Read... - University of Guyana

SITUATION ANALYSIS
OF THE SMALL-SCALE GOLD MINING SECTOR
IN GUYANA
Prepared by Sherwood Lowe
Edited by
Michelet Fontaine
and
Rickford Vieira
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
Guianas Regional Program
September 2006
FOREWORD
Small-scale gold mining activities have been carried out in the Guianas for over
one hundred years; however the past fifteen years have seen a new gold rush with
several groups, communities and/or persons becoming small-scale goldminers.
While the small scale goldmining sub-sector represents a source of income for
thousands of people, the extensive uncontrolled and ill-planned operations are
causing significant environmental, health and socio-cultural problems.
In general, heavy mechanical equipment is used to remove the overburden and
forest cover in order to expose the ore body, with no efforts to reduce erosion,
sedimentation and siltation risks, or protect the aesthetic values of the area. The
subsequent deforestation causes significant erosion and changes in soil quality in
the mining areas with negative impacts on forest regeneration. The discharges of
effluent from hydraulic mining operations also cause turbidity and siltation
downstream of the mined sites, significantly affecting the aquatic ecosystems and
the domestic water supply of the hinterland communities. Furthermore, the
physical disturbance creates stagnant pools that become breeding places for malaria
vectors, further endangering the health of local populations. The physical pollution
is compounded with the pervasive use of mercury, one of the most environmental
and health hazard.
The introduction, promotion, implementation of improved methods and practices;
the development, enactment of sound environmental and health standards and
guidelines; the development and implementation of appropriate outreach and
awareness program; and the monitoring and control of these operations remain
difficult without a very good understanding of the sub-sector and its modusoperandi. Thus, the need for this Situation Analysis.
Under the Goldmining Pollution Abatement component of the WWF Guianas
Sustainable Forest Resources Management Project, a team of professionals have
worked in Guyana and the other two Guianas, in reviewing and evaluating the
current situation of the small-scale gold mining sector with a view to determining
the most appropriate methods and approaches to foster its improved management,
and abate its environmental footprints. This publication is based on a series of field
visits, and extensive consultations, interviews and meetings with various
stakeholder groups. It is one in a series of four documents (French Guiana,
Guyana, Suriname and a Regional Guianas).
The WWF Guianas Regional Program Office thanks all those who provided
information and opened their operations to the team for the preparation of this
report. It encourages the government, legislators, mine operators, concession
owners, community members, donor organizations and other stakeholder groups to
use the information in this report to ensure the improved management of the small
scale goldmining sub-sector with a view to abating its negative socio-cultural,
ii
environmental and health impacts, and securing its effective contribution to the
region’s economy.
Michelet Fontaine
Rickford Vieira
Goldmining Pollution Abatement
Officer
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) through the WWF-Guianas Regional Program
Office (WWF-Guianas) is providing financial and technical assistance for the
monitoring of artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASM) activities in the
Guianas and is promoting regional cooperation for harmonizing policy and
guidelines in SSGM. The basic purpose of this program is to promote
environmentally sounder mining methods and thus curb health threats and pollution
caused by gold mining.
This situation analysis of the gold mining sector in Guyana is aimed to determine
the most appropriate methods and approaches to abate the environmental footprints
of gold mining, especially at the level of ASM. The analysis forms part of the
WWF’s Goldmining Pollution Abatement Project, which is a component of the
WWF Guianas Sustainable Forest Resources Management Project. The objective of
the latter project is to ensure that the forest ecosystems of the Guianas (Guyana,
Suriname and French Guiana) maintain (i) their capacity to sustain socio-economic
services and benefits, (ii) their ability to provide and support ecological functions
and processes, and (iii) their potential to adapt to changes.
No one document exists that comprehensively sets out strategic directions and
policies for the gold industry in Guyana. The policy framework for mining in
Guyana could best be determined by synthesizing the policy positions articulated in
several separate official papers (policy as stated intention or intended action) with
the actual actions and activities of the government (policy as actual behavior).
The Guyana economy has traditionally rested on three industries: rice, sugar and
bauxite mining. Since the 1980s, the bauxite industry has declined significantly.
The rapid growth of the gold industry, however, has compensated for this decline,
with gold output rising from 17,244 ounces in 1989 to 453,500 ounces in 2002. The
mining sector has consequently continued to play its role as one of the pillars of the
Guyana economy. From the mid-1990s, the contribution of mining (mainly gold
and bauxite) to the economy has surged to over 30% of export earnings, with gold
mining making the biggest contribution. Mining is now the largest sector in the
economy, surpassing sugar (Table 1). Gold itself was the single largest export by
value from 2000 to 2004. The largest factor in this growth is the startup in 1993 of
large-scale gold mining operations at Omai on the Essequibo River.
.
In an international context, the main motivations behind people’s participation in
ASM are: (i) poverty-driven (little or no other economic options available), (ii)
crisis-driven (in periods of severe national economic slump), (iii) the result of mine
downsizing or closure (workers laid off and finding themselves on the breadline),
(iv) the attractiveness of incomes (the perception and reality that ASM offers better
earning opportunities); (v) for cash supplement (subsistence farmers and
Indigenous people working part-time to obtain cash), and (vi) for profit-making (a
deliberate investment decision by small entrepreneurs and the local private sector).
iv
In Guyana, historically, the relative importance of these six factors has fluctuated.
In the 1930s, for instance, during a protracted national economic crisis,
accompanied by high unemployment, the flow of men to the gold bush was
motivated by poverty and desperation. Many of them eventually faced starvation.
In more recent times, however, persons that reside in the coastal residence have
been attracted to the gold bush by the desire to earn more than they believe they can
earn in civil service and other employment.
From the very inception of ASM in Guyana in the 1880s, the sector has been highly
regulated and formalized. Over the 125 years since, the various governments
differed in their motives for intervening in the industry, but at no time was the
activity ignored or allowed to run unfettered. As a case in point, it has been
mandatory, since the country’s first mining law in 1880, for all those involved in
gold mining to be licensed or registered. The early decades of the local industry,
however, witnessed rampant levels of lawlessness in the gold bush. Gold was
mined illegally, as the easily-accessible placers presented an irresistible target for
anyone with a few tools. Claim jumping and outright theft of gold were normal
happenings
As the accessible deposits became exhausted, however, mining was forced to
become more organized and mechanized. From the 1960s, couple jets dredges
(using aqualung-equipped divers) emerged as the foremost form of mining. Diverless gravel pump or missile dredges replaced these earlier river dredges. From the
early 1990s, land operations (hydraulicking) became the dominant, as river deposits
dried up.
While every major aspect of ASM in Guyana is regulated and formalized,
enforcement and compliance have not kept pace. These remain among the major
challenges facing the administration of the gold industry.
Mining in the Guyana hinterland potentially and actually comes into conflict with
other land uses: (i) the livelihood activities of Amerindians (such as fishing and
subsistence agriculture), (ii) titled and claimed Amerindian lands, (iii) commercial
timber operations, (iv) eco-tourism, (v) national parks and protected areas, (vi)
wildlife harvesting, and (vii) military and security zones. Missing from this list are
commercial agriculture, commercial inland fishing, and non-timber forest
industries, as these economic activities are absent or insignificant in the hinterland.
No agency (or government minister) exists in Guyana responsible for land use
planning and management. Regulation of the various land uses falls to separate
government ministries and agencies, with no overarching authority. Coordination is
attempted through an exchange of board representation. The Guyana Forestry
Commission and the national army, for example, are members of the Board of
Directors of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC). Coordination
is also achieved through the mandate of the EPA for natural resources management.
v
The main environmental impacts of ASM in Guyana are (i) mercury contamination,
(ii) turbidity in streams, (iii) the creation of stagnant pools of water which serve as
breeding places for malaria vectors, (iv) deforestation, (v) alterations to river
channels by tailing heaps, (vi) destruction of habitats of wild animals and birds, and
(vii) land degradation. Most official attention and effort has been directed at
mitigating the first two impacts. The proposed new environmental regulations,
however, include provisions that address most of the other effects.
Amalgamation continues to be the preferred method of separation of gold from
concentrates among gold miners in Guyana. Miners have found no other method
that compares favorably with mercury in terms of cost-effectiveness and ease of
use. In the vast majority of operations, mercury is introduced into the process after
the processing of slurry in the sluice boxes. It is therefore not directly used in the
sluice box, as is the practice in neighboring countries, but mixed with the
concentrate collected from the mats in the jig box. However, there are reports of
miners directly applying mercury on the ground during jetting operations or
directly in the slurry sump or the sluice box. This practice is thought to be the
popular option among local Brazilian-run operations. The environmental
implications of such a practice are alarming, as surface and ground water can be
easily contaminated. Top government officials however, are convinced that this
practice is on the decline as a result of rigorous enforcement efforts
Field surveys conducted in four mining areas by GGMC between 1998 and 2000 on
mercury use practices observed that the use of retorts and gas masks when burning
amalgam, through encouraged by authorities, has not caught on. GGMC field
officers have also reported that use of gloves during massaging operations is not
very common. The problem may not be totally one of unawareness but one of
irresponsibility (one GGMC officer recounts that a miner engaged in massaging
operations quickly put on his gloves when he saw the officer approaching the
camp).
Turbidity in rivers is caused by the untreated discharges from dredging is one of the
most concerned environmental issue and in an address in August 2004, the Minister
responsible for the mining industry clearly articulated his government’s profound
concern over this issue:
I could not deliver an address such as this without speaking to environmental
issues, in particular the turbidity in our streams, creeks and rivers downstream of
many mining areas and the appearance of wasted land where there has been landdredging/hydraulicking. At an industry meeting earlier in this year it was agreed
that it was reasonable, it was attainable within a year, to end turbid water reaching
our streams. It was also agreed that we can and should set our sights on replacing
land dredging/hydraulicking with dry methods of stripping and mining, within five
years. Last week I completed a letter to the GGMC and the industry mandating that
by December 31, 2005, all waters leaving any mining operation should have a
turbidity not exceeding 50 NTU, and establishing a Critical Turbidity level of 30
NTU downstream of any mining. Critical Turbidity in a stream will demand a
vi
reviewing of the contribution of upstream mining to the turbidity seen and would
cause consideration of lowering the allowable discharge levels if necessary.
Of the range of environmental problems in mining, the investigation and
implementation of corrective measures to deal with turbid waters have clearly been
given priority by the government. It has set clear deadlines by which the issue must
be resolved
Non-compliance by miners to regulations remains one of the biggest challenges
facing mining administration. The fact that mining activity in Guyana is
geographically scattered over vast, mostly uninhabited, heavily-forested territory
creates its own set of difficulties. Efforts to increase compliance levels may be
beneficial if the causes of non-compliance among small miners are differentiated.
These distinctions are important in designing education and enforcement tactics.
Non-compliance can be due to or facilitated by four conditions:
•
•
•
•
total or considerable ignorance of the laws;
total or considerable disregard for the laws, even though the miner is aware of
the laws;
total or considerable ignorance of the harmful effects to oneself, to others, and
to the environment when the unlawful action is practiced; and
total or considerable disregard for the harmful effects to oneself, to others, and
to the environment when the unlawful action is practiced, even though the
miner is aware of the consequences.
The limiting factor to GGMC’s ability to enforce regulations is its manpower and
financial resources. Despite the best intentions, too few officers are on the ground,
a situation that has led to sporadic enforcement of the present regulations. With the
imminent enactment of more complex mining and environmental regulations, the
inadequacy of GGMC’s capacity as a monitoring and enforcement agency must be
dealt with urgently.
In the last decade, the industry has introduced new technologies and methods that
have ravaged the environment more than previously. Missile dredging,
hydraulicking, large earth-moving equipment, and the reported liberal use of
mercury by Brazilian miners have placed greater strain on the environment and on
regulatory agencies. The search for solutions will be never-ending.
Several overarching attitudes and approaches may be useful in this battle.
•
Prioritization. Regulatory agencies must prioritize targets and actions. Not
only are current resources at GGMC limited, but at no point in the future
would resources be adequate, given the extent of its responsibilities.
Unremitting effort must therefore be spent during the planning process to rank
implementation measures based on informed judgment or on hard data.
Already, GGMC has decided that among the multiplicity of negative
environmental impacts caused by mining, it will concentrate in the first
vii
instance on mercury pollution and river turbidity. Prioritization must also be
applied to determine target areas and communities for monitoring, mitigation
work, public awareness and enforcement.
•
Continuous improvement. Success in environmental management will not
come overnight. Improvements must be seen as a sequence of small
incremental steps toward a realistically-set objective. Once an initial objective
has been reached, the process must then begin again towards a new objective.
•
Phasing. Given resource constraints, regulatory agencies must deliberately
phase their interventions. Phasing carries the additional advantage of allowing
agencies to review initial impacts and effects, and to make design changes or
take corrective action before moving on to the succeeding phase of
implementation.
•
Impacts over outputs. Many programs measure success by outputs rather than
by impacts. Outputs are easier to obtain and measure (number of written
reports, training sessions held, and visits made). Outputs, however, should not
be used as the end, but must be used to deliver impacts and prompt changes
(better mining practices, higher community involvement, less conflict, etc).
•
The precautionary principle. Regulatory agencies need not wait on hard
scientific data before planning interventions. Ideally, scientifically-gathered
information, for example, on the intensity and distribution of mercury pollution
should be a precursor to planning mitigation programs. In a situation where
resources are limited, however, such an ideal approach would leave many areas
untreated. Action should be taken on informed judgment and experience
instead of waiting indefinitely on scientific data.
In situations where responsibilities outweigh resources, an organization must strive
to prioritize its interventions and its targets. An attempt could be made to prioritize
mining zones by levels of risk based on factors such as:
•
•
•
•
Number, scale and type of mining operations in the area;
Number of Amerindian and other communities likely to be affected;
Presence of other land uses (timber operations, eco-tourism, protected parks,
etc);
Category of non-compliance.
Manpower and other resources could then be focused more on areas deemed to be
high risk. Such information would have to be regularly updated to cater for the
changing scene in each area.
viii
CONTENTS
List of tables …………..……….……………………………….………………..xii
List of Figures ……………………………………………………..………… ….xii
List of Abbreviations………………………………………………….…… …..xiii
Chapter 1 ...................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
I. MINING IN THE GUYANA ECONOMY............................................................. 2
1.1. Gold mining output and contribution to the economy ................................... 3
Chapter 2 ...................................................................................................................... 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE GOLD SECTOR .............................................................. 4
2.1. Geographic and geological setting ............................................................. 7
2.2. Characteristics of ASM for gold .................................................................7
2.2.1. Definition of ASM............................................................................... 7
2.2.2. Production and declaration of gold from ASM ........................................ 8
2.2.3. Who are the artisanal and small scale miners? ...................................... 9
2.2.4. The influx of Brazilian miners ............................................................ 11
2.2.5. Degree of formalization of ASM ......................................................... 11
2.2.6. Landlordism in ASM ......................................................................... 12
2.2.7. Mining methods and technology ........................................................ 13
2.2.8. Relationship with other land users ..................................................... 19
2.2.9. Environmental effects of ASM in Guyana ............................................ 19
2.2.10. Social effects of ASM on Guyana Indigenous Population ...................... 23
2.2.11 Other social effects of ASM .............................................................. 24
2.2.12. Health effects of ASM in Guyana ...................................................... 26
2.3. Characteristics of large-scale gold mining in Guyana ................................. 29
2.3.1. Definition of large-scale mining ......................................................... 29
2.3.2. The operations of Omai Gold Mines Limited ........................................ 30
Chapter 3 .................................................................................................................... 32
MINING POLICY, LAW AND ADMINISTRATION ........................................... 32
3.1. Mining policy framework ........................................................................ 32
3.2. Legal framework for mining.................................................................... 33
3.2.1. Main mining legislation ..................................................................... 33
3.2.2. Other mining-related legislation ........................................................ 35
3.3. Institutional framework ......................................................................... 36
3.3.1. Public Mining Institutions in Guyana. ................................................. 36
Chapter 4 .................................................................................................................... 41
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF MINING IN GUYANA ................... 41
4.1. National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) .............................................. 41
4.2. Institutions and Administration ............................................................... 42
ix
4.2.1. GENCAPD - Guyana Environmental Capacity Development Mining Project
.............................................................................................................. 42
4.3. Legal provisions for environment protection in gold mining ........................ 44
4.3.1. New environmental regulations ......................................................... 44
4.3.2. New codes of practice ...................................................................... 46
4.3.3. Guidelines for EIA of mining projects in Guyana .................................. 47
4.3.4. Advisories and guidelines ................................................................. 47
4.4. Main issues and concerns ....................................................................... 47
Chapter 5 .................................................................................................................... 48
BROADER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ............................................................. 48
5.1. National Parks and Protected Areas ......................................................... 48
5.1.1. Existing National Protected Areas ...................................................... 48
5.1.2. Proposed National Protected Areas .................................................... 48
5.1.3. Institutions ..................................................................................... 49
5.1.4. Legal Framework ............................................................................. 49
5.1.5. Sources of conflict ........................................................................... 49
5.1.6. Goldmining and Protected Areas ........................................................ 51
5.2. Undergraduate programs in mining and environmental studies ................... 51
5.2.1. The Environmental Studies Unit, University of Guyana ......................... 51
5.2.2. The Division of Mining Engineering, University of Guyana ..................... 51
5.2.3. The School of Environmental and Earth Sciences, University of Guyana
(UG) ....................................................................................................... 52
5.2.4. GGMC/WWF Guianas cooperation ...................................................... 52
MINING INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS .............................................................. 53
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
Gold miners and license holders .............................................................. 54
Indigenous Peoples ............................................................................... 54
Jewelry Industry ................................................................................... 56
Forestry operations ............................................................................... 58
Chapter 7 .................................................................................................................... 63
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 63
7.1. The issue of non-compliance .................................................................. 64
7.2. The issue of monitoring and enforcement ................................................. 65
7.3. Remediation/clean up of hotspots ........................................................... 65
7.4. Reduction of mercury emissions and other avenues of contamination .......... 66
7.5. Adoption of cleaner alternative technologies ............................................. 67
7.6. Improved mineral recoveries .................................................................. 67
7.7 Data collection and field studies ............................................................... 68
7.8. Involvement of local communities ........................................................... 68
7.9. Needs assessments ............................................................................... 68
x
REFERENCES
CASE STUDY:
SMALL-SCALE GOLD MINING IN MAHDIA, GUYANA
Lessons in environmental management of small-scale gold mining
1. Introduction
1.1. Choice of the mining community of Mahdia for case study in SSM……….
1.2. Location and access……………………………………………………… .
1.3. The natural environment……………………………………………………
1.4. Local government and administration………………………………………
1.5. Socio-economic conditions…………………………………………………
2. Mahdia Gold Project: Model Building
2.1Background…………………………………………………………………..
2.2 The Mahdia Environment……………………………………………………
2.3 The Mahdia Project Execution Plan……………………………… ……….
2.4 Environmental Assessment of Project Area…………………………………
2.5 Training of miners and public education……………………………………
2.6 In Summary………………………………………………………………….
3. Results and responses on the ground
3.1 The mining plan and infrastructure works……………………………………
3.2 Observances of the MEMA………………………………………………..…
4. Why the project failed? .................................................................................
5. Recommendation……………………………………………………………
References
List of Tables
Table 1:
Export value and contribution of major commodities (US$Mn)
Table 2:
Guyana’s gold production (ozs), 1991 – 2005
Table 3:
Number of registered dredges by size, 2001 -2005
Table 4:
Mercury use practices among miners
Table 5:
Omai’s Gold Production 1993 - 2005 (ozs)
Table 6:
Direct Payments to Government: 5% royalty paid in gold (US$)
Table 7:
Spin-off benefit: purchases of local services, fuel supplies, food (US$)
Table 8:
Main provisions in the Mining Act of 1989
xi
Table 9:
SWOT analysis of the GGMC
Table 10:
Comparative responsibilities for GGMC and miners under the new
mining environmental regulations
Table 11:
Annual output of logs, 1999-2004 (‘000 m3)
Table 12:
Export volume (m3) and value of timber products (US$ million), 2001
– 2005
Table 13:
Forestry’s contribution to Gross Domestic Product, 2000 - 2005
Table 14:
Sketch of Needs Assessment of selected stakeholders
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Local gold production trend, 1991-2005
Figure 2:
Geological Map of Guyana
Figure 3:
Mineral Occurrence Map of Guyana
Figure 4:
Dietary source of proteins in surveyed mining communities.
Figure 5:
Duration of residency in mining communities.
Figure 6:
Organizational chart of the GGMC
Figure 7:
Current and proposed Protected Areas in Guyana
Figure 8:
Allocated (in brown) and non-allocated State Forest
List of Abbreviations
APA
The Amerindian Peoples Association of Guyana
BGS
British Geological Survey
CDB
Caribbean Development Bank
EPA
The Environmental Protection Agency
GENCAPD
Guyana Environmental Capacity Development Mining Project
GFC
Guyana Forestry Commission
GGB
Guyana Gold Board
GGDMA
Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners’ Association
GGMC
Guyana Geology and Mines Commission
GNAGJ
Guyana National Association of Goldsmiths and Jewelers
xii
IDS
Institute of Development Studies, UG
NDS
National Development Strategy
NEAP
National Environmental Action Plan
UG
University of Guyana
WWF
World Wildlife Fund, World Wide Fund for Nature
xiii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This situation analysis of the gold mining sector in Guyana is aimed at assisting the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Guianas Program to determine the most appropriate
methods and approaches to abate the environmental footprints of gold mining,
especially at the level of artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). The analysis
forms part of the WWF’s Goldmining Pollution Abatement Project, which is a
component of the WWF Guianas Sustainable Forest Resources Management
Project. The objective of the latter project is to ensure that the forest ecosystems of
the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana) maintain (i) their capacity to
sustain socio-economic services and benefits, (ii) their ability to provide and
support ecological functions and processes, and (iii) their potential to adapt to
changes.
