THE APA sent me the document headline ‘Public statement by participants in a training of trainer workshop on the indigenous people’s rights, extracted industries and national development policies in Guyana held at the Cara Lodge, Georgetown Guyana (March 2 –8, 2010.’
The statement states, “After five and a half days reviewing current issues relating to mining, logging, protected area,, the draft LCDS and proposed REDD + policies that directly affect our lands and rights, we the undersigned participants including Toshaos, village leaders, community leaders and the APA executive leaders wish to make he following public statement.” The APA at their training workshop reviewed and made public comments on the following: (1) urgent need to address unresolved land issues, (2) experiences with public consultations and FPIC, (3) Mining, (4) logging, (5) LCDS and REDD + policies. The APA’s public statement was singed by nine Toshaos and three village councillors. The other 14 signatories are merely APA members.
Mr. Editor, please allow me to raise the following in relation to the letter.

1. I received the APA’s public statement on the April 14, 2010 by e-mail actually 37 days after the conclusion of their training workshop. Other persons and organisations also received copies of the public statement. But is this the APA’s standard of best practice? Sending a public statement 37 days after the conclusion of their training workshop which was held in shrouded secrecy?
2. Can the APA tell the Guyanese public if their training workshop held in Georgetown was in accordance with traditional and community based decision making customs and procedures? Can the APA say if bringing out the Toshaos and councillors from their familiar turfs on village lands to attend their training workshop to make decisions on current issues such as the LCDS/REDD + strategies not in a village meeting is in accordance with traditional and community-based decision making procedures? Can the APA say what was the diet of the Toshaos, village councillors and their members at the Cara Lodge which was the venue of their training workshop? Can the APA send to the EPA, GGMC, GFC, OCC and he MOAA a copy each on ‘the Amerindians traditional and community based decision making customs and procedures’ so that in the future they will know how to hold consultations in Amerindian communities? I challenge the APA to answer these questions and if they cannot, they should desist from accusing agencies on the limitations of their consultations when they themselves are the worst practitioners.
3. The ‘decisions’ that the Toshaos and village councillors made at the APA’s training workshop on the LCDS/REDD + strategies are null and void because such decisions should have been made in a village general meeting since the decision to participate by any village in the lcds is required to be made in a village general meeting (section 34, (2) of the Amerindian act 2006) and not at any workshop. The Toshaos and village councillors therefore contravene section 34 (2) of the Amerindian Act. The Toshaos also contravene section 22(1) of the Amerindian Act because they failed to carry out one of their duties which is to ‘report to the Minister on matters which affect the village’. If the matter of the LCDS/REDD + strategies were matters affecting the villages of the Toshaos why didn’t they report thes matters to the Minister of Amerindian Affairs but instead they carry their matters to the APA workshop and in the process contravene section 25(1) of the Amerindian act because they had placed themselves in a conflict of interest situation (being APA activists) which requires them to resign with immediate effect (section 26(d) of the Amerindian Act). If the APA violates the Amerindian Act, what will they do to international standards such as the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which they glamour and preach about? I think that is what the international donor agencies should be concerned about when listening to the plethora of complaints by the APA. The APA definitely needs to practice what they preach.
4. On the matter of outstanding land claims. This is a matter with direct reference to the six upper Mazaruni communities who on the advice of the APA took the government to the high court for the settlement of their land claims issue. How can the APA want the government to solve the problem they create by interfering with the functioning of the judicial system of the country? The APA cannot expect to eat its cake and have it? This is what the international donor agencies must know. An Advise to the upper Mazaruni communities is to withdraw their matter from the court system and engage the government directly devoid of the APA’s participation. The communities can either accept or refuse this advice. In the meanwhile the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs is moving apace with its land titling, demarcation and extensive activities.
5. On the matter of protected areas (pas). The World Bank was prepared to fund the proposed Kanakus protected areas and the shell beach protected area as two pilot projects. Conservation International conducted extensive consultations with the 18 Amerindian communities that interface with the Kanaku mountain area. The communities actively participated in the consultations and were also actively engaged in various exercises. The communities gave their consent to bring about the establishment of the proposed Kanakus protected area, but lo and behold the APA with its nitpicking agenda continued with their complaints to the World Bank which as a result withdrawn their funding supports. It is therefore advisable for international donor agencies, that while it is important to consult with Amerindian NGOs on any national hinterland project that would affect indigenous peoples. The final consent for project implementation should be with the affected peoples concerned and not with any Amerindian organisation.
6. Mining and logging on village lands. Villages make their own decisions regarding mining activities by coast landers on Amerindian village lands (section 48, Amerindian Act 2006). These decisions are either by contractual arrangement or word of mouth. The situation at Chinese Landing could either have been a contractual arrangement with the present or previous village council. The same goes for logging activities on Amerindians village lands where the villages make their own decisions (section 55(1) of AM. Act 2006) however when the deal goes sour the complaining starts. But why is the APA making this an issue? They are the ones who in the first place advocated for self determination to be practiced by village councils. It was the APA who advocated that Amerindian villages and communities must make their own decisions regarding their internal affairs. Why are they complaining now to Norway, the World Bank and other international donors? If the APA is unable to follow our own Amerindians Act how are they going to follow international  Human rights law such as the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which they preach about so often and yet they call themselves experts?
7. At one time the APA controlled the national Toshao council. During that time they never spoke about ‘the independence and integrity of the NTC being compromised. They never thought about funding for the NTC, but sat on their laurels and did absolutely nothing. Now because they have lost control of the NTC they are complaining with a forked tongue about the independence of the NTC. Is the APA an independent organisation? Who funds the APA to manipulate the village councils of our Amerindian villages to stop national projects such as the LCDS, REDD + and protected areas? Who is behind the scenes advising the APA? As one Kwebanna village elder told me that the APA is ‘not working for the cause of Amerindians’. But if
the APA had the interest of the indigenous peoples at heart, they would have found themselves on the LCDS MSSC serving in a constructive capacity. This is what the international donors need to know