstrations programmes and the lack of knowledge about mercury-free
technologies are the main factors. Such findings may have been linked to the 93.8 percent of
miners who unaware of mercury-free technologies thus, they are unaware of the cost/ price
attached to these technologies.
All of the barriers/ limitations that hinder the transition towards environmentally appropriate
practices should be addressed with utmost importance. If environmental awareness is improved
on the need for mercury-free technologies, miners may still be unable to adopt mainly because of
the lack of finance and expertise. Mercury amalgamation is widely used because it is cheap,
simple and fast, hence, with low operational cost comes greater revenue.
Despite artisanal small-scale gold miners are largely uneducated and have little knowledge of the
dangers of the poisonous substance mercury, the majority believes it is dangerous. In other
words, gold miners know that mercury is dangerous but the extent to which mercury is
dangerous or the consequences of mercury contamination, they are unaware thus, reluctant to
adopt mercury-free technologies. However, any “technical alternatives for ASGM must be
thoroughly evaluated, pre-tested, modified accordingly and successfully transferred. Moreover,
technology must be inexpensive, relatively simple and easy to adopt, while allowing a rapid rate
71 of return.” In addition, the promotion of mercury-free technologies and information
dissemination is a fundamental need in Guyana.155
The fact remain, that miners around the world are likely to continue demanding mercury, mainly
because alternatives are either unavailable or more expensive. The EU ban on mercury exports
began in the year 2011; the US ban on mercury exports begins in the year 2013. Together these
countries account for roughly 1/3 of global mercury supply; thus in 2010, the price for mercury
has doubled.156 The elimination of the EU and US mercury from the world market and the
expected high price of the metal which will follow will likely hasten the adoption of mercury
alternatives in ASGM processes.157 Artisanal and small-scale gold miners need to have an
understanding that mercury-free technologies which will generate more profit with improved
gold recovery which in turn helps in protection of their health and others as well as the terrestrial
and aquatic environment thus, a win-win situation for both economic development and
environmental protection.
155
156
Hinton, Jennifer J. et al (2002) Artisanal and Small Scale Gold Mining and Mercury Pollution 157
Balistreri, Edward J. & Worley, Christopher M. (2009) 72 5.1.2.Recommendation
From the research carried out the researcher has developed the following
recommendations in addressing some of the environmental issues related to artisanal small-scale
mining operations as well as constructive measures that can aid in the effective implementation
of mercury-free technologies. Therefore, less mercury would be used and more mineral (gold)
will be obtained thus, protection of human health and the environment.
1. The environmental bond required should be set at an amount at least as high as the
expected costs. In order to simplify enforcement, GGMC should set a high bond amount
that can be reduced if a miner can show to the satisfaction of the commissioner that he
can clean up the potential damage for less money than the initial amount of the bond.
2. Environmental bond should also be partly refunded if miners demonstrate that they are
following environmentally sound mining procedures. Under this plan enforcement would
be easier because the miner had an incentive to undertake environmentally sound
practices and to show the commission that he is capable of restoring the mining site in an
efficient manner.
3. Plausible and cheaper alternatives to mercury use need to be available, before the
implementation of the mercury ban in Guyana.
4. Greater education and awareness campaigns are needed, since most miners are still
ignorant about the ban on mercury and about the dangers of the poisonous substance.
5. Authorities should also provide awareness programmes for community members on safer
mining practices since their live-hood can be severely affected by poor/ irresponsible
mining operations.
6. One solution is for the GGMC to set up a processing facility to process gold miners
concentrate, however the process must be transparent, for the confidence of artisanal
small-scale gold miners.