The specific tasks under the Terms of References for the situation assessment
include:
1. meet relevant government officials and officers, mining related institutions
and others to discuss current gold mining situation (structure; relation with
indigenous, maroon and other populations; garimpeiros issues; illegal
activities; socio-economic and cultural impacts; income distribution;
production statistics: claims, concessions, exploration and exploitation
permits; concession maps; etc.);
2. collect and analyze background document, information and data on the
goldmining sector, especially in terms of its socio-economic, political and
environmental impacts; attention will also be paid to the relation between
goldmining, indigenous or traditional communities and protected areas;
3. collect, review and analyze goldmining regulations and guidelines, and
assess the levels of compliance and enforcement, identify bottle necks, and
recommends ways to address them;
4. identify and meet the key stakeholder groups to discuss their respective
vision for the goldmining sector, and possible structure or mechanisms for
national and regional interaction and networking;
5. assess technology applied in mining and ore processing in the small-scale
gold mining sector and the potential for cleaner technology;
6. review the operations of the large scale gold mining sector with special
emphasis on the production, environmental issues, benefits to local
communities and the state, etc.
7. identify the key issues relevant to the goldmining sector, and recommend
ways to address them; and
1
8. formulate measures for the remediation and possible rehabilitation of hot
spots in the river system and near mining facilities.
ASM in Guyana is here to stay. Government efforts are directed at encouraging its
growth and development. The challenge therefore remains how to accomplish these
objectives while simultaneously making the industry socially and environmentally
responsible.
I. MINING IN THE GUYANA ECONOMY
The Guyana economy has traditionally rested on three pillars: rice, sugar and
bauxite mining (Table 1). Since the 1980s, the bauxite industry has declined
significantly. The rapid growth of the gold industry, however, has compensated for
this decline, with gold output rising from 17,244 ounces in 1989 to 453,500 ounces
in 2002. The mining sector has consequently continued to play its role as a main
prop of the Guyana economy.
From the mid-1990s, the contribution of mining (primarily gold and bauxite) to the
economy has surged to over 30% of export earnings, with gold mining making the
biggest contribution. Mining is now the largest sector in the economy, surpassing
sugar as the country’s main export earner (Table 1). The largest factor in this
growth is the startup in 1993 of large-scale gold mining operations at Omai on the
Essequibo River.
According to the Bank of Guyana, the scaling down and eventual closure of Omai
Goldmines in September 2005 led to a 22.9% drop in export value when compared to
the level in 2004. Omai’s share of export value dropped from 70.6% in 2004 to 41.6%
in 2005. The recent rise in gold prices, however, has managed to offset the impact of
Omai’s reduced contribution.
Table 1: Export value and contribution of major commodities (US$Mn)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Gold
127
136.3
130.9
145.1
111.9
% of total exports
25.9
27.5
25.5
24.6
Sugar
109.2
119.5
129.2
136.5
% of total exports
22.3
24.1
25.2
23.2
61
35.3
40.4
44.7
% of total exports
12.4
7.1
7.9
7.6
Rice
50.2
45.4
45.3
55.1
% of total exports
Bauxite
10.2
9.2
8.8
9.3
Timber
33
35.5
30.7
45.0
% of total exports
6.7
7.2
6.0
7.6
118.0
62.8
46.2
49.6
Source: Bank of Guyana
2
1.1. Gold mining output and contribution to the economy
Between 1993 and 2005, the two contributors to national gold output were the
large-scale operations of Omai Gold Mines Limited and local miners. Prior to
1993, local miners contributed 100% of output. Since 1993, with the appearance of
Omai, the contribution from local miners has averaged 27% (Table 2). With the
closure of Omai at the end of 2005, and the unlikely emergence within the next
several years of any new world-class gold mine, Guyana’s gold industry will be
dominated once again by small-scale producers.
Guyana’s output of 455,917 ounces of gold in 2001 was its highest-ever. Omai
contributed just over 77% of the total (Table 2 and Figure 1). Gold itself was the
single largest export by value from 2000 to 2004. As Figure 1 shows, gold
declaration from local miners since 1994 has failed to show large and consistent
increases. Local miners produced their highest declaration (162,527 oz) in 2005,
surpassing for the first time the historic high mark of 138,527 ounces set by the
first generation of local miners as long ago as 1893.
Table 2: Guyana’s gold production (ozs), 1991 – 2005
1991
Omai
Local Miners (ASM)
% of ASM output to total
NA
59,300
100
1992
NA
79,582
100
1993
202,229
87,100
30.1
1994
251,848
99,095
28.2
1995
178,356
91,451
33.9
1996
253,442
110,135
30.3
1997
333,567
98,051
22.7
1998
324,245
110, 047
25.3
1999
312,089
110,684
26.2
2000
329,603
105,289
24.2
2001
354,068
101,849
22.3
2002
319,431
117,240
26.8
2003
270,693
105,747
28.1
2004
242,192
116,236
32.4
162,527
61.9
2005
100,001
Source: GGMC Mines Division
3
Fig 1: Local gold production trend, 1991-2005
400000
350000
ounces
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
Omai
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
0
ASM
Labor: No official figures exist as to the number of persons directly employed in
gold mining. Figures range from as low as 7,000 (GGMC estimates) to as high as
15,000 (GGDMA estimates). One common approach used by the GGMC to
estimate the size the labour force in ASM is to assume an average of six workers on
every registered dredge (the most popular mining method). In 2004, for example,
there were 1188 registered dredges, and therefore an estimated workforce of over
7,000 persons.
Economic multiplier effects: The gold industry’s contribution to the economy
extends beyond its direct contribution to GDP and employment. Through a
multiplier effect, mining supports other local businesses such as transportation
services (small aircraft operators, boat operators, truckers) and the food industry
(farmers, food suppliers, wholesalers).
Chapter 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE GOLD SECTOR
Though gold was mined in Guyana by the Indigenous people and European
explorers several centuries ago, the industry was only formalized in 1880, with the
enactment of the country’s first mining law. From the inception, gold mining has
contributed in no small way to the country’s mystique, fame, economic fortune,
territorial integrity and culture.
4
Figure 2: Geological map of Guyana
5
Figure 3: Mineral occurrences map of Guyana
6
2.1. Geographic and geological setting
Guyana is divided into four natural regions: (i) the Low Coastal Plain, the 16 to 64
km wide strip of land along the Atlantic Coast of the country, where most of the
population lives; (ii) the Hilly Sand and Clay Region, which lies south of the
Coastal Plain, covers 25% of country, and is the country’s bauxite producing
region; (iii) the Highland Region, by far the largest, most mountainous and most
densely-forested region, and home to most of the country’s Indigenous population;
and (iv) the Interior (Rupununi) Savannahs, a region of tropical grasslands situated
in the South-west of the country, populated mostly by Indigenous people.
The Highland Region provides the geographic backdrop to gold (and diamond)
mining in Guyana. Most of the activity is concentrated in the northern segment of
the region, with the southern extremes of the region devoid of any significant
mining activity. In common language, the Highland Region is referred to as the
hinterland or interior of Guyana.
Geologically (Figure 2), the Highland Region falls within the Proterozoic Guiana
Shield and is underlain by low-grade metamorphic rocks and large granitoid
intrusions. The metamorphosed sequences comprise greenstone belts, which in the
North are referred to as the Barama-Mazaruni Supergroup and in the South as the
Kwitaro Group. Most of the primary gold deposits are restricted to the contact
zones between the greenstone belts and the large granitoids. Alluvial deposits are
the result of the long history of erosion of these bedrock formations.
2.2. Characteristics of ASM for gold
Artisanal and small-scale mining in Guyana exploits a narrow range of minerals:
gold, diamond and quarry material (stone aggregates and quartz sand). All of the
country’s diamond and quarry material comes from ASM. With the closure of
Omai Goldmines Ltd in September 2005, ASM now produces all of Guyana’s gold.
This study focuses only on the gold mining industry.
2.2.1. Definition of ASM
In Guyana, as elsewhere, artisanal and small-scale gold mining is distinguished by
its unsystematic approach to exploration and extraction. These activities are largely
driven by instincts, gut feelings, trial and error, guesswork and myths. Practitioners
see little value in geological work, drilling or pitting, reserves estimation or mine
planning.
More formally, the mining legislation in Guyana specifies three scales of mining:
(i) large scale, with an allowed property size of between 500 to 12,800 acres; (ii)
medium-scale, with an allowed property size of between 150 to 1200 acres, and
(iii) small-scale, with the size of a land claim fixed at 27.5 acres and that of a river
7
claim set at a maximum of one mile (0.6 km) of navigable river.1 By general
international usage, the last two legal categories (small and medium scale) fit the
description of artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM), based largely on the nonsystematic approach to mineral exploration and mining practiced at these scales.
This study uses the term ASM in preference to any legally-defined or countryspecific classification to facilitate international comparisons. When we speak
therefore of ASM in Guyana, we are referring to small and medium-scale mining.
Additionally, the distinction normally drawn between small-scale mining and its
subset, artisanal mining, can be meaningfully applied to the Guyana situation.
Artisanal mining can be defined as mining for subsistence and survival (povertydriven), the miner having little or no other economic option. On the other hand,
small-scale mining encompasses either a profit-making intent (on the part of the
claim holder) or an income-generation motive (on the part of the employed
laborer). Parties in small-scale mining have and do exercise options: the
claimholder chooses to invest in mining over other investment opportunities, and
the claim-worker chooses to seek income in the mining industry. By this
distinction, ASM in Guyana is dominated by small-scale mining. This class of
miners accounts for almost all of the declared output and installed mining capacity.
Traditional artisanal mining in Guyana has declined as easily-accessible deposits
have become exhausted and employment opportunities have increased in smallscale operations.
2.2.2. Production and declaration of gold from ASM
Prior to the commencement of large-scale gold mining at Omai in 1993, ASM
constituted the sole source of the country’s gold production. Between 1993 and
2004, however, ASM contributed on average 27% to national output. The total
dominance of ASM is likely to re-emerge with the closure in late 2005 of Omai’s
operations.
The Guyana Gold Board Act of 1981 requires all gold from local miners to be
declared to the Guyana Gold Board (GGB) or, since 1997, also to licensed dealers.2
Declared gold output from ASM, nonetheless, is widely believed to be far less than
actual production. From 1975, at the start of an extended national economic crisis,
to the early 1990s, mining policy and legislation focused almost exclusively on
getting local miners to truthfully declare their output. For various reasons, these
attempts met with little success. Since the merging of the formal and underground
economies after 1990, however, and the easier availability of foreign exchange to
1
In the country’s new mining environmental regulations, however, claims are categorized based on the
volume of material excavated or processed. A large-scale mine will mean an operation from which a
minimum volume of 1000m3 of material, inclusive of overburden, is excavated or processed in any
continuous twenty-four hour period; for medium-scale – a minimum volume of between 200 and 1000m3;
and for small-scale – a minimum volume of between 20 and 200m3.
2
The Guyana Gold Board (Dealers) Regulations of 1997 removed the monopoly of the GGB as the sole
purchaser of gold.
8
purchase mining inputs, the motivation to bypass the official reporting system has
weakened but still persists on a problematic scale.
A feature of the local industry is that the bulk of gold production/declaration from
ASM continues to come from a small number of operations.
2.2.3. Who are the artisanal and small scale miners?
Artisanal and small-scale miners in Guyana are predominantly citizens from the
country’s Atlantic coastland who have migrated to the gold bush to seek fortune
and opportunity. Migrants are almost exclusively males and mostly young.
No verified figure exists on the total number of persons directly engaged in mining
in Guyana. For gold and diamond mining, however, a figure close to 10,000 seems
likely. With specific reference to gold mining, all persons directly engaged in this
sub sector must have one of three legal statuses.
•
As a property owner or licence holder: one in whose name a claim is
registered.
•
As a laborer: one who is employed as a salaried worker. The relationship
between the claimholder and laborer is governed by the labor laws of the
country.
•
As a tributor (tenant): one who works in a contract agreement with a claim
owner for a percentage of the mineral output. The relationship between the
claimholder and tenants is governed by private contract (see section 2.2.6).
•
Unlike some other countries, the direct involvement of women and children in gold
mining is effectively a non-existent phenomenon in Guyana. When viewed in an
international context, the absence of females in ASM in Guyana is uncommon.
Women as a share of the ASM workforce in Bolivia, for example, constitute 22%;
in Burkina Faso 45%; in Ghana 45%; in India 7%; and in the Philippines 25%.3 An
explanation of the Guyana phenomenon may reside in the fact that the porknocking
tradition has historically been shrouded in an image of machismo and bravado. For
most coastal women, the jungle is still seen as fraught with danger and hardships.
Amerindian women too are not present in the workforce. Their social role is
mostly restricted to household management. However, females do participate in
ASM as claimholders, but their numbers here too are insignificant.
Constituting a small but significant part of the workforce are the Indigenous
residents of the hinterland, the Amerindians. Amerindians mostly seek employment
in mining as laborers. No figures exist as to their level of involvement. The social
and economic impacts, nonetheless, on Amerindian communities consequent on
their menfolk leaving to work on dredges are severe (see section 6.2.).
3
Breaking New Ground. The Report of the MMSD Project. London, Earthscan Publications Ltd. 2002.
9
Globally, the main motivations behind people’s participation in ASM are: (i)
poverty-driven (little or no other economic options available), (ii) crisis-driven (in
periods of severe national economic slump), (iii) the result of mine downsizing or
closure (workers laid off and finding themselves on the breadline), (iv) the
attractiveness of incomes (the perception and reality that ASM offers better earning
opportunities); (v) for cash supplement (subsistence farmers and Indigenous people
working part-time to obtain cash), and (vi) for profit-making (a deliberate
investment decision by small entrepreneurs and the local private sector).
In Guyana, historically, the relative importance of these six factors has fluctuated.
In the 1930s, for instance, during a protracted national economic crisis,
accompanied by high unemployment, the flow of men to the gold bush was
motivated by poverty and desperation. Many of them eventually faced starvation.
In more recent times, however, persons who reside on the coast have been attracted
to the gold bush by the desire to earn more than they believe they can earn in civil
service and other employment.
In summary the main characteristics of local mining population are:
•
Males predominate in numbers, as claimholders, tributors and laborers.
Women and children are effectively absent.
•
Most miners are coastland residents who migrate to the mining districts in
search of fortune. Their families, for those who have, do not accompany them
and are left behind in coastland communities. As a result, most miners have
little sentimental attachment to the interior.
•
Artisanal and small-scale mining is not a classic rural activity, with all the
connotations of how the activity is described in donor community literature.
Miners in Guyana have a solid basic education or a trade skill. A small study
done in 1999 by the British Geological Survey (BGS) in the Mahdia area of
Guyana found that 95% of those interviewed had at least primary education,
and 62% had at least secondary education.4
•
Unlike in several other developing countries, subsistence (poverty-driven)
mining is not significant in Guyana. Most participants in mining exercise a
choice based on their assessment of comparative economic advantages.
•
Likewise, seasonal artisanal mining is not a phenomenon in Guyana; so, for
example, there is no movement of farmers into the interior during the out-ofcrop season.
•
Amerindians, even though they are resident in the hinterland, form only a
small part of the labor force.
•
Within mining regions, miners are transient, always looking for better
opportunities.
4
N. Hughes & D. Furamera: Socio-economic issues relevant to the uptake of new technology in smallscale mining. BGS Technical Report WC/99/7
10
2.2.4. The influx of Brazilian miners
Unlike neighboring Suriname, the advent of Brazilian miners in Guyana is a relatively
new phenomenon. Today, however, the Brazilian miner is a pervasive element on the
mining landscape. The GGMC estimates that there are over 1,000 Brazilians in the
industry.5 Brazilians are involved in all aspects of the industry: as dredge operators,
equipment suppliers, shop owners, traders and exporters. GGMC figures further show
that 17% of persons employed in small and medium scale gold and diamond mining
are Brazilians. In addition, 17% of dredges are owned by Brazilians.6
Brazilian investors and miners are credited with the increased gold and diamond
output from local operations seen in recent years. They have introduced new
technology, such as the cutter-head dredge, and generally put in a longer working day
than their Guyanese counterparts. Because Guyanese law prohibits foreign ownership
of small and medium claims, Brazilian mining investors have been forced to form
partnerships with local claimholders. They have generally been well-received by the
local claimholding community. In an interview on national television in September
2005, Executive Secretary of the GGDMA, Mr Edward Shield, stated that Brazilians
have helped to re-energise the mining industry. He dismissed claims that Brazilians
pose a threat to Guyanese in the industry.7
Their presence however has not been without controversy. The question of how much
royalty they pay on their output remains unanswered. It is believed they smuggle
much of their output back across the border. Brazilian operations employ very few
Guyanese. Reports persist that they throw mercury directly in the pits in an attempt to
improve gold recovery. Brazilian prostitutes are growing in numbers in the mining
districts. Brazilians are making little attempt at learning English and at integrating
themselves into the Guyana society. This last point raises certain critical questions.
How, for instance, can the GGMC technical and inspectorate units interface with these
miners across the language barrier? Likewise, how are environmental and other
training workshops to be conducted for such miners? At training workshops,
organized by the WWF/GGMC in 2005, no Brazilian miner attended despite being
invited. The GGMC will have to adopt novel strategies in its relationship with these
miners who come from a dissimilar linguistical and cultural background.
2.2.5. Degree of formalization of ASM
From the very inception of ASM in Guyana in the 1880s, the sector has been highly
regulated and formalized. Over the 125 years since, various governments differed
in their motives for intervening in the industry, but at no time was the activity
ignored or allowed to run unfettered. As a case in point, it has been mandatory,
since the country’s first mining law in 1880, for all those involved in gold mining
5
D. Babb – An examination of Guyana’s gold and diamond industry according to districts -2004.
Conference paper.
6
ibid
7
Stabroek News, Sunday, 11 September 2005
11
to be licensed or registered. The early decades of the local industry, however,
witnessed rampant levels of lawlessness in the gold bush. Gold was mined illegally,
as the easily-accessible placers presented an irresistible target for anyone with a
few tools. Claim jumping and outright theft of gold were normal happenings.
As the accessible deposits became exhausted, mining was forced to become more
organized and mechanized. From the 1960s, couple jets dredges (using aqualungequipped divers) emerged as the foremost form of mining. Diverless gravel pump
or missile dredges soon replaced these earlier river dredges. From the early 1990s,
land operations (hydraulicking) became dominant, as river deposits dried up.
While every major aspect of ASM in Guyana is regulated and formalized,
enforcement and compliance have not kept pace. These remain among the major
challenges facing the administration of the gold industry.
2.2.6. Landlordism in ASM
One of the major issues confronting the development of local gold mining in
Guyana is the question of landlordism. Landlordism can be defined as the
accumulation of mining ground by claim-holders for renting to others. This
phenomenon has a long history in Guyana, first appearing in mid 1890s when large
local investors began to desert the industry in the face of tougher mining laws.
Today, an estimated 80% of mining occurs through arrangements whereby miners
take positions on someone else’s claim. Claim owners would traditionally charge
their tenants (or tributors) a tribute of 10% of gold won on the property. As these
arrangements are private and follow no industry standard, the size of the tribute can
vary from case to case. In many instances, absentee claim owners hire “rangers” to
act on their behalf on the ground to ensure tributors duly and fully report all
production.
There is much government dissatisfaction over this situation. The official
complaints against landlordism are (i) much mining ground remains unused as
claim owners await suitable offers from tributors; (ii) the 10% tribute is prohibitive
for the tributor, when one considers that the tributor has to fully bear all mining
costs in addition to paying royalty to the state. As a result, tributors are forced to
engage in several survival tactics, such as working only the best parts of the deposit
(high grading) and seeking to change locations frequently; and under-declaring
production to the state; (iii) as contracts between owners and tenants are not
enforced by the state, much uncertainty exists in these arrangements over security
of tenure. It is a common knowledge that some landlords use the tenant
arrangement to get a fix on the mineral potential of their properties. Should tenants
prove their properties to be mineral rich, claim holders find reason to end the
relationship. Due to the insecurity of tenure, operators do not invest as much as
they could in their operations.
12
In their defense, claim-holders have argued that they need to acquire a large
number of claims given the uncertain, hit-and-miss nature of mining.
The government to date has introduced no direct provision to discourage the
practice of landlordism. Consideration was given to the implementation of an
punitive land rental system to increase the cost of holding idle land. None of these
provisions has however been implemented.
2.2.7. Mining methods and technology
The mining technology and techniques employed in ASM have direct implications
for the efficiency of the operation, its financial viability, its scope for improvement
and, critically, its impact on the environment.
Deposit types: In the main, ASM operations in Guyana work three types of gold
deposit: (i) river-deposited placers of the present and old river system (riverbeds,
floodplains and terraces), (ii) eluvial saprolite-hosted deposits, and (iii) goldbearing quartz veins and stringers. Prior to the 1990s, river placers were the prime
target for gold mining. Accessible river deposits though are becoming exhausted,
with river dredges focusing on reworking old tailings sites. In the main, miners
since the early 1990s have turned their attention to eluvial deposits. This shift has
been accompanied by a surge in the number of so-called land dredges
(hydraulicking operations).
Eluvial deposits produce mainly fine-grained gold. In comparison to river deposits,
such deposits present a greater requirement for preliminary geological work prior to
mining. Local miners have not adequately adjusted to these realities in terms of
their approach. The selection and mining of claims constitute a hit or miss process.
In addition, fine gold recovery is widely believed to be poor.
Mineral Deposit Exploration and Delineation: In small to medium-scale mining
operations in Guyana, no systematic exploration work is done prior to or during
mineral extraction. In this sense, these operations are artisanal in nature, despite
growing levels of mechanization of operations (bulldozers, excavators, jigs, etc).
The mining law does not require ore body delineation or reserves estimation prior
to exploitation, as is required for large-scale ventures. More pointedly, the culture
among local miners is that such activities are not necessary in any case for a
successful operation.
Some rough testing of the ground using bulk samples is sometimes conducted by
river dredges or, on land operations, using ground sluices, as these are relatively
cheap and easy to set up.
Mineral Extraction and Processing: Artisanal and small-scale miners in Guyana
employ five main mining methods: (i) land dredging (hydraulicking) (ii) river
dredging, (iii) hammer milling, (iv) ground sluicing (which, strictly speaking, is a
variation of land dredging), and (v) “dry” mining.