73 7. Government and relevant authorities should work towards promoting alternative to
mercury such as “Borax”.158 Mercury-free technologies are very expensive as such, it is
difficult for ASGM to adopt and even if they do adopt, some amount of mercury will still
be use at the final stage in their mining operation. Borax on the other hand, is more
efficient, affordable and it will eliminate the poisonous substance mercury completely.
8. More demonstration is needed on the part of the miners association (GGDMA), in
advocating alternative technologies.
9. The regulatory agency and sector agencies should assist in capacity development and
technology transfer to facilitate the introduction of mercury-free mining methods.
10. The EPA, GGB, and the GFC need to play a more integral part in monitoring and
enforcement within the mining sector ease the overwhelming responsibilities that are
being placed on the GGMC. This will foster a more comprehensive regulatory body, thus
monitoring and enforcement will be improved.
11. A feasibility study should be done in order to assess the consequent implementation of
the mercury ban on the local Mining industry.
158
Borax is natural mineral, a common household and commercial chemical with a chemical formula Na2B4O7 • 10H2O. Borax is also known as sodium borate, sodium tetraborate or disodium tetraborate. 74 5.2.References
1. Avila, E.C. (2003). Small-scale Mining: A New Entrepreneurial Approach: UN, United
Nations Publication.
2. Appel, Peter. Gold extraction with BORAX for small-scale miners - Rather Rich &
Healthy than Poor & Poisoned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Sawj0HyF0&feature=youtu.be
3. Aryee, Benjamin N.A. et al (2002) Trends in the small-sale mining of precious minerals
in Ghana: a perspective on its environmental impact. Ghana, Elsevier Ltd.
4. Artisanal
and
Small
Scale
Gold
Mining
and
Mercury
Pollution
http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Portals/9/Mercury/Documents/ASGM/All%20
Presentations%20from%20WB-UNEP%20Dar%20meeting%20Oct%202010.pdf
5. Agenda for ERD (2010) Training of Trainers on Alternatives of Mercury and best
Available Techniques (BATs) and best Environmental Practices (BEPs) in Artisanal
and Small Scale Mining in Tanzania (Phase III).
http://www.zeromercury.org/phocadownload/Whats_on_in_the_regions/ASGM_Borax_
Training_Report-20102.pdf
6. BillionVault.com (2011) “Gold Mining” http://gold.bullionvault.com/How/GoldMining
7. Balistreri, Edward J. & Worley, Christopher M. (2009) Mercury: The good, the bad, and
the export ban. USA, Elsevier Ltd.
8. Business Guyana (2012) Suriname exported US$914M in gold last year – some
smuggled from Guyana. http://bis.gy/2012/06/suriname-miners-exported-us914m-ingold-last-year-smuggling-from-guyana-suspected/
75 9. Corlette, J. (2010) A Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) study On Mercury Use
and Mercury-free Techniques for Gold Recovery in Mahdia. University Of Guyana
Research Project (unpublished)
10. Colchester, M. & La Rose, J. (2010) Our Land, Our Future: Promoting Indigenous
Participation and Rights in Mining, Climate Change and other Natural Resource
Decision-making in Guyana. Guyana, APA.
11. Clifford, Martin J. (2011) Pork knocking in the land of many waters: Artisanal and
small-scale mining (ASGM) in Guyana. UK, Elsevier Ltd.
12. “Chemistry Expand- Foundation and Application”
http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/L-P/Mercury.html
13. Educational Pathways International (2010) “What is a developing country?”
http://www.educationalpathwaysinternational.org/?page_id=97> Accessed: 28th October,
2011
14. GEUS. Borax Replacing Mercury in Small-scale Mining. Geological Survey of
Denmark
and
Greenland.
http://www.geus.dk/program-
areas/common/the_borax_method_2011.pdf
15. Gordon, A. (2012) Guyana Times News: Plan in train to tackle gold smuggling –
Persaud http://www.guyanatimesgy.com/2012/05/22/plan-in-train-to-tackle-goldsmuggling-persaud/
16. Hilson, Gavin (2005) Abatement of mercury pollution in the small-scale gold mining
industry: Restructuring the policy and research agendas. Wales, UK, Elsevier Ltd.
17. Hinton, Jennifer J. et al (2002) Clean Artisanal Gold Mining: a utopian approach?
Canada, Elsevier Ltd.
http://www.globalmercuryproject.org/database/Upload/Global%202003%20Hinton%20cl
ean%20artisanal%20.pdf
76 18. Human Rights Programme (2007) Gold Mining in Guyana: The Failure of Government
Oversight and the Human Rights of Amerindian Communities. Cambridge, Harvard
Law School.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/hrp/documents/AllThatGlitters%28FINAL%29.pd
f
19. Lowe, Sherwood. (2008) Situation Analysis of the Small-scale Gold Mining Sector in
Guyana: WWF, Guianas Program.
20. Lovitz, Sara B (2006). Scales of Responsible Gold Mining: Overcoming Barriers to
Cleaner Artisanal Mining in Southern Ecuador. Vermont, University of Vermont
http://www.uvm.edu/~shali/Ecuador-Gold.pdf
21. Laws of Guyana (1979) Guyana Forestry Commission Act. Chapter 69:02
22. Module 3: Mercury Use in Artisanal and Small-sale Gold Mining.
http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/awareness_raising_package/E_01-16_BD.pdf
23. Ouboter, P. et al. (2007) Mercury Pollution in the Greenstone Belt: WWF, Guianas
Regional Program.
24. ResponsibleGold.org
(2006)
“The
Role
of
Gold
in
Modern
Society”
http://www.responsiblegold.org/role_of_gold.asp
25. Ramessar, Candice. Small and Medium-scale Gold Mining in Guyana: From Policy to
Plan. USA. http://www.diakhem.com/sm_scale_mining.pdf
26. Sousa, Rodolfo. et al. (2010) Policies and regulations for Brail’s artisanal gold mining
sector: analysis and recommendations. Canada, Elsevier Ltd.
77 27. Samaroo, T. and Johnson, Q. (2010) Proposed Strategy for the Gradual Decrease of
Mercury Amalgamation in Gold Recovery. GGMC: Mineral Processing Unit
28. Spiegel, S. and Veiga, M. (2007 a) Global Mercury Project: Report on the Policy and
Governance Initiative. UNDP
29. Spiegel, S. and Veiga, M. (2009 b) International guidelines on mercury in small-scale
gold mining. Canada, Elsevier Ltd.
30. Telmer, K. (2008) World emission of mercury from small scale artisanal gold mining
and the knowledge gaps about them. Canada, University of Victoria.
31. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) 2011 Draft Element Of A
Comprehensive And Sustainable Approach To The Global Legally Binding Instrument
in Mercury. Chiba: United Nations
32. UNDP (2007) Global Mercury Project: Technical Measures for Incorporation into the
UN International Guidelines on ASGM. UNIDO
33. Veiga, M.M. (1998) United Nations Industrial Development Organization Report
(UNIDO) - Artisanal Gold Mining Activities in Guyana. Canada: UNIDO
34. Veiga, M. et al. (2006) Global Mercury Project. Manual for Training Artisanal and
Small-scale Gold Miners. Vienna, Austria: UNIDO, Vienna International Center
35. Vieira, R. & Hays, P. Mercury contamination, A Legacy to Handicap a Generation.
WWF Guianas. http://suriname.wedd.de/docs/Mercury_in_Suriname%5B1%5D.pdf
36. Vieira, R. & Fontaine, M. Mercury-free gold mining technologies: possibilities for
adoption in the Guianas. WWF Guianas.
78 http://www.globalmercuryproject.org/database/Upload/Guyana%202005%20Vieira%20r
eport%20WWF.pdf
37. Veiga, M.M, et al. (2005). Pilot Project for the Reduction of Mercury Contamination
Resulting from Artisanal Gold Mining Fields in the Manica District of Mozambique:
FINAL
New
REPORT.
York,
Blacksmith
Institute.
http://www.globalmercuryproject.org/countries/mozambique/docs/Moz_Final_Report_A
ug_2005.pdf
38. Vieira, Rickford. (2008) Situation Analysis of the Small-scale Gold Mining Sector in
Guyana. WWF: Guiana Regional Program
39. Vieira, Rickford. (2004) Mercury-free gold mining technologies: possibilities for
adoption
in
the
Guianas.
Suriname,
WWF
Guianas.
http://www.globalmercuryproject.org/database/Upload/Guianas%202005%20Vieira%20
Hg%20free%20techniques.pdf
40. Woolford, W. (2010) Mining Sector Ponders Alternative Methods Of Gold Recovery.
Friday Stabroek, 12 March. http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/business/03/12/asdeadlines-near-for-us-eu-bans-on-mercury-exports%E2%80%A6/
41. Whiteman, Gail. (2004) Forestry, Gold Mining and Amerindians: The Troubling
Example of Sampling in Guyana.
42. (1998) Environmental Management in Small-Scale Mining. Boliva: CIDA
43. (1998) Facts: Mercury in Drinking Water. Trenton, NJ. Division of Environmental and
Occupational
Health
Consumer
and
Environmental
Health
Services
http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/hhazweb/mercury.pdf
44. (2002). Guyana Initial National Communication- In Response to Its Commitments to
the UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/guync1.pdf
79 45. (2008) Environmental Conservation in Guyana: Selected WWF Publications. Guyana,
WWF Guiana
46. (2009) Fact Sheet: LAND, What is Mercury?
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/factsheets/land/whatismercury.pdf