13
(i) Land dredging (hydraulicking).
Land dredging (hydraulicking) operations (Frame 1) involve the use of highpressure water jets to break up the ground, the channeling of the resulting slurry
into sumps, and the use of gravel pumps to suck up the slurry unto sluice boxes for
processing. Since the mid-1990s, this method has become increasingly popular and
is now the dominant mining method in the industry.
Frame 1: Hydraulic mining in Mahdia
The typical inlet and outlet diameters of gravel pumps are 4, 5 and 6 inches (Table
3). These are normally powered by small diesel engines which are mounted on a
skid or floating frame. The capital cost of setting up such an operation is in the
vicinity of US$ 12,000 (4” dredge) to US$ 275,000 (12” dredge).8
Table 3: Number of registered dredges by size
Suction size (inches)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2
0
0
0
1
0
3
3
8
2
3
5
434
4
315
310
307
324
5
246
260
266
283
337
6
307
387
460
521
649
8
9
6
11
13
17
29
25
10
22
26
22
29
12
23
19
17
12
14
2
6
7
12
7
1188
1503
TOTAL
Source: GGMC
927
1022
1092
Processing of the slurry is done on raised sluice boxes. The base of the boxes is
invariably fitted with Brazilian or Nomad mats over which are placed metallic
8
D. Babb – An examination of Guyana’s gold and diamond industry according to districts -2004.
Conference paper.
14
riffles of a variety of types: expanded metal, angle iron, and “dredge riffles”. The
slurry is channeled through a head box or drum (which controls the flow of slurry
and screens out oversized particles) and allowed to run down the entire length of
the sluice box. The run-off from the sluice is allowed to run unchecked into the
environment. Only in a minority of operations is the flow channeled into settling
ponds to recycle the water.
At the end of the washing cycle, the riffles are removed and water is allowed to
carefully run over the mat in the box to remove oversized particles and clays.
The mats are subsequently removed and vigorously beaten over a jig box to
dislodge trapped particles.
Frame 2: Amalgamation
Amalgamation (Frame 2) is done in an open circuit process. Mercury is massaged
into the concentrate collected in the jig box and then placed into buckets. The
material is then panned to further remove gangue minerals. The resulting amalgam
is then placed in a cotton cloth and squeezed to remove excess mercury for reuse.
In most cases, the amalgam is burnt in open air to remove the remaining mercury
and to liberate the gold.
Land dredging operations are characterized by low productivity as a result of (i) the
inability of the water jets to rapidly break up and fluidize clayey soils, (ii) the
excessive dilution of pay ground with barren overburden during the jetting process,
and (iii) the excessive re-handling of material.
15
(ii) River dredging
Frame 3: Missile dredge
River dredging in Guyana previously employed divers to manipulate the intake
head underwater but now utilizes diver-less technology (Frame 3). The entire
operation is housed on pontoons, which allow the operations to change locations
along the river. Gravel pumps, with intake diameters dominated by the 12” and 14”
categories, are hydraulically controlled by an operator on the surface. One
significant consequence of this technology (dubbed missile dredging) is its
capability to mine material from the river banks below the waterline. Prior to 1992,
the law facilitated this new technology by redefining the side boundaries of a river
claim. While previously the sidelines of a river location were fixed at the low water
mark, regulations passed in 1992 extended these boundaries to 300 feet (100
metres) onto both riverbanks. As miners missile-dredged into the clayey river
banks, the resulting turbidity of the water and disfigurement of the river channels
prompted a public outcry. In 1998, new regulations were enacted that now prohibit
mining in a buffer zone fixed at 60 feet (20 metres) from the water mark on both
banks.
The suctioned material is fed unto sluice boxes for processing. Sluice boxes on
river dredges are normally much wider than on land operations and are commonly
up to 32 feet (approximately 10 metres) in width. These are outfitted with a
combination of 2″ × 1″ iron riffles, expanded metal riffles and Brazilian or Nomad
mats. At the end of the washing cycle, the procedure is similar to that employed in
land dredging operations. However, because of the larger volume of concentrate
collected in the sluice, secondary processing is normally employed to reduce
volumes. The concentrate is processed by a centrifugal bowl or a smaller sluice box
(known locally as a warrior). The residual concentrate is then placed in buckets and
massaged with mercury in an open-circuit operation. A gold pan is used to further
remove gangue material, and the amalgam is then placed in a cotton cloth and
squeezed to remove excess mercury. The recovered amalgam is “fired” to liberate
the gold.
16
River dredging operations for gold are on the decline as easily accessible deposits
have become worked out. However, the advent of Brazilian miners on the Guyana
mining scene has seen a resurgence of such operations. Brazilian miners employ
cutter-head dredges to break through indurated layers to reach previously
inaccessible pay-gravel and also to rework tailings left by previous operations.
(iii) Hammer milling
Frame 4: Hammer milling
Hammer milling (Frame 4) is the preferred option for deposits that have goldbearing quartz stringers and veins. The crushed material is processed either using a
conventional sluice box with a similar amalgamation process as in dredging
operations, or using a centrifugal bowl hooked up to amalgamation plates or only
amalgamation plates The use of plates is possible is such operations due to the
absence of clays in the feed and the slow feed rate of the slurry. Concentrate from
the centrifugal bowl is transferred to buckets and massaged with mercury. The
amalgam is then burnt to liberate the gold.
The biggest locally-owned hard rock mine in Guyana is run by the Perreira Mining
Group in the Mazaruni area. The mining process involves blasting, trucking and
crushing. Modern gravity recovery circuits are used to recover gold.
(iv) Ground Sluicing
In ground sluicing (Frame 5), the pay gravel is excavated manually in a stockpile
and processed with small water pumps (usually from 2” to 3” suction intake
diameter). An inclined channel is dug in the ground and fitted with Hungarian-type
riffles, timber or rock riffles. In some operations, only mats are used. Slurry is fed
through this system from water jetting of the pile and channeling it by the way of
drains to a ground sluice. In some operations, at the end of the washing cycle,
mercury is added to the riffles at the top of the incline and slowly washed. Ground
sluicing is the preferred method for quick testing of the gold potential of a claim or
in low-cost operations.
17
Frame 5: Ground sluicing
(v) Dry Mining
Frame 6: Dry mining
Only a few operations in Guyana employ dry mining (Frame 6) techniques. Here
“dry” refers to the method of excavation and transport of the material (ore delivery)
to the processing point. Instead of water jetting (hydraulicking), excavators are
used to feed the material to the processing unit. The processing unit consists of a
grizzly under which a sluice box is set up. The material fed into the grizzly is
water-jetted and the resulting slurry collected by the sluice box and processed. The
beneficiation process therefore still relies on the abundant use of water. Only the
mining phase is “dry” (Figure 6).
General points: Regardless of the mining method, several common observations
can be made about these operations;
•
Miners do not expend much effort to measure and improve the efficiencies of
their sluicing operations. Recovery rates are generally low and much gold is
18
lost by improper design of boxes and inadequate control of operating
parameters, such as the rate of slurry feed. High gold outputs in some
operations are due more to longer working hours or the coarseness of gold
grains than to any other single factor.
•
Physical assets are highly mobile; permanent fixtures are not constructed.
•
There is a general disregard for the environment. Little or no attempt is made
to use settling ponds or to refill sumps and other excavations after use.
•
Health and mine safety issues are not addressed in many operations.
•
Operations are very sensitive to gold price, operating costs (fuel, labor, repairs
and maintenance), and government-imposed levies (royalties, duties and
taxes).9 In addition, production is affected by the weather pattern of wet and
dry seasons. Any changes in these factors can severely affect the profitability
of operations.
2.2.8. Relationship with other land users
Mining in the Guyana hinterland potentially and actually comes into conflict with
other land uses, such as: (i) the livelihood activities of Amerindians (such as fishing
and subsistence agriculture), (ii) titled and claimed Amerindian lands, (iii)
commercial timber operations, (iv) eco-tourism, (v) national parks and protected
areas, (vi) wildlife harvesting, and (vii) military and security zones. Missing from
this list are commercial agriculture, commercial inland fishing, and non-timber
forest industries, as these economic activities are absent or insignificant in the
hinterland.
No agency (or government minister) exists in Guyana responsible for land use
planning and management. Regulation of the various land uses falls to separate
government ministries and agencies, with no overarching authority. Coordination is
attempted through an exchange of board representation. The Guyana Forestry
Commission and the national army, for example, are members of the Board of
Directors of the GGMC. Some level of coordination is also attempted through the
mandate of the EPA for natural resources management.
2.2.9. Environmental effects of ASM in Guyana
The main environmental impacts of ASM in Guyana are (i) mercury contamination,
(ii) turbidity in streams, (iii) the creation of stagnant pools of water which serve as
breeding places for malaria vectors, (iv) deforestation, (v) alterations to river
channels by tailing heaps, (vi) destruction of habitats of wild animals and birds, and
(vii) land degradation. Most official attention and effort has been directed at
mitigating the first three impacts. The new environmental regulations, however,
include provisions that address most of the other effects.
9
GGDMA Position Paper: The Gold Industry in Guyana. 1998
19
Mercury contamination: among gold miners in Guyana, amalgamation continues to
be the preferred method of separation of gold from concentrates. Miners have
found no other method that compares favorably with mercury in terms of costeffectiveness and ease of use. The cost of mercury in Guyana is between G$2,500
to $3,000 a pound (US$27 to $33 a kg). In the vast majority of operations, mercury
is introduced into the process after the processing of slurry in the sluice boxes.
Frame 7: Hand squeezing filtration
It is therefore not directly used in the sluice box, as is the practice in neighboring
countries, but mixed with the concentrate collected from the mats in the jig box.
That said, there are reports of miners directly applying mercury on the ground
during jetting operations or directly in the slurry sump or the sluice box. This
practice is thought to be the popular option among local Brazilian-run operations.
The environmental implications of such a practice are alarming, as surface and
ground water can be easily contaminated. Top government officials however, are
convinced that this practice is on the decline as a result of rigorous enforcement
efforts.10
In Guyana, after massaging the black sand concentrate with mercury, local miners
attempt to recover as much mercury as possible by placing the amalgam in cotton
cloth and squeezing out the excess mercury for reuse (Frame 7). The remaining
amalgam is then burnt in open air. Retorts are hardly used in these operations.
Attempts by the GGMC to promote the use of retorts by distributing several of
these devices freely to miners have not been successful as miners soon reverted to
open-circuit techniques. The reason advanced for the unpopularity of retorts is that
the gold liberating process takes longer.
The three main routes of mercury entering the environment or coming into contact
with humans therefore are (i) miners and others coming into direct contact with the
substance during its storage, handling and when performing massaging of amalgam
(many miners still do not wear gloves), (ii) mercury fumes escaping into the air,
10
in particular, Minister responsible for Mining, Mr Samuel Hinds, and Commissioner of GGMC, Mr Robeson
Benn; personal communcation.
20
and (iii) spillage of mercury into waterways during the panning process to remove
gangue minerals from the amalgam using gold pans or buckets.
Table 4: Mercury use practices among miners
AREA OF STUDY/ YEAR/ NUMBER OF OPERATIONS VISITED
Mahdia, 1998
(11 operations)
Mahdia, 1999
(21 operations)
Tiger Creek,
1999
(4 operations)
Arakaka, 2000
(22 operations)
Good (adding mercury
placed in jig-box,
bucket or drum with
covered hands;
“pumping and “spinout” in jig box only;
using a retort and gas
mask when burning
amalgam.)
-
-
-
-
Satisfactory
-
-
-
27.3%
Moderately satisfactory
18.2%
62%
50%
27.3%
Marginally satisfactory
-
-
50%
27.3%
72.7%
14%
-
-
9.1%
-
-
-
-
24%
-
18.1%
Unsatisfactory
(massaging concentrate
with mercury in the
sluice box; no jig-box;
“pumping” and spinout” of concentrate in
pond, creek or river;
burning amalgam in
the kitchen).
Very unsatisfactory
(using mercury on the
ground; no jig-box;
burning amalgam in
the kitchen).
Unknown
Information extracted from paper, titled “ Mercury use in Placer Mining in Guyana”, presented by
Ronald Glasgow, Mining Engineer in the Environmental Division, at Workshop on Mercury Use in the
Mining Industry in Guyana. Georgetown, Guyana. May 17, 2000.
Very few studies have been done in Guyana to systematically measure the impact
of mercury on the environment and to gather information on practices among
miners in using mercury. Two studies, however, provide indicative data that the
situation in Guyana is far from satisfactory.
In one, field surveys conducted in four mining areas by the Environmental Division
of the GGMC between 1998 and 2000 on mercury use practices produced results
shown in Table 4. The findings coincide with the observation that the use of retorts
21
and gas masks when burning amalgam, through encouraged by authorities, has not
caught on. GGMC field officers have also reported that use of gloves during
massaging operations is not very common. The problem may not be totally one of
unawareness but one of irresponsibility (one GGMC officer recounts that a miner
engaged in massaging operations quickly put on his gloves when he saw the officer
approaching the camp).
In the second survey, sponsored by the WWF-Guianas Program, and conducted in
2000 by the Institute of Applied Science and Technology (IAST), the aim was to
identify the sources and assess levels of mercury contamination in the Mazaruni
Basin in Guyana, in order to design mitigation measures. Two mining communities
were chosen: Isseneru, a gold mining community with a long history of mercury
use, and Kurupung, an area with an extensive history of alluvial diamond
production. The sample media used were fish, urine and human hair.
The IAST report concludes that:
The mercury concentration found in the human population follows the results obtained by the
ESU-UG in 1996. These findings substantiate that there is a much more significant
concentration of mercury in residents of Isseneru, which is more dominated by gold mining
activity than when compared to Kurupung.
We have obtained evidence that the residents of the village of Isseneru are significantly
exposed to mercury, and that they are closely associated with gold mining activity.
The results of these studies confirm that mercury use practices are unsatisfactory among local
miners and that serious contamination effects have occurred to the extent that residents in
several gold mining communities may be threatened. Nonetheless, because the environmental
and health effects of mercury pollution are not readily visible, doubt exists within the mining
community over whether Guyana has a “mercury problem”. There is greater acceptance of
mercury’s direct health risk to miners but not of the actual environmental impacts it may be
causing.11
In summary, the main mercury use practices in Guyana are:
•
the negligible use of retorts and a lack of conviction among miners in their
superiority over current practices;
•
direct handling of mercury during amalgamation; gloves are rarely used;
•
amalgamation is mainly done after the sluicing operations, but reports indicate
that some operations place mercury in the sump and in the sluice box;
•
some processing of concentrate with mercury in the gold pan is done directly
in creeks.
Turbidity in rivers caused by the untreated discharges from dredging. The main
culprit of river turbidity in Guyana is the untreated discharge from hydraulicking
(land dredging) operations. In most of these operations, the slurry flowing off the
sluice box is allowed to run unchecked over the land into rivers and creeks. Settling
ponds are rarely used by land dredging operators, in spite of the fact that the
11
Edward Shields, Secretary of the GGDMA; personal communication
22
Environmental Management Agreement (see section 4.3.2.), to which they are
bound on receiving a medium-scale licence, clearly states that “the miner shall be
obligated to construct settling ponds for the discharge of tailings. No tailings should
be discharged directly into the rivers or other water sources.”
Because the environmental impact of turbidity is highly visible and its disruptive
effects felt almost immediately, it has received the most public attention and
opposition in Guyana. Under pressure to act, the GGMC in recent months issued
stop-work orders to several recalcitrant mining outfits. The feeling among affected
communities is that the commission needs to be more proactive.
In an address in August 2004, the Minister responsible for the mining industry, the
Prime Minister, clearly articulated his government’s profound concern over this
issue:
I could not deliver an address such as this without speaking to environmental
issues, in particular the turbidity in our streams, creeks and rivers downstream of
many mining areas and the appearance of wasted land where there has been landdredging/hydraulicking. At an industry meeting earlier in this year it was agreed
that it was reasonable, it was attainable within a year, to end turbid water reaching
our streams. It was also agreed that we can and should set our sights on replacing
land dredging/hydraulicking with dry methods of stripping and mining, within five
years. Last week I completed a letter to the GGMC and the industry mandating that
by December 31, 2005, all waters leaving any mining operation should have a
turbidity not exceeding 50 NTU, and establishing a Critical Turbidity level of 30
NTU downstream of any mining. Critical Turbidity in a stream will demand a
reviewing of the contribution of upstream mining to the turbidity seen and would
cause consideration of lowering the allowable discharge levels if necessary.
The implementation of corrective measures to deal with turbid waters has been
given priority by the government. It has set clear deadlines by which the issue must
be resolved.
Interestingly, during the dry season when the availability of water is reduced,
miners employ better water management techniques, such as recycling. This clearly
suggests that the release of turbid waters into waterways is prompted more by bad
attitude than by poor knowledge.
2.2.10. Social effects of ASM on Guyana Indigenous Population
The main social effects of mining in Guyana stem from three sources: (i) the
disruption of the Amerindian way of life as a result of the economic attraction of
mining for Amerindian males; (ii) the clash of cultures and interests between the
Amerindian communities and the coastland-originated mining population; (iii) the
cavalier approach to life typical of hinterland mining camps, and (iv) the perceived
and actual wealth among miners, which serves to attract commercial sex workers
and criminals. We focus here on the impact of Indigenous communities. Impacts
include:
23
•
The development of economic stratification in Amerindian communities12
Until the advent of mining, there was little economic differentiation among
Amerindian villagers in many communities. The situation has changed as a few
villagers have benefited from gold shouts on their farm lands or have benefited
from their positions as village captains or councilors, whereby they arrogated to
themselves most of the fees and royalties paid by miners for mining rights on
village lands.
•
Changes in consumption patterns in Amerindian communities13
The increased influx of money in Amerindian communities among both the
Amerindian mine workers and the families of the political clique has led to high
levels of consumerism never before witnessed in such communities. Favored items
include outboard engines, audio tape recorders, imported food and beverages.
Most times, earnings are quickly dissipated in having a good time.
•
The exodus of Amerindian males from villages for the mining camps.
The possibility of making good money on mining camps has lured Amerindian
males away from their communities. This exodus has produced several
consequences. One is the increased number of households headed by women. A
second is the shortage of hands on village farms, leading to frequent crop failures.
Subsistence farming is declining as a way of life in many communities.
•
The sharp rise in Amerindian political advocacy and representation
The 1990s witnessed a sharp increase in local and international groups
representing Amerindian interests. Intense representation has developed in parallel
with the increased number of concessions granted to mining (e.g. Omai Gold
Mines in 1991), logging (e.g. Barama in 1991) and conservation projects.
Amerindian rights groups have argued that these concessions have been issued,
and continue to be issued, without consultations with the affected local
communities and, just as important, without matters such as Amerindian land
rights and the Amerindian Development Fund being finalized.
Guyana now has several Amerindian rights groups (the Amerindian Peoples
Association and the Guyana Organization of Indigenous Peoples being the most
visible) and a political party whose platform is solely Amerindian affairs.
2.2.11 Other social effects of ASM
•
The high prevalence of HIV/AIDS and other STDs in mining camps.
12
Forte, J. – Impact of the Gold Industry on the Indigenous Peoples of Guyana. Transition, Special
Issue 27-28. Georgetown: Institute of Development Studies, UG. 1998.
13
Ibid
24
The presence of commercial sex workers and the predominance of single males in
the mining communities provide fertile ground for the rapid spread and high
incidence of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. One survey of 216 miners from one
mining camp found the prevalence of HIV to be 6.5%, a level considered to be
high.14 While the survey did not seek to determine whether these miners were
infected on the coast or in the interior, the high infection rate indicates the
potential for further transmission within mining and urban districts.
•
The high crime rates
Starting from early 2002, Guyana has been hit by a series of violent crime waves
carried out by heavily-armed gangs. The country’s coastland has borne, and
continues to bear, the brunt of these waves, especially the capital city Georgetown
and the lower East Coast of Demerara. Violent crime has now penetrated also into
the country’s hinterland with equally devastating impact on mining camps and local
communities.
The scope and nature of criminal activity in hinterland are fully captured by the
editorial in one of Guyana’s main dailies, the Stabroek News, of July 19, 2006,
when it reports:
The hinterland is a major conduit for illegal narcotics and firearms to be ferried to the
coastland. Drug and gun crime on the coastland rely on regular replenishment. The hinterland,
with its unpatrolled borders, unmonitored airstrips and numberless rivers, is also the source of
significant fuel, gold and diamond smuggling; trafficking in persons; illegal migration and
everyday banditry.
The Stabroek News further editorializes that:
The hinterland has also been the scene of more run-of-the-mill robberies and murders.
Enterprising bandits easily exploit the state’s lack of resources to effectively police the ‘bush’
to ambush isolated settlements, desolate roadways and mining communities and rob miners of
diamonds, gold and money.
One of the more spectacular attacks occurred in late 2005 at Barlow Landing,
Middle Mazaruni, when a 10-man gang armed with rifles and hand grenades
ambushed and robbed as many as seventeen miners and shop-keepers of over G40
million (US$200,000) in cash, diamonds and jewellery. As in many other cases, the
police were unable to charge anyone.
Indications are that the upsurge of crime has deterred some investors.
Commissioner of GGMC, Mr Robeson Benn, puts this loss in 2003 alone at US$2
to 3 million.15 The need for increased security could drive up mining costs as
miners put in place measures to protect their camps and the transportation of gold
to Georgetown.
14
Palmer, C.J.; Validum, L.; etal – HIV Prevalence in a Gold Mining Camp in the Amazon Region,
Guyana. Emerging Infectious Diseases online, Vol. 8, No. 3, March 2002.
15
Stabroek News, December 14, 2003
25
One of the earliest responses by the GGMC to the crime wave was to strengthen the
system of checkpoints at strategic points of entry and exit into various parts of the
hinterland. Checkpoints were then manned by joint police/GGMC teams. Strict
requirements were imposed on persons wishing to enter into the mining districts.