47. (2010) A Low-Carbon Development Strategy Transforming Guyana’s Economy While
Combating Climate Change. Republic of Guyana: Office of the Present
48. 2010. Mercury Poisoning Report. Florida Department of Health, Division of
Environmental
Health
http://www.myfloridaeh.com/medicine/Chemical_Surveillance/MercuryPoisoningReport2010.pdf
49. (2010). Global Mercury Assessment. UNEP
http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/report/Chapter5.htm
50. (2010) Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Mining Supplement
51. (2011) Guyana Geology and Mines Commission Mining Supplement
52. (2011). THE SHOUT- The Magazine of the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners
Association. Georgetown, Guyana: GGDMA
53. (2011) Corruption Perceptions Index
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/#CountryResults
54. (2012) “Kaieteur News online” http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2012/06/21/guyanasuriname-collaborating-on-illegal-gold-trade/
80 81 5.3.1.Annex1:Maps
Map 1: Showing Mining Districts of Guyana
82 Map 2: Showing of dredges within Mahdia and its environs
83 5.3.2.Annex2:Mercury‐freetechnologies
Gravity Concentration
In this process minerals are separated based on their different densities. This process is ideal for
minerals with small particle size. Successful separation depends on liberation the gold from
gangue minerals. Concentration requires very little and in some cases no reagent (this makes it
very environmentally friendly), the equipment required have a low operating cost and it can also
be applied to both coarse and fine materials.
Shaking Table
The Gemini Table is a common type of shaking table use in Guyana. The table has a steel frame
and a fiberglass deck. It has a longitudinal adjustable tilt and just one-direction shaking
movement with variable speed. These are low capacity devices and are most applicable where
pre-concentrated material is supplied as feed to the table. They can produce very clean gold from
gold bearing black sand concentrates.
Modified Sluice Box
The sluice box has been in use for centuries. Nature demonstrates the simplest form of sluice
box, in stream channels. Discontinuities in the stream bottom act as riffles, concentrating gold
and other heavy minerals, and creating placer deposits. Man has adopted this idea in processing
gold; expanded metal and some type of matting are usually installed below the riffles. The
gravels to be processed are mixed with water at the head of the sluice, in what is commonly
called the dump box. The resulting slurry then runs down the sluice and the gold, being heavier
than the other minerals present, settles in between the riffles. Such a simple and robust system is
appreciated by miners as it will run a long time without mechanical breakdown. Total cost
G$393,000.
Jigs
In a jig, the optimum condition of having the flow velocity reduced to nil, while maintaining the
fluid condition of material trapped by riffles is achieved. The pulsating action of the jig lifts the
84 entire bed of particles off the screen surface. As the stroke reverses, the bed tends to fall bottom
layer first, next layer next, and so on. This dilation of the bed effectively fluidizes it so that the
high specific gravity particles can sink through it and be concentrated. Total cost US $138,000 to
$300,000. However jigs can be obtained from Brazil at a lower cost of US $13,000.
Centrifugal Concentrators
Centrifuges have the potentials for primary concentration of fine gold. The equipment operates
with the basic principles of rotating recipient which separates the feed by gravity. The process
uses fluidized bed spinning-bowl that generates a centrifugal force that can reach up to 200 G
and can process up to 100 tonnes of solid/h. Concentrates can exist in two stages, (rougher and
cleaner) and can directly be smelted, potentially avoiding amalgamation step. Total cost ranges
from US$75,000 to $185,000. Modified, less effective duplicate can be bought from Brazil at a
price of US$10,000.159
Cyanidation
Cyanidation has the highest recovery than any other gold recovery process. In cyanidation,
metallic gold is oxidized and dissolved in an alkaline cyanide solution. The oxidant employed is
atmospheric oxygen, which, in the presence of an aqueous solution of sodium cyanide, causes
the dissolution of gold and the formation of sodium cyanoaurite and sodium hydroxide,
according to the so-called Elsner reaction:
4Au + 8NaCN +2H2O + O2
4NaAu (CN)2 + 4NaOH