Miners were asked to show their mining privileges as proof they had reason to be in
the interior. Before long, the mining association protested against what it claimed
was the undue harassment miners received at these checkpoints. At a more
fundamental level, questions arose as to the legal powers of the police or the
GGMC to impose restrictions on miners or on any Guyanese to enter and leave the
hinterland. Constitutionally, every Guyanese enjoys a right to free movement
within the country. In upholding this right, the government soon removed
restrictions on citizens traveling into the hinterland. The downside of this adjusted
approach was that it now allows the free movement of criminals in and out the
interior.
Various other crime-fighting proposals are under consideration or are still to be
fully implemented. These include the upgrading of police stations; the issuing of
firearms to miners; the establishment by the GGMC of specialized security units;
the use of supernumerary constables; and a crackdown on illegal shops, where most
criminals are alleged to be housed. While there is a clear sense of urgency among
the government and the mining association to improve security in the mining
districts, there is still no settled course of action. The mining districts today
continue to remain vulnerable to criminal activity.
2.2.12. Health effects of ASM in Guyana
Mining in Guyana, historically, has developed in the remote hinterland of the
country away from the more developed coastline. The vastness of the territory
under attack by small miners and poor law enforcement have resulted in a host of
adverse social and environmental effects in the mining districts.
One of the strongest manifestations of this problem is seen in the health effects of
mining. The source of health problems in mining areas can be attributed to three
main factors (i) the mishandling of mercury, the main chemical used in ASM in
Guyana, (ii) the presence of unfilled pits of water that lead to the spread of vectorborne diseases, and (iii) poor sanitation and living conditions.
Mercury exposure and poisoning Mercury is the material of choice among local
miners in the extraction of gold during mineral processing. Few precautions are
taken in the transportation, storage and handling of the substance. The three main
sources of mercury pollution and poisoning in Guyana are therefore (i) miners and
others coming into direct contact with the substance during its storage, handling
and when performing massaging of amalgam, (ii) mercury fumes escaping into the
air, a situation compounded if burning is done in enclosed areas or in the kitchen of
the mining camp, and (iii) spillage of mercury into waterways during the separation
of gangue minerals from the amalgam.
26
Field studies among residents of several local mining communities have confirmed
the uptake and accumulation of mercury in the human system.16 A joint study of
six mining communities done in 2002 by the Guyana Geology and Mines
Commission and the Ministry of Health found the mean hair Hg content among
those sampled to be 8.43 µg/g. The study identified several risk factors in regards
to high hair Hg: (i) a diet high in fish, Figure 4, (ii) residency in a community for
more than one year, Figure 4, and (iii) Amerindian ethnicity (probably as a result of
the first two factors.) Interestingly, hair Hg content showed variation among
communities, with the mid-Mazaruni community of Issineru producing results as
high as 18.2 µg/g, Mahdia in the Potaro region, in contrast, returned results of 5.2
µg/g. These are both long-established gold mining communities and the reasons for
this significant difference in mercury levels should be explored.
Figure 4: Dietary source of proteins in surveyed mining communities.
12
10.9
Mean hair Hg mcg/g
10
7.7
8
6.2
6
Mean Hg
4
3.2
2
0
Fish
Chicken
Mixed
Other
Dietary source of protein
Source: Drs Gordon, S.; La Fleur, C., etal – Report on the Impact of Mining on Health in
Guyana. Georgetown: GENCAPD/Ministry of Health/GGMC, 2003
16
Drs Gordon, S.; La Fleur, C., etal – Report on the Impact of Mining on Health in Guyana.
Georgetown: GENCAPD/Ministry of Health/GGMC, 2003.
27
Figure 5: Duration of residency in mining communities.
Mean Hg level mcg/g
12
10.5
10
8.7
8
6
5.2
4
2
0
Less than 1year
1-5 years
6 or more years
Duration of time in community
Source: Drs Gordon, S.; La Fleur, C., etal – Report on the Impact of Mining on Health in Guyana.
Georgetown: GENCAPD/Ministry of Health/GGMC, 2003
Vector borne diseases One of the more persistent negative aspects of ASM in
Guyana is the practice among small miners of leaving unused pits and excavations
unfilled during or after mining operations. The high incidence of vector-borne
diseases in Guyana’s Administrative Regions One, Seven, Eight and Nine strongly
correlates with the widespread small-scale mining in these regions. Additionally,
vector-borne diseases are present endemically in communities bordering Brazil and
Venezuela, leading to the conclusion that the influx of Brazilian miners into
Guyana’s hinterland communities contributes to the spread of these diseases.
By far, the most widespread vector-borne disease in the mining districts of Guyana
is malaria. Other vector-borne diseases, such as dengue and yellow fever, are
present but at low levels of endemicity. In contrast, malaria has been a major public
health problem in Guyana since 1986. The annual number of malaria cases
between 1991 and 1998 averaged 48,805. Moreover, the disease has spread into
some hinterland areas once considered malaria free.
The incidence of malaria has begun to decline since 1999 as a result of government
anti-malaria campaign. However, the increasing spread of mining and logging
activity and the continued influx of foreign miners into the country will continue to
pose serious challenges to malaria control efforts.
Poor sanitation and living conditions Several health problems are caused by the
poor living conditions and sanitary practice in mining camps and communities. Pit
latrines are poorly constructed and located. Garbage disposal is done in a haphazard
manner. And though the use of large water tanks to catch rainwater is widespread,
natural reservoirs (such as creeks) are still a common source for drinking and
bathing water. One survey of six mining communities found that persons who
28
collected rainwater for drinking purposes were less likely to have a positive blood
culture than those who used water from natural reservoirs.17
2.3. Characteristics of large-scale gold mining in Guyana
For over a century, only sporadic efforts were made at establishing large-scale gold
operations in Guyana, despite enormous government effort to encourage
investment at this level. One of the earliest and most ambitious schemes at
attracting large capital dates back to the late 1890s when the colonial government
offered massive land concessions and tax breaks to any capitalist willing to invest
in the Guyana interior. Over the decades, especially during Guyana’s colonial
period, much official disappointment was expressed over the country’s failure to
reach the status of a world mineral power and join the ranks of such countries as
Canada, Australia and South Africa.
Prior to the 1990s, the biggest gold mining venture was the alluvial mining
operations in the Potaro region by the British Guiana Consolidated Goldfields from
the 1930s to closure in 1958. During this period, it produced seven tons of gold. In
1993, Guyana’s largest goldmining operation was started at Omai on the Essequibo
river.
2.3.1. Definition of large-scale mining
Large-scale operations in the Guyana context stand apart from ASM in three
fundamental regards: (i) the size of the prospecting claim allowed (500 to 12,800
acres versus 150 to 1200 acres for medium scale), (ii) the obligation to conduct
exploration prior to mining, and (iii) the strict conditions under which a mining
licence is granted.
In applying for a prospecting licence, one must:
•
be a corporate body;
•
show proof of financial and technical capability;,
•
submit annual work programs and a budget;
•
submit regular progress reports; and
•
lodge a performance bond.
For a licence to conduct mining (called a Mining Licence), an applicant must:
•
be a locally incorporated company;
•
submit a mine plan and detailed proposals on the construction of all facilities;
•
submit regular progress reports; and
17
Drs Gordon, S.; La Fleur, C., etal – Report on the Impact of Mining on Health in Guyana.
Georgetown: GENCAPD/Ministry of Health/GGMC, 2003.
29
•
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment ,and submit an Environmental
Management Plan.
Large-scale exploration and mining in Guyana, therefore, are legally bound to be
systematic and highly responsible activities.
2.3.2. The operations of Omai Gold Mines Limited
Prior to its closure in September 2005, Guyana’s only large-scale gold producer
was Omai Gold Mines Limited. The company worked an open pit operation at
Omai on the west bank of the Essequibo River. At the start of operations in 1993,
ore reserves were estimated at 69 million tonnes at a grade of 1.6 grams per tonne.
The two deposit types mined were a felsic stockwork and associated saprolite
deposit consisting of regularly-spaced mineralized quartz carbonate veins and
stringers, and an alluvial tailings deposit, the result of hydraulic mining operations
as far back as the early 1900s.
Economic aspects: Total capital investment is put at US$252.8 million. Omai’s
annual output is given in Table 5. Production dipped in 1995, as a result of the
widely publicized cyanide spill, which forced a temporary closure of the operation.
Table 5: Omai’s Gold Production 1993 - 2005 (ozs)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
206,539
250,642
171,000
254,950
338,496
2000
2001
2002
2003
329,959
354,241
319,600
271,042
2004
242,192
1998
1999
327,546
306,060
2005
2006
100,001
Closed
Source: Omai Gold Mines Limited, GGMC
Benefits to local communities and the state: The Omai operation contributed
several financial and economic benefits to the local and national economy. These
included:
•
royalty payments to the government (5% of gold produced), Table 7;
Table 6: Direct Payments to Government: 5% royalty paid in gold (US$)
1993- 96
1997
1998
1999
2000
16,834,727
5,607,878
4,849,437
4,270,349
4,596,366
2001
2002
2003
2004
TOTAL
4,306,248
4,933,449
4,945,321
NA
50,343,775
Source: Omai Gold Mines Limited
30
•
income taxes for national and foreign employees;
•
Purchases of local services, fuel supplies, food, etc (Table 7);
Table 7: Spin-off benefit: purchases of local services, fuel supplies, food, etc (US$)
1991- 96
1997
1998
1999
2000
82,972,235
30,626,008
27,077,596
27,447,873
29,922,067
2001
2002
2003
2004
TOTAL
27,840,674
24,537,549
22,936,223
-
273,360,225
Source: Omai Gold Mines Limited
•
payment to government corporations and agencies, e.g. royalties;
•
duty and consumption taxes on imports;
•
infrastructure development and maintenance (roads, bridges, airstrips and
wharf facilities); and
•
community service and support. The company had a program of donations and
community support in the areas of health, education, culture, sports and religion.
Environmental management at Omai: Omai’s environmental policy was realized
through the implementation of an environmental management system. The
company maintained an Environmental Unit, which monitored the environment at
Omai on a 24-hour basis. Daily, weekly and monthly monitoring of ground and
surface water was conducted in collaboration with the EPA and the GGMC.
At Omai, cyanide was untouched by human hands. It was mixed by mechanical
means and pumped hydraulically throughout the plant. Low concentrations of
cyanide were used in the process of recovering. The cyanide solution was fully
contained in metal tanks throughout the process, and the effluent was discharged
into the tailings pond at an even lower concentration. From the pond, 70% of the
tailings water was recycled for reuse in the mill. The remaining 30% was pumped
to a chemical treatment plant where hydrogen peroxide was used to destroy cyanide
before the water was clarified and discharged through a diffuser in the Essequibo
River.
The company reported that the water of the river dilutes the tailing discharge to
virtually zero levels of cyanide (0.0005 ppm) within 100 metres downstream of the
diffuser, making it harmless to aquatic and human life.
Omai’s environmental practices were audited by independent auditors to ensure the
company met international standards. The company also had ISO certification.
Mine closure: Omai closed operations in late 2005, as initial gold reserves were
depleted. The company prepared and submitted a mine closure plan outlining land
restoration and other matters. With gold prices at their current high level, the
31
company is engaged in further exploration at the old site to determine the presence
of deep-seated deposits.
Chapter 3
MINING POLICY, LAW AND ADMINISTRATION
Taken as a whole, the country’s mining policy has an obvious bias towards actively
encouraging the development of the gold industry at both small and large scales.
Far from adopting a neutral posture (where the miner is neither hindered nor
encouraged), government efforts have focused on both the removal of hindrances
and the provision of special incentives to investment in the industry. This attitude
is reflected in the laws and administrative structures that govern the gold industry.
The source of conflict between miners and the government has therefore been over
the extent and promptness of this support.
Cabinet-level responsibility for the entire mining sector is vested in the Prime
Minister of Guyana, in his capacity as the Minister responsible for the mining
industry.
3.1. Mining policy framework
No one document exists that comprehensively sets out strategic directions and
policies for the gold industry in Guyana. The policy framework for mining in
Guyana could best be determined by synthesizing the policy positions articulated in
several separate official papers (policy as stated intention or intended action) and
the actual actions and activities of the government (policy as actual behavior).
Over the last eight years, the three main documents that outline government’s
views on mining policy are:
(i) Mineral Policy and Fiscal Regime (MPFR). This policy paper, publicized in
January 1997, briefly presented government’s positions on several mining issues,
such as the fiscal framework for investment, the environment, multiple land use,
Amerindian lands, mining titles and the marketing of gold. On the question of the
environmental effects of mining, the MPFR clearly articulates the government’s
intention to address mining-induced problems such as turbidity in streams, reduced
navigability of rivers due to accumulation of mine tailings, and mercury pollution,
and
(ii) Two editions of the National Development Strategy (the NDS), the first
published in 1996 and the second in 2001. These documents, drafted with large
civil society inputs, outline comprehensive development plans for the entire
economy. The 2001 document speaks about mitigating the harmful consequences
of mining through a restoration fund, the granting of fiscal incentives for regional
gold processing mills, the imposition of higher fines for incidents of negligence,
32
and the introduction of best available technology. While it is true that the two NDS
documents are more the creation of the local civil society, the recommendations
have nevertheless received the blessing of the government.
These stated policy positions and the actual behavior of the government towards
the gold sector strongly point to the following as the main policy directions at
present:
•
The promotion of environmental-friendly mining (indicators include: drafting
of the country’s first environmental regulations for mining in 2004; drafting of
environmental codes of conduct for such activities as effluent discharge and
mine reclamation; cases of enforcement of extant environment agreements and
regulations; and programs to build institutional capacity in environmental
management.)
•
The encouragement of local and foreign investment into large-scale mining
(indicators include: the adoption of more attractive fiscal and financial
incentives for large-scale mining investors; and participation in mineral
promotion campaigns at international forums).
•
Increasing mineral production and declaration from ASM (indicators include:
implementation of the more miner-friendly sliding scale for royalty on gold;
opening up of more State lands and relinquished large-scale properties to local
miners; and the slackening of the monopoly of the Guyana Gold Board as the
only purchaser of gold).
•
The promotion of downstream economic activities in the sector, such as
jewellery manufacture (indicators include: establishment of the Guyana
Jewellery Training Institute in 2002)
•
The mitigation of the social problems (STDs, crime, etc) in mining
communities (indicators include: co-sponsoring of public education programs).
•
Creating a more positive public image of mining as an economic activity
(indicators include: sponsoring of radio programs on mining; and organizing of
an annual National Mining Week of public activities).
3.2. Legal framework for mining
The country has a long history of enacting mining laws, starting as early as 1880
when the discovery of alluvial gold in 1879 prompted a gold rush to the hinterland.
The mining legislation today is well-developed, covering a wide range of matters in
keeping with modern mining laws.
3.2.1. Main mining legislation
The primary mining legislation in Guyana is the Mining Act of 1989, which was
signed into force in 1991. The Act covers a range of issues such as prospecting,
surveying, quarrying and mining on different scales; licensing and registration of
operations; mining on Amerindian lands; health and safety on mines; and taxation.
Full mining regulations were last enacted in 1972. No comprehensive set was
published under the 1989 mining law. As such, efforts to bring the 1972 regulations
33
in sync with the 1989 law have been through a series of additions and amendments.
As matters now stand, there is no single unified document that contains all the
country’s mining regulations.
The main features of the 1989 mining law are (Table 8):
•
all surface and subsurface mineral rights are vested in the State.
•
three scales of mining operations are allowed: large-scale, medium scale and
small scale (with a land and river subcategories).
•
all persons engaged in a mining operation must have legal status either as a
claim holder, a laborer (employed by a claim holder), or a tributor (a person
working on a claim owned by someone else for an agreed percentage of any
gold won).
•
Amerindian lands are closed to mining except under special circumstances.
Table 8: Main provisions in the Mining Act of 1989
RIVER
LOCATION
no longer than one
1500 feet long by 800
mile of navigable
feet wide (27.5 acres)
river
LARGE SCALE
MEDIUM SCALE
500 to 12,800 acres
150 to 1200 acres
required
required
not required
not required
unrestricted
unrestricted
unrestricted
unrestricted
License type
Prospecting License
to prospect on a
property (up to 3 yrs).
Mining License to
mine on a property
(valid for 20 yrs).
Prospecting Permit to
prospect and mine on
a property. Mining
Permit to mine on a
property.
Prospecting Permit to
locate a river claim.
River Location
License to work
claim.
Nationality of
ownership
open (100% foreign
owner allowed)
Renewal
Prospecting License
for 2 terms of 1 yr.
Mining License for
terms up to 7 yrs.
Prospecting Permit to
locate a claim;
Mining Privilege to
be on or to work a
claim owned by
someone else
Guyanese only (jointventure with
foreigners allowed)
At the end of each
calendar year.
Guyanese only (jointventure with
foreigners allowed)
At the end of each
calendar year.
Size of claim
Topographic
description on
application
Number of claims
per person/
company
Proof of financial
and technical
capability
Lodging of
Performance Bond
Submission of
progress reports
Guyanese only (jointventure with
foreigners allowed)
Prospecting Permit
annually. Mining
Permit every 5 yrs.
SMALL SCALE
required
not required
not required
not required
required
not required
not required
not required
required
not required
not required
not required
34
Gold royalties
Taxation
Marketing
Financial Incentives
Environmental
obligations
Sliding scale: 5% of
gold output if world
price > US $285/oz;
4% when price <
$285 to $260; 3%
when price < $260/oz
2% of gross revenue
in lieu of income tax
for individuals. For a
body corporate, 35%
of taxable income.
Gold could be
Gold must be sold to
exported directly
the Guyana Gold
from site.
Board or to
authorized buyers.
Zero rating on all
Discretionary
equipment, process
exemption from
materials, spares used customs duty &
for surveys and
consumption tax on
mining
mining equipment
EIS and EMP must
Environmental
be submitted
Management
Agreement must be
signed
Sliding scale: 5% of
gold output if world
price > US $285/oz;
4% when price <
$285 to $260; 3%
when price < $260/oz
35% taxable income;
6.25% for distributed
dividends.
Sliding scale: 5% of
gold output if world
price > US $285/oz;
4% when price <
$285 to $260; 3%
when price < $260/oz
2% of gross revenue
in lieu of income tax
for individuals. For a
body corporate, 35%
of taxable income..
Gold must be sold to
the Guyana Gold
Board or to
authorized buyers.
Discretionary
exemption from
customs duty &
consumption tax on
mining equipment
Environmental
guidelines and
advisories
Sliding scale: 5% of
gold output if world
price > US $285/oz;
4% when price <
$285 to $260; 3%
when price < $260/oz
2% of gross revenue
in lieu of income tax
for individuals. For a
body corporate, 35%
of taxable income.
Gold must be sold to
the Guyana Gold
Board or to
authorized buyers.
Exemption from
customs duty &
consumption tax on
mining equipment
Environmental
guidelines and
advisories
New mining regulations have been drafted. The new regulations deal substantially
with three categories of matters:
•
environmental protection (enacted in March 2005);
•
occupational health and safety; and
•
financial and administrative issues.
3.2.2. Other mining-related legislation
Other pieces of legislation that have a direct bearing on the gold mining industry
include:
•
The Guyana Gold Board Act of 1981. An Act to regulate the sale and purchase
of gold within the country. The Act made the government the sole purchaser
and exporter of gold in Guyana. Amendments to Act in 1997 now allow
licensed dealers to buy and export gold.
•
The Environment Protection Act of 1996. This Act represents Guyana's first
environmental legislation. Modeled on laws in Great Britain, Canada, the U.S.,
and the Caribbean, it sets the standards and procedures for permitting all
activities which might have significant environmental impact. The Act provided
for the establishment of the EPA whose functions include (i) the management,
conservation, protection and improvement of the environment, (ii) the
regulation of sustainable use of natural resources, (iii) the assessment of the
35
impact of economic development on the environment, (iv) the coordination of
national education and public awareness programs, and (v) the promotion of
public participation in environmental management.
•
The Amerindian Act of 2005. With specific reference to mining, this Act spells
out the conditions for mining on, or near to, Amerindian lands.
•
Various financial and trade laws that govern the payment of taxes and custom
duties, such as the Corporation Tax Act, the Customs Act and the Income Tax
Act.
3.3. Institutional framework
Guyana’s first dedicated institution for mining administration emerged in 1892 as a
result of attempts by the colonial government to exercise stricter control over the
young and booming gold industry. Control and regulation of mining activity still
remain a main preoccupation of the country’s main mining institution today, but the
agenda now has broadened to include development and support functions, such as
provision of geological data, funding and construction of hinterland infrastructure,
and the provision of technical assistance to miners.
3.3.1. Public Mining Institutions in Guyana.
The implementation of mining policy and the administration of all mining activity
in Guyana are the responsibilities of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission
(GGMC), the country’s only public mining institution. The GGMC was
established as a semi-autonomous entity by an Act of Parliament in 1979. In line
with public mining institutions in developing countries, the stated modern functions
of the commission are to:
•
promote investment in mining, mineral exploration, production, supply and sale
of mineral products;
•
explore for mineral resources;
•
undertake research into optimum methods of exploring for, exploiting and
utilizing minerals and mineral products in Guyana;
•
regulate all activities in the mineral sector; and
•
facilitate the development of the mineral sector by collecting and providing
information on the geology and mineral potential of the country, and by
offering other assistance to the mining community.
In operational terms, these objectives translate into such activities as:
•
the provision of technical assistance and advice in mining, mineral processing,
mineral utilization and marketing of mineral resources;
•
the conduct of mineral exploration projects, mostly on a regional scale, to
gather information on the country’s geology and mineral potential;
•
the provision and dissemination of information locally and internationally on
the country’s mineral potential and investment regime;
36
•
the construction and maintenance of Hinterland roads and other infrastructure
works;
•
the enforcement of the conditions of mining leases, concessions, exclusive
permissions and licences; and
•
the collection and recovery of rentals, fees and other mining levies.
The GGMC Act does provide for the commission to directly engage in mineral
production, but after unsuccessful attempts at alluvial gold mining in the mid1980s, the commission is no longer involved in production activities.
Guyana enjoys the advantage of having a single dedicated agency directly
responsible for all aspects of the mining.
The organization structure of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission
The commissioner is the Chief Executive Officer of GGMC. In the organization’s
technical core, four departments exist, each headed by a manager who reports
directly to the commissioner: the Environmental Division, the Geological Services
Division, the Mines Division, and the Petroleum Division (Figure 8). The
commission has a Board of Directors which sets out broad policy direction. The
present Board is composed of representatives from the local association of miners
(the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association), the Ministry of Amerindian
Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, the Guyana Defence Force, the EPA, the main
public sector union, the main opposition party and other government agencies.
Commissioner
Manager
Geological services
Mineral
Property
Admin.
Field
Section
Labs
Manager
Petroleum Division
Cartographic
Technical
Manager
Mines Division
Inspectorate
Drilling
Manager
Environmental Division
Clerical
Services
Mineral
Processing
Figure 6: organizational chart of GGMC
37
(i) The Environmental Division (ED).
In recognition of the growing importance of environmental issues in mining, the
GGMC established an environmental unit in 1995. Currently, its stated functions
are to:
•
generate and develop environmental regulations, procedures, standards, and
guidelines to promote sound environmental management in all phases of the
mineral industry;
•
develop and review environmental monitoring programs, management plans,
emergency response and contingency plans and mine site rehabilitation
programs;
•
collect, compile and analyze relevant environmental data;
•
propose environmental strategies to facilitate the execution of national mineral
development policies;
•
organize and conduct public education and awareness programs for the mining
community and the general public;
In October 1997, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between
the GGMC and the country’s Environmental Protection Agency. The MOU, which
is still in force today, outlines the environmental management functions delegated
by the EPA to the GGMC, the role and responsibilities of the EPA, and areas where
close inter-agency collaboration is required.
Some of the activities undertaken by the Environmental Division include18:
18
•
Education and awareness – preparation of brochures, booklets and video films
•
Preparation of information for Workshops on HIV-AIDS in Mining Districts.
•
training for GGMC Officers
•
Training of Medium Scale Miners in Exploration and EIA.
•
Preparation of Training Manuals for equipment for environmental
measurements.
•
Demonstration projects for improved gold and diamond recovery.
•
Demonstration projects for bench mining.
•
Technical assistance to Miners for creation of tailings ponds and dams.
•
Preparation of Codes of Practice
•
Determination of effluent discharge limits for TSS and Turbidity
•
Establishment of Environmental Monitoring Stations and Sampling Points for
data generation and monitoring
Paper by Karen Livan, Manager- Environmental Division, GGMC.
38
•
Generation of data on regional drainage basins impacted by mining through
water quality surveys.
•
Testing and modification of mercury retorts
•
Free distribution of mercury retorts to (principally Amerindian) Miners, Gold
Buyers and Shopkeepers.
•
Testing residents of selected mining and non mining-impacted communities
for Malaria, Typhoid and Mercury in hair
•
Testing fish (herbivorous, omnivorous, and carnivorous), stream sediments,
river bank and mine face sediments for mercury in selected mining and nonmining impacted communities.
•
Planned establishment of multi-stakeholder Mines Safety Committees in
Mining Districts
•
Revised Mining Regulations to make exploration mandatory for Medium
Scale Operators
•
Discussions with Ministry of Amerindian Affairs and leaders/representatives
of Amerindian communities.
•
Planned training of selected Amerindians from mining-impacted communities
as Rangers.
•
Reclamation trials at the mined out Kara Kara bauxite mine.
•
Review of EIA and environmental management reports.
(ii) The Geological Services Division (GSD)
The GSD is the geological survey arm of the Guyana Geology and Mines
Commission. Within this division are:
•
the mineral property administration, which handles all applications for medium
and large scale mineral properties;
•
the cartographic section, which stores and manages the commission’s
geological maps and diagrams, and generates new cartographic documents such
as concession maps;
•
the field section, which performs geological fieldwork throughout Guyana to
investigate the geology and mineral potential and compiles relevant geological
reports;
•
a chemical and sample preparation laboratory, with AAS and Fire Assay
capability;
•
a petrology laboratory with facilities for making thin and polished sections, and
an archive of over 250,000 thin sections; and
•
a GIS/Computer section with facilities to both scan and plot maps.
39
(iii) The Petroleum Division
The Petroleum Division is the regulatory agency charged with the responsibility for
all matters related to petroleum investment in Guyana. In particular, its
responsibilities include:
•
promotion of investment opportunities in petroleum exploration in Guyana;
•
negotiations of all contracts, agreements and related prospecting and
production licenses with oil companies;
•
collection of royalties and fees related to petroleum exploration work; and
•
monitoring of all activities related to petroleum exploration and development
of petroleum resources to ensure that oil companies comply with all technical,
legal and economic terms of their contracts and licenses.
(iv) The Mines Division
The Mines Division is the main regulatory and service unit of the GGMC for local
miners. It is subdivided into five units.
•
the Technical Unit regulates and monitors the technical aspects of medium and
large-scale mining operations
•
the Mines Inspectorate regulates and monitors small-scale operations, and
executes other field-based administrative functions such as revenue collection,
claim boundary demarcation, and dispute resolution
•
the Drilling Unit provides drilling services to the industry
•
the Mineral Processing Unit undertakes research aimed at improving mineral
recovery techniques in the industry; and
•
the Clerical Section provides administrative services to the mining sector and
stores and manages the Mines Division’s database.
The administration of the local industry is heavily centralized. Most licensing and
other administrative matters are handled at the GGMC headquarters in the capital
city of Georgetown. A network of mining stations exists in the hinterland and is
becoming increasingly manned despite financial and other constraints. Little use is
made of the local government system or of local communities in mining
administration and regulation.
40
Table 9: SWOT analysis of the GGMC
Internal Strengths
Internal Weaknesses
•
Several experienced and long-serving
technical staff
•
Shortage of field staff (many interior
mine stations are not fully manned)
•
Good institutional memory
•
Budgetary constraints
•
Invests in staff training
•
•
Environmentally-enlightened
management and technical staff
High staff turn-over, leading to low
professional staff ratios
•
Have
benefited
materially
and
otherwise from recent donor-funded
projects
Reactive organizational
mining administration
•
Underutilization of qualified human
resources
Presence of experienced expatriate staff
•
Poor image in the eyes of miners
•
•
culture
to
External Threats
External Opportunities
•
Strong regional and international
willingness to sponsor programs for
institutional capacity building and
knowledge transfer.
•
Presence of several NGO and publicsector organizations (such as the
Ministry of Health; the Environmental
Protection Agency; and the University of
Guyana)
involved
in
interior
development.
•
Further expansion of interior road
network by forest companies could
increase accessibility to mining grounds
•
Ongoing large-scale mineral exploration
projects by private investors
•
Imminent closure of Omai Goldmines
(Guyana’s only large-scale gold mine)
would reduce revenue intake.
•
Large influx of Brazilian miners poses
problems of managing miners from a
different
cultural
and
technical
background.
•
Continued antagonistic relationship with
local miners.
•
Responsibility for monitoring and
enforcing new environmental regulations
for mining could further overwhelm
organization capacity.
Chapter 4
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF MINING IN GUYANA
Environmental management of mining in Guyana was firmly placed on the official
policy agenda in the early 1990s amidst growing national and international concern
over the adverse impacts on mining activity on the environment.
4.1. National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP)
The government in 1994 formulated a comprehensive environmental action plan,
the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP), the first such attempt in Guyana
41
to address environmental issues in a multi-sectoral, holistic manner. Based on the
government’s declaration of its commitment to sustainable development and
environmental protection, the objectives of the first NEAP included:
•
conserving and utilizing the environment and natural resources of Guyana for
the benefit of both present and future generations, based on the principle of the
exercise of sovereignty,
•
maintaining ecosystems and ecological processes essential for the function of
the biosphere to preserve biological diversity and to observe the principle of
optimum sustainable yield in the use of renewable natural resources and
ecosystems, both on land and on sea,
•
ensuring prior environmental assessments of proposed activities which may
significantly affect the environment,
•
ensuring that conservation is treated as an integral part of the planning and
implementation of development activities, and
•
instituting punitive measures to deter possible violations of environmental
norms.
A new National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP), covering the period 2001 2005, reaffirms these objectives.
4.2. Institutions and Administration
In 1995, an environmental unit was established within the GGMC structure to deal
with environmental issues specific to mining. Soon after, in 1996, the government
passed the country’s first comprehensive environmental law, the Environmental
Protection Act. Under this act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of
Guyana was established. In October 1997, a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) was signed between GGMC and the EPA. The MOU outlines the
environmental management functions delegated by the EPA to the GGMC, the role
and responsibilities of the EPA, and areas where close inter-agency collaboration is
required.
The EPA and the Environmental Division of the GGMC remain today the only
environmental management institutions in Guyana. Over the last several years,
tremendous efforts have been made to enhance their capacities in environmental
management. For the GGMC, all such efforts fell under the auspices of the
Canadian-government funded project titled Guyana Environmental Capacity
Development project (GENCAPD), which ran from 1998 to 2004.
4.2.1. GENCAPD - Guyana Environmental Capacity Development Mining
Project
The goal of the GENCAPD project was to strengthen capacities of key mining
sector institutions in Guyana in the area of environmental management. The project
was designed to address several deficiencies in the environmental management of
mining, such as:
42
•
absence of clear policies and guidelines for environmental management.
•
limited capacity of the environmental management agencies in terms of
financial, technical personnel and material resources.
•
absence of detailed regulations and codes to guide the actions of miners.
•
lack of monitoring and enforcement capabilities.
•
inadequacy of baseline information to permit the formulation, implementation
and evaluation of environmental policies and actions.
•
limited exposure of mining stakeholders to new technologies and techniques.
The program was funded to the tune of CDN $3.75 million over six years (1998 to
2004). The main local agencies involved were the Guyana Geology and Mines
Commission (GGMC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA). The University of
Guyana also played a small role in the project.
A multi-stakeholder approach was used in most of the project activities, as it was
recognized that real progress in environmental management would not be realized
without meaningful dialogue with the mining community. Amerindian
representative organizations, however, voiced concerns that Amerindian
communities were not asked to participate in any significant way. Major activities
included:
•
training of miners and staff from the GGMC and the EPA;
•
participation in environmental field surveys;
•
demonstration exercises and other education/awareness programs in mining
areas; and
•
organization of stakeholder workshops on such issues as environmental
management, mercury use in the environment, and environmental regulations
for small to medium scale mining;
In terms of outputs, the major results of the GENCAPD project include:
•
production of draft environmental mining regulations (which were enacted in
March 2005);
•
production of draft environmental codes of practice for ASM in Guyana. The
codes, which were produced in December 2003, include guidelines for
mercury use, mine reclamation, mine effluents, contingency and response
plans, mine waste management and disposal, and tailings management. The
codes benefited from the inputs of mining industry stakeholders. The codes of
practice are intended to be read in conjunction with the new environmental
regulations;
•
increased technical competence in environmental management among staff at
GGMC and other agencies. Several staff members, however, who benefited
43
from the GENCAPD training program have over the years left the employ of
the GGMC; and
•
setting up of lab facilities at the EPA.
4.3. Legal provisions for environment protection in gold mining
Regulations governing environmental practices in mining are now more
substantially developed. They phase out the environmental stipulations spelt out in
documents such as mining licences for large-scale operations and in the
Environmental Management Agreement19.
4.3.1. New environmental regulations
In March 2005, new mining regulations on the environmental were signed into law.
Officially, these regulations are known as the Mining (Amendment) Regulations
2005. The new regulations in one fell swoop imposed an array of radical new
standards and measures. All scales of miners were now obligated to adhere to strict
provisions on environmental protection and safe mining techniques. For ASM,
particular features include: the required use of mercury in closed circuits; the
submission of environmental management plans as well as contingency and
response plans; and the required use of settling ponds.
Table 10 below gives a detailed perspective on the obligations miners face under
the new regulations.
Table 10: Comparative responsibilities for GGMC and miners under the new mining
environmental regulations
Miners
Register of poisons at mine site, with separate
records for each poisonous substance. Register
to be open for inspection.
EIA to be done by independent consultant for
projects that are likely to have significant
environmental impact.
Mandatory use of approved retorts, gloves and
protective gear when burning or handling
mercury or amalgam by Small and Medium
Scale placer miners.
Creation and use of settling ponds or devices.
Tailings dams >16 ft/3 meters high to be
inspected annually by a qualified, registered and
approved engineer. Settling ponds with < 2 hrs
minimum water residence time storage to
discharge. Discharges to be within effluent
limits.
GGMC
Public Register on Cyanide Permits in Commission’s
Office. Inspection of Registers of poison at mine sites.
Participation in EIA Scoping; Review of EIA and EIS
reports for EPA.
Approval and registration of mercury retorts for Small
and Medium Scale Placer mining.
Provision or facilitation of technical assistance and
research. Review of engineers’ reports on annual
inspection of tailings dams >16 ft/3 meters high.
Monitoring and regulation of settling ponds and
discharge limits.
19
Since 1996, applicants for a Mining Permit for medium-scale operations are required to sign an
Environmental Management Agreement under which operators are obligated to honor several
environmental commitments, such as constructing tailings ponds and using retorts and respirators.
44
Application for Cyanide Permit for Large,
Medium and Small Scale Operators. Satisfactory
completion of the questionnaire provided by
GGMC by Small Miners shall fulfill the
requirements.
Training on the proper use of mercury and
cyanide.
Progressive rehabilitation and restoration of the
environment.
Backfilling placer mines, where applicable;
sealing shafts at closed mines.
Stripping and stockpiling topsoil; restoration of
water courses.
Environmental Bond or Reclamation Fee/Bond
Restoration of area by Small Scale Miners.
Preparation and submission of reclamation and
closure plans by all holders of existing
prospecting and mining licenses and permits
(large and medium scales) within 3 months of
passing of regulations, for approval by GGMC.
Within one year of passing of regulations,
submission to GGMC of Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) for 3 -5 years,
including requirements of Codes of Practice.
EMP to be updated annually or as required by
GGMC.
Submission of Contingency and emergency
response plans to the Commissioner for
approval, within 2 years, by holders of
prospecting and mining licenses and permits.
Informing
employees
and
independent
contractors about such plans.
Environmental effects monitoring plans to be
submitted to GGMC for all large and medium
scale mines, including new mines, for approval
as part of the EMP two years after the passing of
the
regulations.
Environmental
effects
monitoring to be conducted for all large and
medium scale mines, three years after the
passing of the regulations.
-
Issuance, suspension, cancellation, transfer and
monitoring and regulation of Cyanide Permits.
Questionnaire for Small Scale Miners (individually or
as a syndicate) to be provided by the Commission.
Completion of the questionnaire shall fulfill the
requirements.
Approval of curricula and provision of training and
certification of Miners (together with EPA, Mining
Associations, and Educational Training Institutions).
Provision or facilitation of technical assistance and
research.
Monitoring and Inspection.
Provision or facilitation of technical assistance.
For large and medium Scale operations, rehabilitation of
sites when these works are judged as unsatisfactory to
the Commissioner.
Approval of restoration and issuance of formal
discharge by the Commissioner.
Provision of form within 3 months of passing of the
regulations, to be filled out by the operator to satisfy
this requirement.
Publication or approval of Codes of Practice for
Environmental Mining for Small, Medium and Large
Scale Mining within 18 months after the passing of the
regulations. Annual or periodic review, approval,
monitoring and regulation of EMP’s.
Codes of Practice above to include contingency and
emergency response plans. Approval of contingency
and emergency response plans for large and medium
scale operators. Monitoring contingency emergency
response plans for cyanide operations.
Approval of Environmental effects monitoring plans for
Large and Medium Scale mines. Collection and
compilation of background data to facilitate
Environmental Effects monitoring commencing three
years after the passing of the regulations.
Determination of number of dredges permitted to mine
in any area affected by tailings discharge.
-
Determination of acceptable turbidity levels at affected
communities.
No mining in Protected areas.
Inspection of environmentally damaged areas
prior to commencement of mining.
Enforce prohibition of mining in Protected areas
Inspection by the Commissioner or duly appointed
officer. Cost to be met equally by applicant and GGMC.
45
Proper disposal of petroleum products,
poisonous substances and hazardous waste.
Code of Practice to include waste management and
disposal. Monitoring and regulation of waste disposal.
Source: Karen Livan, Manager Environmental Division, GGMC.
The Executive Secretary of the GGDMA was correct to point out that the new
obligations would definitely have implications for the cost of mining in Guyana.
Additionally, he argued that one of the main obstacles would be educational, in
that miners need to be given the technical know-how necessary to adhere to the
regulations.20 The GGDMA lobbied the government for the regulations to be put on
hold to allow miners time to get their act together. Government granted miners a
first reprieve up to December 31, 2005, with enforcement to begin on 1 January
2006. Further representation by miners, however, succeeded in the granting of a
second reprieve up to December 2006. The regulations to date are therefore not
enforceable.
Several other issues with the new regulations remain unsettled. For one, the pieces
of equipment that the new laws require miners to use, such as turbidity meters and
retorts, are not available locally or easily obtainable. Secondly, the GGMC is yet to
set down specifications with respect to the type and performance of equipment. In
the simplest example, while the laws require miners to wear gloves when handling
mercury, no specifications have been stated as regards to the type of material
gloves must be made of.
More generally, however, the sheer scope of the regulations will require authorities
to conduct intense education and awareness campaigns to ensure miners have the
working knowledge of the new regulations and the technical know-how to comply.
The GGMC has started work in this direction, but not to the extent and at the pace
required for the December 2006 deadline.
4.3.2. New codes of practice
In December 2003, under the GENCAPD project, several detailed Codes of
Practice for the small-scale and medium-scale mining industry were prepared.
These codes cover six areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Codes of Practice for Mercury Use
Codes of Practice for Mine Reclamation
Codes of Practice for Mine Effluents
Codes of Practice for Contingency and Response Plans
Codes of Practice for Mine Waste Management and Disposal
Codes of Practice for Tailings Management
These codes are linked to the new environmental regulations, which were enacted
in March 2005. The GGMC has started to disseminate and explain the codes to
miners.
20
Edward Shields, Executive Secretary, GGDMA: personal communication
46
4.3.3. Guidelines for EIA of mining projects in Guyana
This document, produced by the EPA in 2000, provides guidelines for conducting
an EIA for mining projects in Guyana. The required components of an EIA are (i)
an Environmental Baseline Study (data on the physical, biological and socioeconomic environments), (ii) Environmental Assessment, and (iii) an
Environmental Impact Statement. Guidelines are also provided for preparing an
Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to “ensure that the proposed procedures,
actions and measures identified as part of alleviating environmental impacts of a
project are not just a statement of goodwill by the company/developer but that they
will be effectively implemented.”
At the moment, EIAs are only required for large-scale operations or where special
circumstances dictate. In one special situation, Amerindian communities in the
Upper Mazaruni demanded that an EIA be done for a proposed mining operation
involving several large cutter-head dredges.
4.3.4. Advisories and guidelines
The GGMC and other institutions regularly prepare and disseminate pamphlets
advising miners on various issues of interest (Table 10).
4.4. Main issues and concerns
The main issues and concerns for mining environmental management remain:
•
•
•
•
•
•
poor enforcement by government agencies;
low level of compliance among miners;
low level of awareness among miners of environmental issues;
low technical capacity among miners to meet requirements set in the
regulations;
poor knowledge of the level and distribution of pollution effects; and
dissatisfaction in local communities over levels of consultation.
Main achievements include:
•
•
•
•
raising public awareness and the profile of environmental issues in mining;
development of substantial environmental regulations and codes;
development of institutions, though their capacity is limited; and
bringing the miners association on board as partners.
47
Chapter 5
BROADER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Apart from the environmental issues directly related to the regulation of mining
activity, the study will also look at two related issues: the Protected Area System in
Guyana, and university programs in mining and environmental studies.
5.1. National Parks and Protected Areas
All protected areas in Guyana fall under the National Protected Areas System
(NPAS). There are two existing and five proposed National Protected Areas.
5.1.1. Existing National Protected Areas
Kaieteur National Park The Kaieteur National Park was originally established in
1929 under the Kaieteur National Park Act, and now encompasses 242 square
miles. The waterfall is one of the most dramatic sights in Guyana, with a 741 foot
drop, and is a major tourist attraction.
Iwokrama Rainforest Program In March 1997, the Government of Guyana enacted
the Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest Conservation and Development
Act. Under this legislation, approximately half of the Center’s 360,000 hectares
site is designated a Wilderness Preserve, and the remainder used for sustainable
utilization of natural resources.
5.1.2. Proposed National Protected Areas
Kanuku Mountains These mountains divide the Interior Savannahs of Guyana into
North and South sections. As many as 18 Amerindian villages are located within
the area.
Mount Roraima. This area is located across the border from large national park in
Venezuela and the forests protect an important watershed that is vital to Guyana.
Mt. Roraima contains several vegetation types from lowland rainforest to elfin
woodlands. This area has been proposed as a World Heritage Site and as a national
park.
Orinduik Falls. Located north of Lethem on the border with Brazil, Orinduik Falls
is one of the oldest geological formations in the country and has scenic rapids,
which interlink with plant communities. The falls are surrounded by dry
savannahs. The area has been proposed as a national park, a natural monument and
as an important site for conservation.
Shell Beach. Located at the mouth of the Waini River, the beach is a vast bank of
shells, approximately 10 km in length. The area helps protect against drastic
changes in the coastline. The area is one of the most important nesting areas in the
48
world for four species of sea turtles that are being actively studied, monitored and
protected. Poaching of sea turtles still occurs, despite ongoing monitoring and
conservation initiatives that involve local Amerindian communities. This area has
been proposed as a wildlife sanctuary.
South-Eastern Forest. This is a vast area in southern Guyana on the border with
Suriname and Brazil. The portion near Gunn’s Landing has been visited a few
times by botanists and mammalogists and preliminary data indicate that this forest
is very different from the other forests found in Guyana. The New River Triangle
has been proposed as a resource reserve and an important area for conservation.
5.1.3. Institutions
The National Protected Areas Secretariat, established in August 2000 under the
EPA, manages the country’s national protected areas. The Secretariat comprises a
small multi-stakeholder group of agencies and bodies involved in the operation and
management of protected areas.