When gold dissolution is complete, the gold-bearing solution is separated from the solids.160
159
160
Samaroo, T. and Johnson, Q. (2010) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/237366/gold‐processing/81540/Cyanidation 85 5.3.3.Annex3:QuestionnairesandInterviewsheets
An Investigation into the Level of Preparedness of Artisanal Small-scale Gold Mining
Operations (ASGM) in Mahdia to Transform to Mercury-free Mining Techniques
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a final year student at the University of Guyana conducting my Research Project. I am kindly
requesting your permission and cooperation to provide the necessary information for this survey. Please be assured
that all information provided will be treated with the highest level of confidentiality.
Viola A. King
General instructions:
 Answer each question as best as you can.
 Put a tick in the box next to your answer, unless otherwise instructed.
 Please specify where possible, in the area marked ‘other’.
Section A: Demographic/Personal Details
D(1)
What is your gender? D(2)
What is your age?
1
2
□18-22
□23-27
Male □1
3
□28-32
4
□33-37
5
□38-42
6
□43-47
7
□48-52
8
□53-57
Female □2
9
□58+
D(3)
What is your occupation?
Labourer
Operator
Driver
Manager
Claim owner
Dredge owner
Other, please state _____________________________________
D(4)
D(4a)
Do you have any other occupation other that mining?
If YES, which of the following?
Logging
Trading
Restaurant
Shop
Farming
Other, please state __________________________________________
□1
□2
□3
□4
□5
D(5)
Where do you live?
Mahdia
Linden
Bartica
Parika
Georgetown
Berbice
Other, ________________________________________________
□1
□2
□3
□4
□5
□6
D(6)
What is your highest level of education attained?
□1
□2
□1
□2
□3
□4
□5
□6
Yes
□1
Nursery
Primary
No
□2
86 Community High
Secondary
Technical/ Vocational
Tertiary (CPCE, UG)
None of the above
□3
□4
□5
□6
□77
Section B: Socio-economic Details
S(7)
How long have you been a gold miner?
1
2
3
□ less than 5
□ 5-10 years
□ 11-15 years
years
S(8)
What type of mining are you involved in?
S(9)
How long has the operation been in place?
1
2
□1-5 years
□6-10 years
S(10)
4
□ 16-20 years
5
□ 21-25 years
6
□ above 25
years
Land dredging
River dredging
Hammer milling
Ground sluicing
Dry mining
3
□11-15 years
□1
□2
□3
□4
□5
4
□16-20 years
5
□0ver 20 years
Yes
□1
Do you use mercury in the process of gold extraction and recovery?
No
□2
If NO, discontinue this questionnaire.
S(11)
On an average, how much mercury do you use per wash down?
1
2
3
4
□ < 1 ounce
□ 1-2 ounces
□ 3-4 ounces
□ 5-6 ounces
5
□ 7-8 ounces
Section C: Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP)
KNOWLEDGE
K(12) Are you aware of the imposed ban by the EU on the import and export of mercury for the
use in gold mining operations by 2013?
Full aware
Aware
Somewhat aware
Not aware
6
□ > 9 ounces
□1
□2
□3
□4
To each of these questions, you can answer; yes, no, neutral (not sure), I don’t know, or you can prefer not to
answer the question.
Yes No N DK
NA
K(13) Do you think that mercury is dangerous?
□1
□2 □3 □88 □99
K(14) Have you ever had training in how to use and store mercury?
□1
□2 □3 □88 □99
K(15) Do you believe that the improper use and storage of mercury is
harmful to humans and other life forms?
□1
□2 □3 □88 □99
K(16) Are you aware of alternative methods to mercury use?
□1
□2 □3 □88 □99
K(17) Have you ever received any pamphlets, or information from the
relevant authorities as to why you should use mercury free
□1
□2 □3 □88 □99
87 K(18)
K(19)
technologies?
Do you know the recovery rate of gold when using mercury free
techniques or equipment?
□1
□2
□3
Which of the following mining equipment are you aware of?
Gravity Concentration
Shaking Table
Modified Sluice Box
Jigs
Cyanidation
Spiral concentrator
None of the above
□88
□99
□1
□2
□3
□4
□5
□6
□77
Yes No
□1 □2
K(20)
Have you ever had training in how to use mercury free equipment?
If YES, please state _________________________________________
If NO, go to K(23)
K(21)
What was the source of training?
Government (GGMC/ GGDMA)
World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
GENCAPD
Family, friends and other miners
Other, specify _____________________________________________
□1
□2
□3
□4
K(22)
How would you rate the training?
□1
□2
□3
□4
Very beneficial
Beneficial
Somewhat beneficial
Not beneficial
Yes
□1
K(23)
Do you know what is mercury poisoning or the symptoms of it?
K(24)
If YES, Which of the following do you associate with mercury poisoning?