5.1.4. Legal Framework
Guyana does not have comprehensive legislation governing the establishment and
management of protected areas. The two existing national protected areas, Kaieteur
and Iwokrama, were established by separate pieces of legislation. The Kaieteur
National Park was created by the Kaieteur National Park Act in 1929. The Act was
amended in 1999 to increase the size of the park to 242 square miles. A second
amendment was passed in 2000 to restore the rights of Amerindians within the
area, which were not granted by the 1929 establishing law. The nearby community
of Chenapau, however, has filed legal action against the government seeking the
protection of their constitution and traditional rights with regards to extension of
the park.
The Iwokrama protected area and the Iwokrama Center were created by the
Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest Conservation and Development Act
of 1996. The area is divided into two sections, one a wilderness preserve and the
other a sustainable use area. The Act prohibits mining, forestry and other resource
utilization unless approved by the Iwokrama Centre. The Act explicitly recognizes
and protects the legal and traditional rights of Amerindians within the area.
5.1.5. Sources of conflict
The proposed establishment of five new protected areas has not won the unanimous
support of the affected Amerindian communities and their representatives. The
main issues raised by sections of the Amerindian community involve (i) the lack of
adequate consultation with the affected communities, and (ii) the need to settle
Amerindian land claims and traditional rights and the new Amerindian Act as prior
conditions.
49
Figure 7: Current and proposed Protected Areas in Guyana
Undoubtedly, efforts to further develop protected areas in Guyana would have to
address the concerns of affected Amerindian communities. In this regard, the
principles outlined by the NPAS in its 2003 draft Social Framework Strategy
appear eminently reasonable, as for example:
•
Amerindian land and resource uses for traditional and subsistence purposes will
be upheld.
•
The process of PA establishment will ensure that the rights and interests of
local populations are respected.
50
•
Local communities and stakeholders in general, will play an active role through
direct involvement in the planning and design, implementation and
management of the system and its components.
•
Protected areas will not be located in titled or gazetted Amerindian lands
without the informed consent of communities involved.
•
Protected areas will not result in involuntary resettlement.
•
Where potential protected areas fall within lands by Amerindians, efforts will
be made to resolve those claims
5.1.6. Goldmining and Protected Areas
In Guyana, no gold mining licenses are granted in protected areas although some
illegal goldmining activities do take place.
5.2. Undergraduate programs in mining and environmental studies
5.2.1. The Environmental Studies Unit, University of Guyana
The Environmental Studies Unit was established in 1996 through a joint venture
between the University of Guyana and the University of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
It was funded by the European Union (EU).This Unit, while located within the
Faculty of Natural Sciences, is a cross-faculty Unit drawing its personnel from the
Faculties of Arts, Social Sciences, Health Sciences, Natural Sciences, Technology,
Agriculture and Education of the University of Guyana. The ESU has an Advisory
Board whose members are drawn from Governmental, non-governmental, regional,
and international organizations and from the academic community. The function of
the Advisory Board is to enhance the capacity of the ESU for taking measures to
achieve its objectives. EU support for the unit came to an end several years ago and
the unit is now financed by university resources.
Programs offered. The ESU currently offers a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) Degree
in Environmental Science. This four (4) year program is designed to equip students
to function within a variety of environmental demands. Courses include
environmental chemistry, environmental technology, forestry botany, forest
management, aquatic sciences, coastal zone management, mineral processing, and
soil and water management.
Other objectives. Apart from academic training, the ESU is engaged (i) public
awareness and education, done by staff members and students through seminars,
workshops and lectures, (ii) research, and (iii) consultancy.
5.2.2. The Division of Mining Engineering, University of Guyana
Tertiary-level education in mining engineering started at the University of Guyana
in the 1970s. From the 1980s up until 2003, the Division offered three programs:
51
(i) a two-year diploma in mining engineering; (ii) a three-year Bachelor of
Engineering in mining engineering, with completion of the diploma as the
admission requirement, and (iii) a two-year Diploma in Geology. These programs
have recently been replaced.
New programs. In 2004, the Division revamped its entire academic menu to better
accommodate the changing demands of the mining and civil engineering industries
in Guyana. Starting from the academic year 2004/05, the Division offers two
programs: (i) a two year Diploma of Technology in Geological Engineering, and
(ii) a three-year Bachelor of Engineering in Geological Engineering, with
completion of a diploma in either civil engineering, mechanical engineering,
geology, mining engineering, environmental studies as the admission requirement.
At the Bachelor’s level, students can major in one of three areas: geotechnical
engineering, geo-environmental engineering or mineral resources engineering.
The programs in geological engineering are a mix of geology, geography,
environmental and civil engineering courses that were selected based on similar
programs in North American colleges.
5.2.3. The School of Environmental and Earth Sciences, University of Guyana
(UG)
In 2005, a School of Environmental and Earth Sciences at UG was established. The
school merges two units of the university: the Environmental Studies Unit, and the
Department of Geography. The expectation is that the merged units would be better
able to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
engage in collaborative research;
establish a stronger base o consultancy and advisory services;
offer specialized courses in related areas
promote the development of post-graduate programs;
create a more dynamic academic environment; and
promote the development and maintenance of international linkages.
As resources become available, the intention is bring the three units together under
one roof. Immediate needs include upgrade of laboratory facilities, curriculum
development support, research funding and library facilities.
5.2.4. GGMC/WWF Guianas cooperation
On May 14th, 2004, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Guianas signed a G$50
million grant with the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) for
technical assistance in environmental-friendly small and medium-scale gold
mining. The assistance was provided under WWF’s Guianas Sustainable Forest
Resource Management Project, a regional initiative funded by the French Global
Environmental Fund (FFEM), the Dutch Environmental Fund (DGIS) and the
52
WWF. The 2004 agreement built on support provided in the previous two years by
the WWF Guianas to the GGMC. Previous programs had focused on establishing
cooperation and closer contact between the GGMC and its counterpart in Suriname.
The new GGMC/WWF Guianas cooperation project is titled the Guyana Small and
Medium Scale Gold Mining Management Improvement Project. As its name
suggests, the project’s objectives are to reduce the negative impacts of artisanal
goldmining on the forests ecosystems through better mining methods.
In April 2005, under the funding arrangement, the GGMC launched an
environmental education and awareness program. The program targets GGMC field
officers and miners and focuses on raising awareness in the issues such as
environmental management; use, handling and storage of mercury; occupational
health and safety practices; tailings management; and the new mining
environmental regulations. The initial phase of the project included workshops for
miners held in interior locations, and the production and distribution of flyers in
mining areas.
In January 2006, a new component of the WWF/GGMC program was launched.
Called the Technical Assistance to Miners in Tailings Management, the project
focuses on providing technical assistance to miners in managing their tailings. The
program involves a team of mining engineers and field assistants visiting mine
operations to provide on-the-spot advice to miners.
Chapter 6
MINING INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS
The main stakeholders in the mining industry are, at one level, those government
agencies that have direct responsibility for mining and mining-related matters (the
GGMC and the EPA), that have responsibility for some aspect of interior
development (Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of
Local Government, Ministry of Works and Communication, Ministry of Trade and
Tourism), and that have responsibility for natural resources utilization (Guyana
Forestry Commission, EPA, UG). At another level, stakeholders include NGOs that
have a direct interest in mining (miners associations), in environmental issues
(WWF, Conservation International, the Iwokrama Centre and other environmental
groups) and in Amerindian welfare (various Amerindian associations). At a third
level, stakeholders include private commercial firms that exploit the resources of
the hinterland (mining companies, logging companies, tourist associations and
resort owners, and wildlife exporters)
This study examines the views and concerns of the two largest groups of
stakeholders: miners and the local residents of the interior, the Amerindians.
53
6.1. Gold miners and license holders
The mining community in Guyana is principally represented by the Guyana Gold
and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA). This organization was formed in
1984 to promote and protect the rights and interests of miners. Most of the large
local mine owners are members of the association, a fact that has opened the
association to the accusation that it ignores the concerns of miners at the bottom of
the production ladder.
The main points of contention of the ASM community include:
•
•
•
•
•
the perception that mining is regulated more stringently compared to other local
industries;
the superior financial incentives offered to large-scale mining ventures;
corruption at GGMC;
inadequacy of GGMC’s efforts to upgrade the technical knowledge of miners;
and
lack of adequate interior road infrastructure
6.2. Indigenous Peoples
Most of Guyana’s approximately 50,000 Amerindians live in the hinterland of the
country. They comprise 7% of the national population, but as most of the other
ethnic groups live on the coast, Amerindians are the largest group in the Forested
Highlands and Interior Savannah regions of the country, where most of the
country’s natural resources are located. The exploitation of these resources has
directly and severely impacted the social, political, and economic life of the
Amerindian people. The opportunities and disruptions brought on by the natural
resources industry (timber, gold and diamonds) have challenged the Amerindian
people’s hold on their own way of life and distinctive culture.
Most of Guyana’s miners and license holders are from the coastland of the country.
This migration of coastland inhabitants to the hinterland in search of fortune has
produced several consequences for the Amerindian:
•
The clash of cultures and mindsets. As persons that reside on coasts are from
different social and cultural backgrounds to that of Amerindians, the
juxtaposition of different ethnic and social groups has produced mostly
negative consequences for the Amerindian way of life and society. A study
done by the Institute of Development Studies, University of Guyana21
identifies several such social changes: (i) the neglect of agriculture lands by
Amerindian men-folk in favor of salaried employment on dredges; (ii) the
development of economic stratification within villages as the fees paid to some
village councils by miners for permission to mine on titled land have not been
equitably distributed; (iii) the inflated costs of living; and (iv) the growth of a
21
Forte, J. – Impact of the Gold Industry on the Indigenous Peoples of Guyana. Transition, Special
Issue 27-28. Georgetown: Institute of Development Studies, UG. 1998.
54
materialistic consumer culture, manifested in consumption of non-essential
consumer good, such as fancy clothes and imported foods and beverages.
•
Decoupling of economic activity and economic gain. As mine ownership and
labor are dominated by coastland residents, most of the mineral wealth
extracted is taken out of the Hinterland for use elsewhere. In economic terms,
therefore, Amerindians do not benefit significantly from mining activity.
Where Amerindians have negotiated
with mining operators for the right to PRESENT LAWS OF GUYANA THAT
mine on titled land, economic benefits DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IMPACT ON
have been more direct and more AMERINDIAN RIGHTS
substantial. The village of Jawalla in the
•
The revised constitution of Guyana
Upper Mazaruni is given as an example
•
Amerindian Lands Commission Act
of a community where the proceeds
•
Amerindian Act, 2005
from such arrangements have been used
•
State Lands Act and Regulations
to build a health center, school, village
•
Forest Act
office, multi-purpose building and other
22
•
Mining
Act, 1989
infrastructure.
•
22
Mining Regulations 1972
•
The clash between Amerindian land
•
Iwokrama International Centre for
rights and mining activity. The Mining
Rainforest Conservation and
Act of 1989 does not strictly prohibit
Development Act, 1996
mining on Amerindian lands. Mining
•
Wild Birds Protection Act
could occur with the consent of the
•
Fisheries Act
relevant minister. In Part IX of the Act
•
Fisheries (Aquatic Wild Life Control)
(which outlines the restriction on rights
regulations
of holder of License or Permit) it is
•
National
Trust Act
stated that a licensee shall not exercise
•
Environmental Protection Act, 1996
any of his rights under the Act or his
license except with the written consent
of the Minister in respect to “any land within, or within 200 meters, of the
boundaries of any village or any land set apart for a new village or a village
extension.”
•
In Part XIV of the Act (Special Provisions Relating to Amerindians), it states
“all land occupied or used by Amerindian communities and all land necessary
for their quiet enjoyment by the Amerindians of any Amerindian settlement,
shall be deemed to be lawfully occupied by them.”
•
Under the Environmental Protection Act of 1996 (section 68(1)(z), the
Minister of the Environment is authorized to make regulations defining
“principles to facilitate the participation of communities which are likely to be
affected by the activities of a developer, taking account of the rights of
indigenous communities.”
•
According to the APA, the application of these provisions, in many cases, has
been inconsistent, selective and discretionary. The benefit of doubt invariably
favors the miner.
APA Media release …
55
•
The destruction to the environment. The environmental consequences of
mining have directly impacted on the quality of life of Amerindian
communities: turbidity of rivers affecting drinking water and depleting fish
stocks; disfigurement of river channels by river dredges affecting navigation
and fish stocks; and noise pollution and its impact on hunting grounds.
This entire situation has fueled the call by Amerindians for:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
prior consultation and involvement in the granting of mining licenses;
extension of titled land;
establishment of an Amerindian Development Fund;
a requirement for Social Impact Assessments for large projects;
training of Amerindians as mine officers;
representation of the boards of the GGMC, the GFC and other regulatory
agencies; and
stricter enforcement by authorities of the mining and environmental law.
Many of these demands were reflected in the submissions by Amerindian
associations to the process to revise the 1976 Amerindian Act.
6.3. Jewelry Industry
6.3.1. Background
The jewelry industry has a long tradition in Guyana. Despite the presence and/or
extraction of diamonds and the other stones, the country’s jewelry industry remains
mainly based on gold.
6.3.2. Size of the industry
In 2004, the number of registered establishments totaled 350, employing an
estimated 1,000 persons (manufacturers and retailers).
There are several
establishments operating in rural communities that are not registered.
6.3.3. Ownership
The jewelry industry in Guyana remains basically a cottage industry. They are
mostly family-owned and operated businesses, with workshops attached to, or part
of, the premises of owners. Several establishments have been in operations for
decades and their business names have become synonymous with the jewelry
industry. There are few partnerships and no companies with non-working
shareholders and external capital resources.
6.3.4. Technology and skill levels
Technology and skill levels are low. One survey of several workshops done in 1993
found that none of the inspected pieces of jewelry was of an excellent or very high
56
standard of workmanship, and over 75% of the inspected pieces were of a poor or
mediocre standard of workmanship.23 Areas of careless or incompetent
workmanship were identified as shaping, soldering, casting, finishing and setting.
Most workshops are poorly laid-out and illuminated. Recovery of waste is low.
The low level of technology and skill has not, however, proved to be a barrier to
selling as the domestic market for jewelry is undemanding.
6.3.5. Domestic market
Local customers purchased jewelry for fashion and adornment purposes and as a
hedge against inflation and devaluation. Finished jewelry is sold on the domestic
market in several ways:24
•
Private customers approach the manufacturer and commission an item of
jewelry (made-to-order)
•
Private customers approach the manufacturer and buy an item that is already
made (made-to- stock)
•
A trader approaches the manufacturer and commissions a number of pieces for
delivery at a later date. The trader pays cash and sells the jewelry outside
Guyana.
•
A manufacturer shows his products in retail showroom attached to the
workshop and sells to passing trade;
•
A manufacturer sells all or part of his production to a market stallholder;
•
A manufacturer sells all or part of his output in his own market stall.
Most jewelry manufactured and sold on the domestic market is made of gold.
Establishments in Guyana have little experience and expertise in manufacturing
diamond and other precious stones. There are only a few precious stones handlers
and lapidaries.
The most common quality of gold jewelry sold is 12 carat (50%) purity. The image
of the industry has suffered because of widespread suspicion of under-carating—
whether deliberate or unintentional. In an effort to address the problem, new
government regulations are in draft requiring goldsmiths and jewelers to hallmark
their manufactured pieces. Early in 2004, Guyana National Bureau of Standards
(GNBS) established a testing lab for this purpose. In addition, the lab can also be
23
Pre-investment Study of the Guyana Jewellery Industry. Georgetown: GGMC/CDB, 1994.
24
Pre-investment Study of the Guyana Jewellery Industry. Georgetown: GGMC/CDB, 1994.
57
used by customers to get their purchased jewelry tested for a small fee. In recent
times, however, the lab has ceased to work due to equipment malfunction. As
matters now stand, jewelers are required only to inscribe their mark on their pieces.
6.3.6. Export trade
Significant quantities of jewelry are exported from Guyana annually, both legally
and informally/illegally. Illegal/informal exports are hard to quantify, but legal
exports are in the vicinity of G$2,000,000. Most of the country’s exports of jewelry
are sold in the Guyanese Diaspora in the Caribbean and the US.
The success of the export trade in Guyana jewelry despite its poor quality and
dubious good standard could be attributed to the fact that:25 (i) jewelry is exported
informally, without the payment of duties and taxes, (ii) in most cases, it is sold
directly by the trader without incurring costs for premises, sales assistant and other
overheads normally connected with selling jewelry, and (iii) it is offered to that
section of the local population or tourist trade that would not be able to afford high
quality jewelry.
6.3.7. National Association of goldsmiths and jewelers
The Guyana National Association of Goldsmiths and Jewelers (GNAGJ) was
established in 1994 to promote the development of the industry and to protect the
interests of the manufactures and retailers. At present, the Association has 55
members.26
In 2002, the Guyana Jewelry Training Institute was established through the
collaborative effort of the GGMC and the GNAGJ. The objective of the institute is
to provide training in jewelry designing and manufacturing. Courses last for three
months.
6.4. Forestry operations
6.4.1. Forestry resources
Guyana’s forest resources cover an estimated 75% (or 165,000 km2) of its land
mass. Rainforests are the most common type. Other forest types include (i)
seasonal forests, which exist in the north Rupununi and upper Berbice areas; (ii)
dry forests, which occupy the leached white sands belt along the Linden-Soesdyke
highway and throughout the Pakaraima Mountains; and (iii) swamp forests which
encompass the mangrove areas found on the Atlantic coast.
6.4.2. Forestry in the economy
Production
25
26
Pre-investment Study of the Guyana Jewellery Industry. Georgetown: GGMC/CDB, 1994.
Andrew Williams, Head of the GNAGJ: personal communication.
58
Guyana produces a variety forestry products, including logs, sawn wood, round
wood, split wood and plywood. In 2004, the country produced 333,000 cubic
metres of logs, to which greenheart contributed just over 21% (Table 11).
3
Table 11: Annual output of logs, 1999-2004 (‘000 m )
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Greenheart
83
74
88
97
61
73
Other species
379
330
172
200
150
263
Source: Bureau of Statistics
Exports
According to the GFC’s Forestry Sector Information Report: Half-year Report
2006, sawn wood was the largest export earner in 2005 among forestry products,
reaching 36.4% of export value. Plywood at 23.3% was the second largest earner.
3
Table 12: Export volume (m )and value of timber products (USD million), 2001 – 2005
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
187,197m
184,920
150,572
205,969
231,112
US$33
35.5
30.7
45.0
49.6
3
Source: Bank of Guyana
In addition, exports of forest products also include furniture, craft, moulding,
spindles and widow frames and doors.
Contribution to GDP. From 2000, forestry contributed slightly over 3% to the
national GDP (Table 13).
Table 13 : Forestry’s contribution to Gross Domestic Product, 2000 - 2005
Year
% of GDP
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
3.5
3.6
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.6
Source: Forestry Sector Information Report: Half-year Report 2006. GFC
Employment. Employment in the forest sector increased significantly in the 1990s.
Between 1992 and 1996, employment in the sector rose from 11,412 to 15, 275. By
1998, total employment had reached 19,000. The largest increases in employment
were in the plywood and manicole palm production as a direct result of large
foreign investments in the manufacture of these products.
59
6.4.3. Forestry Policy and legislation
A new National Forest Policy was approved by the Government in 1997. This is the
first official policy statement since 1953 and was developed over a period of two
years through a process that involved extensive consultation with interest groups.
The new policy responds to significant changes in Guyana's economic, social and
political environment over the last fifty years and addresses the country's national
and global responsibility for the sustainable management of the forests. The policy
recognizes the vital role of the forests in maintaining the earth's climate and
ecosystems and they are an increasingly important source of income and wealth for
national development. Forest laws are being reviewed and updated to support the
implementation of the new policy.
The overall objective of Guyana's National Forestry Policy is the conservation,
protection, management and utilization of the nation’s forest resources, while
ensuring that the productive capacity of the forests for both goods and services is
maintained or enhanced.
Specific objectives are to:
•
promote sustainable and efficient forest activities which utilize the broad range
of forest resources and contribute to national development while allowing fair
returns to local and foreign entrepreneurs;
•
achieve improved sustainable forest resource yields while ensuring the
conservation of ecosystems, biodiversity, and the environment; and
•
ensure watershed protection and rehabilitation; prevent an arrest the erosion of
soils and the degradation of forests, grazing and reforestation; and protect the
forest against fire, pests and other hazards.
6.4.4. Forestry Administration
The Guyana Forestry Commission is a semi-autonomous body set up in 1979,
responsible for advising the subject Minister on issues relating to forest policy,
forestry laws and regulations. The commission is also responsible for the
administration and management of all State Forest lands. The GFC administers
concessions, licences and permits for all forest sector operations; collects revenue
required by law; and inspects operations in the forest and in the mills. The GFC is
also responsible for the protection of resources, conservation strategies, research,
education and training.
The commission is governed by a Board of Directors appointed by Cabinet. The
board includes the Commissioner of Forests as the Chief Executive Officer of the
GFC; representatives from the government ministries of Amerindian Affairs,
60
Agriculture and Finance; the University of Guyana; forestry associations; and the
Parliamentary political opposition.
The GFC is structured into five divisions, whose heads report directly to the
Commissioner: (i) the Forestry Monitoring Division, responsible for the monitoring
and licensing of producers (ii) the Forest Resource Management Division,
responsible for assisting producers with forest management plans and the
production of concession maps (iii) the Planning and Development Division,
responsible for coordination and preparation of forest sector plans and reports,
providing market information and giving specialist advice and service to the
industry, (iv) the Human Resources Division, and (v) the Finance Division.
6.4.5. Types of concessions
Forest concessions are of five types:
•
•
•
•
TSA (Timber Sales Agreement) >24,000 ha. for > 20 years.
WCL (Wood Cutting Lease) > 8,000 ha < 24,000 ha for 3-10 years.
SFP (State Forest Permission) < 8,000 ha for 1 year.
EP (Exploratory permit) no cutting but survey rights.
There are also special cases where special terms and rates are negotiated on a casespecific basis.
61
Figure 6: Allocated (in brown) and non-allocated State Forest
62
Chapter 7
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The battle to get several thousand gold miners, scattered over vast expanses of
Guyana’s hinterland, to embrace safe and environmentally-sound mining methods
will be hard fought. Gold mining is driven by fierce economic motives. The
expansion of the sector is actively promoted by government, which is
understandably eager to extract greater economic benefits.
In the last decade, the industry has introduced new technologies and methods that
have ravaged the environment more than previously. Missile dredging,
hydraulicking, large earth-moving equipment, and the reported liberal use of
mercury by Brazilian miners have placed greater strain on the environment and on
regulatory agencies. The search for solutions will be never-ending.
Several overarching attitudes and approaches may be useful in this battle.
•
Prioritization. Regulatory agencies must prioritize targets and actions. Not
only are current resources at GGMC limited, but at no point in the future
would resources be adequate, given the extent of its responsibilities. Effort
must therefore be spent during the planning process to rank implementation
measures based on informed judgment or on hard data. Already, GGMC has
decided that among the multiplicity of negative environmental impacts caused
by mining, it will concentrate on mercury pollution and river turbidity.
Prioritization must also be applied to determine target areas and communities
for monitoring, mitigation work, public awareness and enforcement.
•
Continuous improvement. Success in environmental management will not
come overnight. Improvements must be seen as a sequence of small
incremental steps toward a realistically-set objective. Once an initial objective
has been reached, the process must then begin again towards a new objective.
•
Phasing. Given resource constraints, regulatory agencies must deliberately
phase their interventions. Phasing carries the additional advantage of allowing
agencies to review initial impacts and effects, and to make design changes or
take corrective action before moving on to the succeeding phase of
implementation.
•
Impacts over outputs. Many programs measure success by outputs rather than
by impacts. Outputs are easier to obtain and measure (number of written
reports, training sessions held, and visits made). Outputs, however, should not
be used as the end, but must be used to deliver impacts and prompt changes
(better mining practices, higher community involvement, less conflict, etc).
•
The precautionary principle. Regulatory agencies need not wait on hard
scientific data before planning interventions. Ideally, scientifically-gathered
information, for example, on the intensity and distribution of mercury pollution
should be a precursor to planning mitigation programs. In a situation where
resources are limited, however, such an ideal approach would leave many areas
63
untreated. Action should be taken on informed judgment and experience
instead of waiting indefinitely on scientific data.
7.1. The issue of non-compliance
No doubt, non-compliance by miners to regulations remains one of the biggest
challenges facing mining administration. The fact that mining activity in Guyana is
geographically scattered over vast, mostly uninhabited, heavily-forested territory
creates its own set of difficulties.
Efforts to increase compliance levels may benefit if the causes of non-compliance
among small miners are differentiated. These distinctions are important in
designing education and enforcement tactics. Non-compliance can be due to or
facilitated by four conditions:
•
•
•
•
total or considerable ignorance of the laws;
total or considerable disregard for the laws, even though the miner is aware of
the laws;
total or considerable ignorance of the harmful effects to oneself, to others, and
to the environment when the unlawful action is practiced; and
total or considerable disregard for the harmful effects to oneself, to others, and
to the environment when the unlawful action is practiced, even though the
miner is aware of the consequences
Disregard for the
laws
Ignorance of the laws
Ignorance of harmful
consequences
Disregard for harmful
consequences
Type “A” non-compliance
Type “B” non-compliance
This is the worst-case scenario. This
miner is likely to be a new arrival from
the coast, or one who is disinterested in
“big” matters, or one who has not
interfaced much with regulatory agencies.
Education and awareness programs
should be the main instrument in
targeting this subset.
Education and awareness programs with
strong emphasis on legal education.
Type “C” non-compliance
Type “D” non-compliance
Education and awareness programs with
strong emphasis on environmental
education.
Education and awareness programs would
be ineffective for such miners. These
miners are aware of the laws and the
damage wrought to the environment by
their non-compliance, but choose to be
deliberate violators. Penalties and/or
incentives are best applied here.
64
The challenge, of course, would be to determine the category in which a miner or a
mining camp should be placed. Such information could be gathered by a program
of field surveys, questionnaires and interviews.
7.2. The issue of monitoring and enforcement
The limiting factor to GGMC’s ability to enforce regulations is its manpower and
financial resources. Despite the best intentions, too few officers are on the ground,
a situation that has led to sporadic enforcement of the present regulations. With the
enactment of more complex mining and environmental regulations, the inadequacy
of GGMC’s capacity as a monitoring and enforcement agency must be dealt with
urgently.
In situations where responsibilities outweigh resources, an organization must strive
to prioritize its interventions and its targets. An attempt could be made to prioritize
mining zones by levels of risk based on factors such as:
•
•
•
•
Number, scale and type of mining operations in the area;
Number of Amerindian and other communities likely to be affected;
Presence of other land uses (timber operations, eco-tourism, protected parks,
etc);
Category of non-compliance.
Manpower and other resources could then be focused more on areas deemed to be
high risk. Such information would have to be regularly updated to cater for the
changing conditions in each area.
7.3. Remediation/clean up of hotspots
The identification and treatment of hot spots in Guyana have received only sparse
attention. The GGMC needs to adopt a systematic approach to the environmental
management of hotspots. Target areas must be prioritized in terms of expected level
of contamination. Research and literature review must be conducted to determine
the best treatment methods for mercury hotspots.
In terms of expected or actual levels of contamination, mining spots and areas
could be meaningfully classified into five types:
•
rapidly emerging areas that are currently facing gold rush activity;
•
mature mining areas that have been worked for several decades and are still
being worked;
•
areas that were once worked extensively but now are only worked to a limited
degree;
•
areas where reworking of tailings from previous operations is dominant; and
•
totally abandoned mining areas.
65
Information on the location of Amerindian and other hinterland communities must
be superimposed on such a classification to determine priority areas for remediation
work. Remediation work need not await scientific confirmation in all cases.
Adopting the precautionary principle, the GGMC must move in to treat any area
that can be deemed a hotspot based on strong circumstantial evidence.
As regards treatment methods, research has been conducted in Brazil and other
countries to determine the most effective methods to neutralize mercury
contamination in hotspots. Techniques that utilize rubber scraps (e.g. old tires) and
scrap iron are attractive possibilities in Guyana in terms of the availability and ease
of transport of such material.
7.4. Reduction of mercury emissions and other avenues of contamination
Solutions to the reduction of mercury emissions, spillages, discards and other
avenues of contamination are normally divided into individual solutions and
systematic solutions. Individual solutions include measures such as (i) education
and awareness (brochures, etc), (ii) technical support, (iii) the use of retorts, and
(iv) the use of special fume hoods.
The preparation and distribution of brochures are relatively cheap. The Guyana
mining population (both laborers and claim holders) are adequately educated to
understand these forms of communication. The main question would be whether
they are interested in reading the information. At minimum, brochures must be
attractive, readable and printed on sturdy paper. Laminated posters should be
placed in community areas where miners frequent (shops, drinking spots, police
stations, etc)
The GGMC already has a special unit, the Mines Technical Division, which
provides technical support to miners. Small staff numbers and regular staff
resignations have hampered its effectiveness. Improvements have to be sought
along these lines.
The use of retorts has not caught on in Guyana, despite efforts by the GGMC to
promote the technology. In a GGMC/GENCAPD pilot scheme a few years ago in
which retorts were distributed free of cost to some miners, the devices quickly fell
into disuse. Miners are of the view that retorts require too much time and attention.
Of the systematic solutions (processing centers, law enforcement, demonstrations,
group seminars, etc), the authorities should target claim holders and dredge
managers for regular education and training seminars. These two groups are easier
to reach, especially claimholders who are in many cases absentee owners and live
on the coast. The evidence from well-run mining operations in Guyana clearly
suggest that the attitude of owners and managers towards environmental, mine
safety and other issues can impact on the adoption of good practices.
66
7.5. Adoption of cleaner alternative technologies
From the early 1990s, land dredging, or hydraulicking, has grown to become the
dominant mining technique among small to medium scale operators in Guyana.
The main environmental issues involved with these operations are the release of
untreated effluent into the rivers and other waterways, the use of mercury in open
circuits and the disregard for land reclamation requirements (the stagnant pools left
behind soon become breeding grounds for malaria-carrying mosquitoes.) Cleaner
technologies would have to focus on dry mining extraction methods and recovery
techniques that eliminate or reduce the use of mercury.
Miners would be reluctant to adopt new technologies if the cost is prohibitive. The
concept of BATEA (Best Available Technology Economically Available) has been
discussed at GGMC-sponsored multi-stakeholder workshops, but no concrete
proposals to effectuate the idea have emerged. Acceptance of new technology in
Guyana is facilitated by the fact that most of the mining population is educated.
Costs then would be the main deterrence. Accordingly, the government is on record
expressing its willingness to exempt from duties any mining equipment or material
that will promote more environmentally-friendly mining. GGMC has to increase
efforts to research and introduce BATEA to miners.
7.6. Improved mineral recoveries
Mineral recovery rates of small mines in Guyana are from all accounts below 40%
for fine gold. These operations still rely on the sluice box as the main processing
technique. The various factors that are involved in increasing the efficiency of
sluice boxes are not generally known to miners. Much of what passes as technical
know-how or best practices is unproven assumptions and myths.
Improving mineral recovery of operations and hence their economic viability,
however, constitute a major opportunity to get miners to accept and afford the
additional costs that will accompany the requirements for higher environmental
standards in mining. The newly proposed Guyana environmental regulations
mandate that mining operations must include, for example, tailings management,
treatment of mine effluents, and mine reclamation. These requirements would
surely increase mining costs. These additional costs would serve as disincentives to
compliance. If, however, mining operations could be made more profitable, and if
mining authorities play an integral role in such efforts, compliance to new
environmental standards would be engendered.
While mining costs could be reduced by better transportation infrastructure, more
scope lies in improving recovery rates of the sluice box. Much of GGMC’s efforts
should be concentrated here.
67
7.7 Data collection and field studies
The key to effective and systematic environment management of mining resides in
data collection and field investigations. Current efforts could, however, be
enhanced.
•
A coordinated and prioritized program of research should be worked out among
agencies that are directly involved in the mining sector or that have
responsibility for hinterland matters. Specific reference is made here to the
GGMC, IAST, UG, EPA, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health, and
Ministry of Amerindian Affairs.
•
Uniform field survey techniques should be worked out so that results can be
compared from place to place and over time.
•
GGMC should incorporate mercury as one of the elements analyzed in its
geochemical mineral exploration surveys to determine natural background
values.
•
Orientation surveys should be conducted to determine most suitable field
techniques in Guyana.
•
A thorough literature review of all previous studies locally, regionally and
internationally should be done.
•
The culture of treating field and research reports as ends in themselves has to be
broken. Findings and recommendations must be used to inform planning and
decision-making.
7.8. Involvement of local communities
The Guyana constitution mandates that people and communities must be involved
in the making of decisions that directly affect them at the national and local levels.
In more specific terms, this principle is captured in the Environmental Protection
Act of 1996, which mandates the participation of communities (with special
reference to Indigenous communities) that are likely to be affected by the work of a
developer. There is clearly no deficiency in the legislation or in international
conventions, to which Guyana is a signatory, on the question of local participation.
Efforts in Guyana should be directed therefore at designing effective consultative
and joint decision-making mechanisms and structures.
7.9. Needs assessments
Needs assessments should be urgently conducted for the following mining industry
stakeholders to improve their capacity and capability in environmental management
of mining.
68
Table 14: Sketch of Needs Assessment of selected stakeholders
Stakeholder
GGMC
University of
Guyana
Amerindian
communities/
organizations
GGDMA
EPA
Possible Areas of focus
•
•
•
Field research capacity
Staffing training
Chemical Lab facilities
•
•
•
•
•
•
Research capability
Lab facilities
Staff training
Curricula development
Training
Field measurement capability
•
•
•
•
•
•
Access to information on technology
Exposure to best practices
Development of self-regulation schemes and
techniques
Field research capacity
Staffing training
Chemical Lab facilities
69
REFERENCES
1. Arpin, M. – Code of Practice for the Small-Scale and Medium-Scale
Mining Industry of Guyana. Georgetown: GENCAPD, 2003.
2. Arpin, M. - Workshop on the Acceptance of Mining Environmental
Regul;ations by Small and Medium-Scale Miners in Guyana.
Georgetown: GENCAPD, 2004.
3. Barnes, J.; Harrison, J.; etal - Summary Report: Workshop on Mercury
Use in the Mining Industry in Guyana. Georgetown: GENCAPD, 2000.
4. Benjamin-Noble, R. – Review of the Existing Legislation Regarding
Mercury Use and Storage in Guyana. Georgetown: GGMC/GENCAPD,
2000.
5. Coates, J.S.; Jones, R.C.; Davies, B.J. – An Affordable Exploration and
Mining License Administration System for Developing Countries. BGS
Technical Report WC/98/62.
6. Cholchester, M.; La Rose, J.; James, K. - Mining and Amerindians in
Guyana. Georgetown: Amerindian Peoples Asociation/North-South
Institute, 2002.
7. Forte, J. – Impact of the Gold Industry on the Indigenous Peoples of
Guyana. Transition, Special Issue 27-28. Georgetown: Institute of
Development Studies, UG. 1998.
8. Glasgow, R. - Mercury Use in Placer Mining. Georgetown:
GGMC/GENCAPD, 2000.
9. Gordon, S.; La Fleur, C., etal – Report on the Impact of Mining on
Health in Guyana. Georgetown: GENCAPD/Ministry of Health/GGMC,
2003.
10. Hughes, N.; Furamera, D. - Socio-economic Issues Relevant to the
Uptake of Technology in Small-Scale Gold Mining: Studies in Guyana
and Zimbabwe. BGS Technical Report WC/99/7.
11. Hunter, L. – The Forestry Sector in Guyana. Georgetown: GFC, 2001.
12. Livan, K.– Paper on Pollution Prevention and Control in Mining.
Georgetown: GGMC, 2004.
70
13. Livan, K.
Conference Paper on Improving Environmental
Management Practices in Mining in Guyana. Perth: UNEP, 2000.
14. Lowe, S.– Historical Analysis of Mining Policy, Law and
Administration in Guyana, 1831-2002. Georgetown: Pavnik Press, 2002.
15. McDonald, D.; Husbands, D. – Report on Land Dredge Operation in the
Tamakay Area. Georgetown: GGMC, 1996.
16. Palmer, C.J.; Validum, L.; etal – HIV Prevalence in a Gold Mining
Camp in the Amazon Region, Guyana. Emerging Infectious Diseases
online, Vol. 8, No. 3, March 2002.
17. Singh, D.; Watson, C.; Mangal, S. - Identification of the Sources and
Assessment of the Levels of Mercury Contamination in the Mazaruni
Basin in Guyana, in order to Recommend Mitigation Measures.
18. Styles,M.T.; Simpson, J.; Steadman, E.J.-- Good Practice in the Design
and Use of Large Sluice Boxes. British Geological Survey Commissioned
Report, CR/02/029N.
19. Veigo, M. M. – Introducing New Technologies for Abatement of Global
Mercury Pollution in Latin America. Rio de Janeiro:
UNIDO/UBC/CETEM/CNPq, 1997.
20. Veigo, M. M. – Artisanal Gold Mining Activities in Guyana.
Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1998.
21. Vieira, R. – A Review of Some of the Major Issues of Small-Scale
Mining in Guyana. Georgetown: GGMC, 2000.
22. Breaking New Ground: The Report of the MMSD Project. London:
Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2002.
23. National Development Strategy, 2001 - 2010 Policy Framework:
Eradicating Poverty and Unifying Guyana. Civil Society Document,
2001.
24. Draft National Development Strategy. Chapter 18: Environmental
Policy. Georgetown, 1996.
25. Guyana National Environmental Action Plan 2001-2005. Georgetown:
Environmental Protection Agency.
26. Indigenous Peoples, Land Rights and Mining in the Upper Mazaruni.
A Report by the Upper Mazaruni Amerindian Council, The Amerindian
71
Peoples Association of Guyana, Forest Peoples Programme. Global Law
Association, 2000.
27. Proposal for the School of Environmental & Earth Sciences.
Georgetown: University of Guyana, Turkeyen Campus, 2004.
28. Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment of Mining Projects
in Guyana. Georgetown: EPA, 1999.
29. Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 3: Mining.
Georgetown: EPA/Environmental Assessment Board, 2000
30. National Protected Areas System: Draft Social Framework Strategy.
Georgetown: National Protected Areas Secretariat, 2003.
31. Removal of Barriers to the Introduction of Cleaner Artisanal Gold
Mining and Extraction Technologies. GEF-UNDP Project
EG/GLO/01/G34.
32. Draft Environmental Regulations made under the Mining Act (No. 20
of 1989). Georgetown: GGMC, 2004.
33. Memorandum of Understanding between the EPA and the GGMC.
Georgetown, 1997.
34. Environmental Protection Agency, Guyana: Annual Report 2000.
Georgetown: EPA, 2000.
35. The Gold Industry in Guyana. A Position Paper by the Guyana Gold and
Diamond Miners Association. Georgetown: GGDMA, 1998.
36. Analyses of Guyana’s Forest Sector GDP (2000-2003), Part I.
Georgetown: Guyana Forestry Commission, 2004.
37. Pre-investment Study of the Guyana Jewellery Industry. Georgetown:
GGMC/CDB, 1994.
38. Training for the Guyanese Jewellery Industry. Prepared by the
Kilkenny Development partners for the Centre for the Development of
Industry, Brussels. 1995.
39. Artisanal Mining and Poverty. ELIMINA, 2003.
40. Address by Hon. Samuel A. Hinds, Prime Minister, Republic of Guyana, at
the opening of the National Mining Week Exhibition, 2004-08-23.
41. The Revised Mining Regulations: Concepts: Georgetown: GGMC, 1999.
72
CASE STUDY:
SMALL-SCALE GOLD MINING IN MAHDIA, GUYANA
Lessons in environmental management of small-scale gold mining
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Choice of the mining community of Mahdia for case study in SSM
The selection of Mahdia for a case study presents us with a learning opportunity at
two levels. At one level, as the community has a long history of small-scale gold
mining, the social and environmental impacts of this activity would be fully
registered and thus be more observable. Mahdia, however, provides another and
more important learning opportunity. Over the last ten years, the area has been the
target of government efforts to transform it into a model of sound environmental
management and mining practices. Mahdia became a testing ground for several
initiatives, most notably in relation
to the drafting and implementation
of environmental regulations, the
management of individual claims
under an integrated mine plan, the
state-funding of the construction of
mine infrastructure, and the
provision of technical services to
miners. How have these efforts
fared? And what can we learn from
the experience? Can Mahdia today
be advertised as a model in sound
environmental mining?
This article focuses on these
questions. We believe that the
lessons from Mahdia must not be
ignored as the country moves to
enforce
wide-ranging
environmental regulations for
ASM. Already, some of the
negative factors prevalent during
the Mahdia experiment have
resurfaced in light of the imminent
enforcement
of
these
new
regulations. The experiences from
Mahdia should serve to forewarn
us.
Figure. 8. Mahdia Location map
73
1.2. Location and access
Mahdia is located in the north central Guyana in the drainage of the Potaro River
(Frame 8), a tributary of the Essequibo River. It is about 200 km SSW of
Georgetown, the country’s capital city, and 30 km SW of the mining operations of
Omai Gold Mines.
Access to Mahdia from Georgetown is possible by land, water and air. Mahdia has
good transportation links with Georgetown and the coast at large. The BarticaPotaro road, which is maintained by private mining interests, allows heavy goods
and passenger vehicles access to the community. A journey by road from
Georgetown takes approximately 6 to 7 hours. The Konawaruk road also provides a
link with the Soesdyke-Linden Highway via the community of Mabura.
Internal flights to Mahdia originate from both the Cheddi Jagan International
Airport and the airstrip at Ogle. A chartered flight from the coast takes
approximately one hour to get to Mahdia airstrip. The airstrip is 1.2 km long and
laterite-surfaced.
The mining community could also be reached by boat from Tumatumari to
Garraway Stream, followed by a short trip by road.
1.3. The natural environment
•
Geomorphology and topography
Geomorphologically, the Mahdia project area is classified as being in the PreCambrian Lowlands region of Guyana. In its pristine state, the landscape is gently
undulating with an average gradient of about 3.5m/km, sloping downward toward
the Potaro River in the north. The most striking landforms are the Mahdiana and
Eagle mountains, which rise to 548 m and 716m, respectively. These mountains
result from a magmatic intrusion which trends northeast/southwest and which gives
rise to Tumatumari Falls where it crosses the Potaro River.
There are two geomorphological domains in the Mahdia area: the “highland”,
represented by the Konawaruk mountain range, and the “lowland”’ represented by
the Mahdia River valley. The highlands range in elevation up to 1,000m. They are
characterized by small plateau-like summits formed by diabase sills which are
intrusive to the Roraima Formation. The Mahdia River valley lowland is
distinguished by its broad “U” shaped form.
•
Climate
The climate at Mahdia is equatorial; conditions are warm and humid year round.
Precipitation greatly exceeds evapo-transpiration, with significant amounts of rain
falling in all months. Temperatures at Mahdia are relatively invariant throughout
the year, with the warmest months being in the dry season late in the year. Extreme
74
minimum and maximum temperatures were recorded in the vicinity of 200C and
400C, respectively. Available information indicates that humidity is high
throughout the year.
•
Hydrology and river basins
In its pristine state, the Mahdia area is characteristic of most other hinterland
basins, being cut by numerous “clear water” streams which drain into the Potaro
River. The site of the Mahdia project is in the lower reaches of Potaro River basin.
The Potaro River rises in the Ayanganna Mountains (part of the Pakaraima Range)
at approximately 2,050m and drops rapidly to the northeast, joining the Essequibo
river at about 24m elevation. Precipitation is plentiful throughout the basin,
especially at higher altitudes where the highest levels of precipitation in Guyana are
observed.