 Muscle weakness
 Pins and needles feeling in the hands, feet and around the mouth
 Diarrhea and vomiting
 Insomnia (restlessness, sleeplessness)
 Chills, sweats and high fever
 Emotional changes (mood swings)
 Headaches and abdominal pain
 Impairment of speech, hearing, walking and memory
 None of the above
ATTITUDE
A(25) What percentage of gold do you think is recovered when using mercury?
1
2
3
4
5
6
□20-34%
□35-44%
□45-54%
□55-64%
□65-74%
□75-84%
No
□2
□1
□2
□3
□4
□5
□6
□7
□8
□77
7
8
88
□85-94%
□95-100%
Don’t
Know
Yes
No
88 A(26)
Do you eat, drink or smoke in work area where mercury is being used?
□1
□2
A(27)
What factors would motivate you to switch or to implement mercury free methods in your operation?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
A(28)
Do you see the need for mercury free technologies?
Why? ___________________________________________________________________
Yes
□1
No
□2
To each of these statement, please rate your level of agreement (1, strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, neutral; 4,
disagree; 5, strongly disagree; 88, don’t know)
SA A N D SD
A(29) Mercury is harmful to your health by:
□1 □2 □3 □4 □5
 Mixing or using mercury without using protective gears.
□1 □2 □3 □4 □5
 Eating fish from streams that are polluted with mercury.
□1 □2 □3 □4 □5
 Shaking the hands of a person who is poisoned by mercury.
□1 □2 □3 □4 □5
 Drinking water that was exposed to mercury.
□1 □2 □3 □4 □5
 Breathing in mercury vapour during burning.
A(30)
Are you prepared to transform or adopt to mercury free mining technologies?
Fully prepared
Prepared
Somewhat prepared
Not prepared
DK
□88
□88
□88
□88
□88
□1
□2
□3
□4
PRACTICE
P(31)
Do you use protective gear when using or storing mercury?
If NO, why?
Too expensive
Not accessible
Not aware of any
They are uncomfortable
Accustomed to not wearing any
Other, _____________________________________________________
P(32)
What type of protective gear do you use?
Full body suit or coveralls
Respirator
Gloves
Chemical safety goggles
None of the above
Other, please specify _________________________________________
P(33)
P(34)
Do you know what a retort is?
Do you use retort?
If NO go to P(36)
P(35)
Why is it necessary for you to use retort?
To save water
To avoid wastage of mercury
To store mercury
Yes
□1
No
□2
□1
□2
□3
□4
□5
□1
□2
□3
□4
□77
Yes
□1
□1
No
□2
□2
□1
□2
□3
Other, please state
89 P(36)
P(37)
P(38)
During the process of gold extraction and recovery, mercury is added to;
The ground or pit floor
Sluice box during jetting operations
Jig box
Final stage
Do you reuse or recycle mercury?
If YES, how?
By using retort
By using a cloth to squeeze it out
How do you dispose of the mercury?
□1
□2
□3
□4
Yes No
□1 □2
□1
□2
Section D: Challenges
C(39)
What are your personal views of the ban on mercury in gold mining activities?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C(40)
When mercury is ban, what would you do to continue as a gold miner?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C(41)
What are some limiting factors that will prevent you from adopting to a mercury free
technology or methods?
Lack of knowledge about the alternatives.
Lack of financial resources.
Lack of available technologies.
Lack of education and awareness campaigns.
Poor infrastructure.
Inadequate demonstrations and training programmes.
Other, please state ________________________________________________________
□1
□2
□3
□4
□5
□6
Section E: Recommendations
R(42)
What do you think should be done to make miners more involved in using mercury free
technologies?
Provide financial and technological assistance.
Have better institutional infrastructure.
Have efficient education and awareness campaigns.
Provide accessible and available technologies.
Have regular demonstrations and training campaign.
Other, please state ________________________________________________________
□1
□2
□3
□4
□5
90 R(43)
What do think the relevant authorities should do to make mercury free/ environmentally friendly
technologies more appealing for miners to adopt? ______________________________________________
R(44)
What would you suggest as an alternative to mercury? __________________________________________
The end
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Your help is greatly appreciated in this research.
Interviewsheet(GGDMA)
1. Whatareyourviewsaboutthebanonmercuryuseingoldminingprocesses?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. DoyoubelievethattheLowCarbonDevelopmentStrategy(LCDS)andReduced