Hydrologically, the Mahdia project area may be divided into three major segments:
those drained by the Minnehaha, Mahdia and Konawak Rivers. The Konawak and
its tributaries drain the northern part of the property northward to the Potaro. The
central and south-central portions are drained by the Mahdia and its tributaries,
which flow northwest through the Mahdia village. The Mahdia drainage basin
includes the airstrip, as well as a large portion of the Mahdiana Mountain and part
of the Eagle Mountain. The extreme southern portion drains into the Minnehaha
River, which flows to the south. The drainage pattern is generally dendritic.
Although rainfall in the area can be sporadic, groundwater outflow was always
sufficient during dry periods to maintain flow in all but the smallest streams. The
Mahdia River drainage receives water and tailings run-off from White Hole and
Red Hole, as well as from other mining areas upstream.
Annual precipitation at Mahdia is high. Significant rain falls in all months,
although there are two “wetter” periods; May – July and December – January. The
driest months are September and October. Typical of tropical regions, the
precipitation regime at Mahdia is dominated by storms of short duration and high
intensity. This pattern will tend to influence the flood flow estimates for small
catchments in the Mahdia project area.
1.4. Local government and administration
Guyana is divided into ten administrative regions. Mahdia falls within Region # 8,
a region that covers the catchment areas of the Potaro and Siparuni rivers. Mahdia
is the administrative centre for the entire region as well as for the Potaro Mining
District (Mining District #2). As such, the community hosts the Regional
Democratic Council (RDC) offices and the Regional GGMC District Office, the
latter currently staffed by a resident mining engineer, mines officer and support
staff. The regional administration is responsible for social services, such as heath
and education, and for the maintenance of transportation and other infrastructure. It
has no responsibility for the regulation and administration of mining or other
extractive industries.
75
In one section of Mahdia, known as Campbeltown and populated mostly by
Amerindians, regulations pertaining specifically to Amerindian community apply.
Campbeltown is therefore headed by a traditional Amerindian captain.
1.5. Socio-economic conditions
•
Demography
Mahdia has a population of around 2,191 persons. The population is made up of
1096 Negroes, 657 East Indians, 219 Amerindians and 220 others (Guyana
National Census 1991). This population figure is subject to significant flux due to
the transient nature of small – scale miners. The area is rural with an average
household size of 5-7 persons. For the most part, the inhabitants of Mahdia
originate from other areas of Guyana and from West Indian islands such as St.
Lucia.
•
Local economy
Gold mining is the predominant occupational activity in and around Mahdia and
has relegated other occupational activities into a secondary position. A survey of 70
persons administered at Mahdia and the nearby mining communities revealed that
74.3% had someone in their household working in mining, while only 7.1% were
involved in other occupation, such as government employment, farming and selfemployment.27
The most common agriculture crops are ground provisions, citrus and breadfruit.
Livestock rearing is mostly on a subsistence basis. However, the agriculture sector
is too small to meet the consumer demands of local residents. As such the
necessary provisions are brought in from Georgetown and sold at inflated prices.
Hunting and fishing are not undertaken in the immediate area due to human
intrusion and environmental degradation associated with mining. Forestry does not
also contribute to the local economy at a commercial level but has in the past been
important for local building activity.
There is a small but thriving business sector providing foodstuff, mining
equipment, hardware and fuel. There are also a few hotels, bars and video houses.
There are a few commercial outlets that are licensed to buy gold on behalf of the
Guyana Gold Board.
•
Education
The level of education in the Mahdia areas is considerably higher than one would
expect in comparable areas of South America (World Development Report, 199827
Drs Gordon, S.; La Fleur, C., etal – Report on the Impact of Mining on Health in Guyana.
Georgetown: GENCAPD/Ministry of Health/GGMC, 2003.
76
9). Mahdia has a primary and secondary school and education, as in the rest of the
country. is compulsory until the age of 17. At Mahdia, 42.3% of the head of the
households who were miners had an education level beyond the primary level,
while 30% had completed their secondary education.28 These results are reflected in
another survey done by the BGS, which found that 95% of those interviewed had at
least primary education and 62% had at least secondary education.29
As in most other mining communities in Guyana, the high education levels of
miners facilitate the easy assimilation of education and training material.
•
Infrastructure
There is no mains electricity in the Mahdia area, although some of the major
commercial outlets have generators and provide electricity to other smaller
businesses or persons who can afford it. Residents do not have access to running
water and either collect rain water running off rooftops, or use shallow well water
from Campbeltown or from around the Mahdia Police station. In dry seasons,
residents use water from the Konawak River approximately three miles from
Mahdia. Communication is via radio to other parts of the hinterland. Phone patch
systems are utilized to communicate with areas that have telephones, including
internationally.
•
Health Facilities
Frame 8: Mahdia cottage hospital
There is a Mahdia District Hospital (Frame 8) that can accommodate approximately
40 persons. The majority of resources are concentrated on treating the most
common diseases and ailments such as malaria and fungal infections. The hospital
has an outpatient unit, emergency and treatment unit room, delivery room,
microscopist room, a laboratory and staff facilities.
28
ibid
29
N. Hughes & D. Furamera: Socio-economic issues relevant to the uptake of new technology in
small-scale mining. BGS Technical Report WC/99/7.
77
2.MAHDIA GOLD PROJECT: MODEL BUILDING
2.1. Background
In the early 1990s, Golden Star Resources (GSR) was the most active exploration
company in Guyana. The company explored and eventually outlined an alluvial
deposit containing approximately 190,500 ounces of gold in thirteen million cubic
meters of ore. The deposit, known as the Proto-Mahdia, was identified as a goldbearing paleo-channel of the present day Mahdia River. The deposit was
approximately 5 miles (8 kilometers) long and 1,000 ft. (300 meters) wide and 33
feet (10 meters) thick. Exploration by Golden Star consisted of 1,400 banka drill
holes, numerous test pits and a bulk sampling program. Most of the gold reserves
were classified as proven.
The company failed to attract a financial partner, as it had done with the Omai gold
deposit and had subsequently relinquished the property to the government. In the
aftermath, illegal mining became rampant in the explored area.
The government soon took the decision to allocate the relinquished Proto-Mahdia
property to local miners. The Minister responsible for mining established a
committee of industry stakeholders, chaired by a senior GGMC officer, to plan the
allocation of mining blocks through a lottery system. In January 1996, 189 blocks
were allocated to winners of the lottery. By the end of 1996, the entire area was
surveyed and the allocated mining blocks demarcated on the ground. Areas not
blocked were made available for claim staking.
In the process, the opportunity was taken to put in place an administrative and
environmental management plan for the entire property. This was a novel approach
to mining administration in Guyana. The fact that the allocated blocks had known
reserves and were concentrated on one property facilitated this integrated approach.
The Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) undertook the
responsibility of (i) drawing up a mine plan for the efficient extraction of ore and
disposal of tailings (see section 2.4.), (ii) providing infrastructure, such as access
roads and tailing dams, the costs of which were to be incrementally refunded to the
GGMC by miners; (ii) providing technical assistance to miners by stationing
geologists and mining engineers in the area. The key ingredient, however, was the
environmental protection obligations placed on miners, as outlined in an agreement
titled the Mahdia Environmental Management Agreement (MEMA.) (see section
2.3.). For the first time in Guyana, small-scale miners were being held to some of
the same environmental and mining standards stipulated for large-scale operations.
Management of the entire project was initially contracted to a private firm -- which
again was an innovative approach to mining administration in Guyana. After two
and a half months, however, this arrangement broke down. Government therefore
established in April 1997 a management committee to assume responsibility for
supervising mining activities in the area. The main output of this committee was
78
the Mahdia Project Execution Proposal document, outlining a mine plan for the
area (see section 2.4.). With the MEMA and the project execution document, the
main elements of the Mahdia model were now in place.
From the miner’s point of view, the project contained two main attractions. For
one, the allocated blocks were already geologically characterized and determined to
contain a known gold reserve. Miners were therefore spared the financial costs and
uncertainty of conducting their own mineral exploration. Secondly, the initial
infrastructure costs were to be shouldered by the GGMC. Thirdly, the commission
committed to providing technical assistance and training to operators.
From the government’s point of view, in deciding to allocate the relinquished
property to small-scale miners, it was foregoing the option of attracting another
large-scale company who could offer a more “monitorable” gold output and better
environmental practices. The government was therefore correct in demanding
some of the similar commitments from small-scale miners.
2.2. The Mahdia Environmental Management Agreement (MEMA)
One cornerstone of the Mahdia project was the Mahdia Environmental
Management Agreement (MEMA). This contract between the GGMC and those
miners who were allocated blocks in the area obligated them to adhere to several
environmental standards and practices in their mining operations. These
obligations, numbering over fifteen, were far more wide-ranging than those
contained in the local mining legislation to that point.
In particular, the MEMA committed miners to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
undertake a soil profile test in anticipation of post-mining refilling of
excavations and re-vegetation;
determine the flora and fauna diversity within the gold property;
ensure that protective wear, including suitable respirators, is worn at all times
during mercury handling;
ensure that a retort is used at all times during the burning of amalgam;
construct settling ponds for discharge of tailings and to prevent the direct
discharge of tailings into water courses;
lodge an environmental bond in the form of a bank guaranteed deposit; and
compensate any persons who suffer any loss or damage as a result of any
pollution or environmental impact.
The MEMA was drafted with the participation of the local mining community.
From that standpoint, it was therefore not a unilateral imposition by the authority.
This inclusive approach was expected to encourage a greater willingness to comply.
79
2.3. The Mahdia Project Execution Proposal
In mid-1997, a Mahdia project execution plan was drafted. It outlined (i) a mine
plan for the effective mining of the area (providing technical guidelines on
deforestation, stripping, water intake, mining, processing, and tailings
management); (ii) the project organization and implementation structures and
schedules; and (iii) the engineering guidelines and designs for the construction of
infrastructure works (access roads and dams).
A central underpinning of the project design was that in the mine plan, the entire
property was treated as one integrated unit. The design and placement of access and
impoundment dams and tailings sites was therefore not left to the discretion of
individual block owners. An integrated mine plan, it was felt, would reduce
duplication of infrastructure, use land space more efficiently, and reduce the
disruptive effects that any one operation may have on adjoining operations.
The plan envisaged mining to progress in a sequence of blocks. As mining
proceeds, the mined out areas will be refilled as part of progressive reclamation. It
was envisaged that hydraulicking would be the main mining method, and
amalgamation the principle technique to recover gold.
2.4. Environmental Assessment of project area
In 1997, an environmental assessment (EA) of the project area was conducted on
behalf of the GGMC by the Environmental Studies Unit, University of Guyana.
The objectives for this assessment were:
•
identification of potentially serious negative impacts of small-scale gold
mining on the environmental and social welfare of local populace, and to
recommend mitigating measures for effective management of these operations;
•
provision of information that will guide prudent management practices that
satisfy local and national concerns;
•
identification of those aspects of environmental and social concerns which
need to be monitored continuously;
•
increasing understanding of the potentials of project, for their effective
integration and to detail possible mechanisms for conflict resolution.
2.5. Training of miners and public education
The Mahdia project also included a training component for miners. Two examples
are worthy of note. In September 1999, placer mining demonstrations were
conducted at Mahdia. Miners were exposed to Canadian sluice box technology;
alluvial exploration and sampling techniques (drilling, bulk sampling and sample
80
processing); mine planning for river dredging and land operations; land restoration
techniques; settling pond design; and gravity-based concentration equipment other
than sluices.
The second workshop was aimed at improving small-scale mining methods. Topics
included proper mercury use.
2.6. In summary
In summary therefore, the Mahdia project contained the following key elements:
•
The direct blessings and involvement of the Minister responsible for mining.
•
The participation of the mining community in key phases of the project,
notably the planning and supervision of the lottery for block allocation, and the
drafting of the MEMA.
•
An integrated mine plan drafted by engineers covering mine design and
infrastructure works.
•
A training component for miners.
•
Baseline environmental impact assessments.
3. RESULTS AND RESPONSES ON THE GROUND
3.1. The mine plan and infrastructure works
Only a minimum of the infrastructure works were constructed by GGMC. In
particular, none of the internal dams and roads was built. The integrated mine plan
was not implemented.
3.2. Observance of the MEMA
The MEMA was enforced only sporadically. As a result, environmental damage in
the Mahdia area continued unabated.
In August to September 1998, the Environmental Division of the GGMC conducted
an inspection/monitoring exercise in the Mahdia Project area. At the time, there
were fifteen medium-scale license holders operating in the area, all of whom had
signed the MEMA. The main objectives therefore of the exercise were to:
•
•
•
•
ascertain their level of compliance with the MEMA;
enforce the provisions where necessary;
determine what impacts mining activity had on the water supply to the Mahdia
community; and
monitor occupational health and safety practices on mine sites.
81
The findings of the inspection team demonstrated clearly that the environmental
management system had broken down. The team reported that:
•
serious breaches of the MEMA were evident. Most operators were not owners
of the allocated blocks and were ignorant of the existence of the MEMA;
•
mercury was used in the sluice boxes to amalgamate the sluice concentrate;
•
volatilization of mercury from gold amalgamation was done on open flame,
often on firesides in the camp kitchen;
•
no significant attempt was made to reclaim mined out areas (Frame 9);
•
there was an absence of reservoirs (for storing fresh water) and tailings
impoundment facilities. Tailings from sluice boxes were allowed to run
directly and indirectly into watercourses and, in some case, on un-worked
ground;
•
occupational health and safety standards were found to be poor. For example,
there was an absence of basic disposal facilities for domestic waste and human
excrement; and
•
absence of regulations, standards and guidelines constrained the team’s ability
to enforce the MEMA.
Frame 9. Blocks 5 to 9 St. Elizabeth, Proto-Mahdia
In another GGMC study of the Mahdia area in 2000, black sand concentrates from
several dredge operations were sampled and chemically tested. It was reported that:
“Mercury content of many discarded black sand concentrates is very high,
indicating that this material is an environmental hazard. At least some of the gold
being discarded probably occurs as mercury amalgam, but some samples with high
82
gold only contain low amounts of mercury, suggesting that not all gold has been
amalgamated”30
As regards tailings management, a GGMC field survey as recently as 2004 reported
out of a total of fifty one operations in the Mahdia-Potaro area, only twenty- two
percent (22%) were recycling water or properly managing tailings. Fifty percent
(50%) of the operations surveyed were discharging mine effluent directly into
creeks and rivers or the environment.31
In Mahdia therefore, the mining was being practiced, and is currently being
practiced,
4. WHY DID THE MAHDIA PROJECT FAIL?
1. The MEMA was signed between the GGMC and those who won mining
blocks at the lottery. However, it became evident that several block owners
contracted out their properties to others under a tribute arrangement. Mine
operators on the ground, therefore, felt no obligation to comply with the
MEMA or, what was more likely, were totally ignorant of its existence.
2. The imposition of the MEMA did not sit well with the mining community.
The agreement emerged at a time when miners in Guyana had no prior
technical experience or cultural conditioning in complying with
environment standards of such scope. Added to that, is the financial factor:
compliance would have driven up mining costs and reduce profit margins.
It could be argued, on the other hand, that in the Mahdia project the miner
accrued substantial savings, in that he was given an already located and
proven gold deposit.
3. The financial and technical requirements under the MEMA, however,
triggered a political lobbying effort by miners to remove or reduce their
enforcement. Violations of the agreement were eventually overlooked. The
authorities did not exercise the necessary political will to enforce the
regulations.
4. Recently, however, the GGMC has stepped up enforcement. This new
effort comes in the wake of the impending enforcement of a comprehensive
set of environmental regulations for mining. Public awareness of and
protests over mine pollution (especially river turbidity) have also increased.
Mining operations are now being closed down for environmental
30
Heesterman, L.J.L., Kemp, A.W. & Sampson, E. 2000 -- A Summary of Geochemistry of Land
Dredges in the Mahdia Area, Potaro District. Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, Geoservices
Division Technical Report.
31
Chandan, D. -- Mining District # 2: Environmental Review and Tailings Management 2004.
GGMC, 2004
83
violations. The effectiveness of these efforts is however been hampered by
the shortage of GGMC field officers.
5. The EMA apart, the Mahdia project failed as attempts to implement an
integrated mine plan for all properties were plagued by design problems.
Surface areas on some blocks were too limited for the depth of the mine
pits, posing serious threats of slope failure in some instances. The small
areas also forced operators to repeatedly handle material, driving up mining
costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the imminent enactment of environmental regulations for mining, the
GGMC may do well to learn lessons from the Mahdia experience.
•
Involvement of local community and administrators. In the Mahdia project,
neither the residents in the Amerindian community of Campbeltown nor in the
town of Mahdia itself were involved or asked to participate. A major
stakeholder was therefore sidelined in setting up environmental guidelines and
in monitoring them.
The Guyana constitution mandates that people and communities must be
involved in the making of decisions that directly affect them at the national and
local levels. In more specific terms, this principle is captured in the
Environmental Protection Act of 1996, which mandates the participation of
communities (with special reference to Indigenous communities) that are likely
to be affected by the work of a developer. There is clearly no deficiency in the
legislation or in international conventions, to which Guyana is a signatory, on
the question of local participation. Efforts should be directed therefore at
designing effective consultative and participative mechanisms and structures.
•
Determination of responsible party for compliance: permit holder or mine
operator.As it turned out, many of those who won blocks in the lottery and
who signed the MEMA as medium-scale permit holders either contracted out
or sold their blocks. Nothing in the mining regulations prevented this
transaction. Operators on the ground therefore had no knowledge of the
existence of an environmental agreement.
•
More staff and facilities for GGMC mine stations. The inadequate staffing of
GGMC interior mine stations is a problem that has been recognized by the
commission. Efforts should continue to hire more field officers and to upgrade
the quality of the accommodation and other living conditions for field staff.
•
Enhancing the technical capability of miners to comply with regulations. The
requirements under the newly-enacted environmental regulations necessitate
that miners have access to a higher and broader range technical expertise.
Conducting environmental impact assessments and designing and operating
84
proper settling ponds, for example, fall outside the competence of most miners.
Mining authorities must find more innovative ways to giving miners this
access other than asking miners themselves to hire and pay for the necessary
technical expertise. Where feasible, miners must be trained to perform some of
these services for themselves, as there is a resistance of mine owners to hire
outside experts.
•
Improved mineral recovery as a way to increase the financial capacity to
comply. Mineral recovery rates of small mines in Guyana are from all accounts
below 40%. These operations still rely on the sluice box as the main processing
technique. The various factors that are involved in increasing the efficiency of
sluice boxes are not generally known to miners. Much of what passes as
technical know-how or best practices is unproven assumptions and myths.
Improving mineral recovery of operations and hence their economic viability,
however, constitute a major opportunity to get miners to accept and afford the
additional costs that will accompany the requirements for higher environmental
standards in mining. The newly proposed Guyana environmental regulations
mandate that mining operations must include, for example, tailings
management, treatment of mine effluents, and mine reclamation. These
requirements would surely increase mining costs. These additional costs would
serve as disincentives to compliance. If, however, mining operations could be
made more profitable, and if mining authorities play an integral role in such
efforts, compliance to new environmental standards would be engendered.
While mining costs could be reduced by better transportation infrastructure,
more scope lies in improving recovery rates of the sluice box. Much of
GGMC’s efforts should be concentrated here.
The scope for improved gold recovery is wide. A GGMC study in 2000 of
black sand concentrates from dredges in the Mahdia highlights this. The study
found that (i) black sand discarded after amalgamation still contains significant
amounts of gold, and (ii) not all of the gold is collected through amalgamation
and is instead discarded with the black sand.32
32
Heesterman, L.J.L., Kemp, A.W. & Sampson, E. 2000. A Summary of Geochemistry of Land Dredges in
the Mahdia Area, Potaro District. Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, Geoservices Division Technical
Report.
85
1. REFERENCE
2. Chandan, D. -- Mining District # 2: Environmental Review and Tailings
Management 2004. GGMC, 2004
3. Livan, K., Watson, E., Todd, C. -- Potaro River Orientation Survey: A
Preliminary Study of Suspended Solids and Mercury in the Mahdia
Mining Drainage Basin. GENCAPD/GGMC, 2001
4. Bynoe, Mark and David Singh -- Environmental Assessment: Mahdia
Area. University of Guyana, December 1997.
5. Wilson, Steve– An Investigation of the Social and Aesthetics Effects of
Small Scale Mining in Mahdia. Final Year Project, Environmental
Studies Unit, UG. August 2001.
6. Drs Gordon, S.; La Fleur, C., etal – Report on the Impact of Mining on
Health in Guyana. Georgetown: GENCAPD/Ministry of Health/GGMC,
2003.
7. Project Proposal: An Outline for the Development and Monitoring of
Mining in Proto-Mahdia. Mahdia Implementation Committee. GGMC,
1997.
8. Heesterman, L.J.L., Kemp, A.W. & Sampson, E. 2000. A Summary of
Geochemistry of Land Dredges in the Mahdia Area, Potaro District.
Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, Geoservices Division Technical
Report.
9. GGMC Annual Report 1996
10. GGMC Annual Report 1997
11. GGMC Annual Report 1998
12. GGMC Annual Report 1999
13. GGMC Annual Report 2000
14. Golden Star Resources Ltd Annual Report 1993
15. Interviews
16. Minister responsible for mining, Prime Minister Sam Hinds – 27/10/2004
17. Commissioner GGMC, Mr. Robeson Benn
18. Sydney Edwards, Senior Mining Engineer, GGMC – 28/10/2004
19. Gordon Bradford, Chairman of Region #7 – 29/10/2004
20. Karen Livan, Manager, Environmental Division, GGMC – 2/11/ 2004
86
21. Jean La Rose, Program Coordinator, APA – 2/ 11/ 2004
22. Martin Cheong, Director, Amerindian Legal Services, APA
23. Edward Shields, Executive Secretary, GGDMA – 5/11/2004
24. Andrew Williams, President, Guyana National Association of Goldsmiths
and Jewelers – 18/02/2005
Consultations
John Loncke, Mining Engineer consultant
Ronald Glasgow – Mining Engineer, Mines Technical Division, GGMC
Kerion Husbands, GGMC
Carl Mathews, GGMC
Trevor Hurry, GGMC
87