EmissionsfromDeforestationandDegradation(REDD)wouldforceminerstoadopt
mercuryfreeorenvironmentalfriendlygoldminingtechnologies?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Doyoubelievethatthebancanpotentiallyaffectsmall‐scalegoldminers?____How?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Whatstepsareyouputtinginplacetoaddressthebanonmercury?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Whatprogrammesareinplacetoinformgoldminersofalternativetechniquesto
mercury?_____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Wheredoyoureceivefundsfromtofinancethisorganizationanditsproposed
programmes?________________________________________________________________________________
7. Whathavebeentheresponsesofgoldminerstowardsthetransitiontomercuryfree
methodsingoldextractionprocesses?____________________________________________________
91 Interviewsheet(GGMC)
1. Whatareyourviewsaboutthebanonmercuryuseingoldminingprocesses?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. DoyoubelievethattheLowCarbonDevelopmentStrategy(LCDS)andReduced
EmissionsfromDeforestationandDegradation(REDD)wouldforceminerstoadopt
mercuryfreeorenvironmentalfriendlygoldminingtechnologies?______Why?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Whatstepsareyouputtinginplacetoaddressthebanonmercury?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. HaveGGMCformulatedanypoliciesforgoldminersasitrelatestothebanon
mercury?_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Whatprogrammesareinplacetoinformgoldminersofalternativetechniquesto
mercury?_____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Howaregoldminersinformedoftheseprogrammes?___________________________________
7. Whoattendtheprogrammes?______________________________________________________________
8. Howoftenaretheprogrammesconducted?______________________________________________
9. Wheredoyoureceivefundsfromtofinancetheprogrammes?_________________________
10. DoesGGMChavearesearchanddevelopmentdivision?_____.Howmanypersonsare
employedwithinthedivision?_____________________________________________________________
11. Whataresomeoftheresearchanddevelopmentprogrammesthatareundertaken
withinthedivision?_________________________________________________________________________
12. WhatalternativetechniquesormethodsareGGMCrecommendingtoArtisanal
Small‐scaleGoldMiners?___________________________________________________________________
92 InterviewSheetforCommunityMembers
1. Whataresomepositiveimpactsofgoldminingactivitiesinthiscommunity
(Mahdia)?____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Whataresomenegativeimpactsofgoldminingin thiscommunity(Mahdia)?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Whatdoyouthinkshouldbedonetoaddressthesenegativeimpacts?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Doyouknowwhatmercuryis?____________
5. Doyouknowwhatismercurypoisoning?__________.Whataresomeofthesymptoms
ofmercurypoisoning?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Howcanyoubeexposedtomercury?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Doyouknowofanyonewhohassufferedorissufferingfrommercurypoisoning?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Doyouagreethatmercuryshouldbebanfromgoldminingprocesses?_______.Why?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Howwouldthebanonmercuryaffect small‐scalegoldminersandthecommunity
(Mahdia)asawhole?
Positive:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Negative:
______________________________________________________________________________________
93 5.3.4.Annex4:PictureofASGMsites
Aerial photographs of land degradation in Mahdia’s
neighbouring Mazaruni Mining District No 3, Peter’s Mine
Deforestation and tailing pond
94 Mining methods observed in Mahdia and its environs.
Land dredging or hydraulic extraction
Sluice Box
95 River dredging/ Missile dredge
96 Destruction of roads by ASGM activities
Enormous waste dumped on a road between the Mahdia community and the Mining sites.
97

Read... - University of Guyana

Transcription

Similar documents

Fact Sheet: Illegal Gold Mining in Madre de Dios, Peru

Silencer and Non-silencer Raincaps

NBI Complaint vs Tallado PDF 13 - Sagip

Mining Park of Almadén

Mercury Sport Jet sellsheet ()

vocabulary from Olympians

energenius - Runestone Electric Association

Mercury History

mercuryracing.com - The International V8Bikers Forum

The planets Mercury and Venus It is difficult to find an example of a