LACK of effective communication and feedback, incorrect geographic coordinates in the database, arbitrary responsibilities of officers and lack of sufficient engineering inputs were dubbed injurious to the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission’s ability to carry out fully its mandate with respect to mining inspections and follow-ups.According to a report resulting from a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into mining pit collapses, the GGMC has many issues with respect to “compliance monitoring and inspection.”

Compiled by Dr. Grantley Walrond, Jo Bayah, Collin Sparman and Gary Hall and already submitted to government, that report has listed the following situations as injurious to the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) being able to fully discharge its mandate with respect to mining inspections and follow-ups: A lack of effective communication and feedback; incorrect geographic coordinates in the database; arbitrary responsibilities of officers; and lack of sufficient engineering inputs.

INPUTS OF MINING ENGINEERS, COMMUNICATION
The report says it is not enough for mines officers to visit and monitor operations then issue cease-work orders when breaches have been observed in mining operations.
“Relevant remedial advice to cure the technical and other deficiencies [is] essential”. As such, the report contends that more training is required for mines officers in areas of engineering and occupational health and safety.

It was also found that the lack of engineering inputs from officers of the GGMC has rendered the entity lacking in the “capacity, focus and strategy to ensure that operations are meeting their legal responsibilities.”
The report has therefore stressed the need for GGMC officers to be leaders in geotechnical parameters in order to guide and support miners.

“If ever there was a time for the development of an appropriate extension service to the mining industry, it has to be now, when there is a willing pool of winners who need guidance”, the report has said.

The findings of the CoI have revealed that the GGMC lacks the requisite focus, and has failed to do its work properly. As such, “the GGMC is not aggressive and/or proactive in pursuing its mandate of safety in mining pits, and this must change”, the report asserts.

The report urges that “GGMC must defend statutory obligations vigorously — legally and via engineering”.

The entity’s lack of aggressiveness in pursuing its mandate may be “unwittingly subverting the morale” which is deemed critical for it to accomplish its goals. More importantly, it has been observed that the information flow at the GGMC and decision-making “are not aligned to proper best practices in management.”

“Decision-making appears to be at the lowest levels, with communication at the highest levels reduced to ‘noted’, ‘for your information and guidance’ and ‘seen’. Decision nodes at the executive level are not visible, and follow-up is too ad hoc and perfunctory,” the report asserts.

Additionally, it has been determined that management of the GGMC “lacks appropriate feedback mechanisms for ongoing actions, with the loop being systematically broken until an affected client raises the issue again. And too often the files go missing, with the onus on the client for re-recreating the file.”
Files, the report said, appear to be “open-ended, with no closure”.

Following a review of the GGMC files on mining accidents, the CoI has come to the view that mining safety and compliance could not have been the central concern of the GGMC. “The content of the information flows, the timeliness of the movement of the files, lack of decisions/directions at the senior levels, the lack of closure on even peripheral issues, were causes for concern”, the report asserts.

Those observations were raised with the commissioner, who indicated that he expected those matters to be dealt with by the functionaries below him, viz, the Deputy Commissioner and, more particularly, the Manager of Mines.

INCORRECT COORDINATES
According to the report, the GGMC has a “huge database,” with recordings of mines officers’ inspections as well as digitised production books; “but in some cases, [the database] contains significant mistakes, such as incorrect geographic coordinates.”
As a result, it has been recommended that all paper maps demonstrating locations checked should be produced, filed and signed by the relevant officer for each monthly report. Those maps should also be subjected to an “external audit, either physically or by comparison to satellite images”.

The commissioners have stressed the importance of accurate reports, especially since litigation can accompany mining accidents, whether or not fatalities have occurred.

The Mines Division has five units, namely: Mines Technical, Surveying Section, Mines Inspectorate, Mineral Processing Unit, and Mines Clerical/ Administration. The Mines Technical, Surveying and Inspectorate units of the GGMC are focused mainly on inspection, with the aim of establishing conformity of titles with the regulations, the monitoring of activity of the title holders, and the provision of advice to miners.

“A Mines Technical Section composed exclusively of mining engineers, which has to be independently serviced and which has a programme designed by itself, is denying the Mines Division of a cost-effective, integrated approach in which its inspectorate staff, including engineers, could be involved in the regulation of mining titles’ compliance with the law,” the report said.

ARBITRARY RESPONSIBILITIES
Accordingly, the division of personnel into environmental officers, mines technical and mines officers, to name a few, with regulatory responsibilities, “is quite arbitrary”.

“They are all involved in establishing the compliance of title holders to the conditions of their titles, whether in the small, medium or large scale systems”, the report contends.

Given the nature of responsibilities of the listed officers, it has been recommended that “all the relevant officers should be considered as part of the Inspectorate, as opposed to the artificial divisions currently established.”

Except in exceptional circumstances, any officer in the field should be able to make environmental observations of “the locational kinds of considerations and any other requirement imposed by the Mining Act and regulations,” the report stated.

What it means, therefore, is that major divisions of personnel should not be on “arbitrary, functional lines,” but rather on “district lines,” depending on the levels of activity.

The report noted however that while there is a district focus in existence, it needs to be re-aligned so as to ensure that multiple sets of officers with arbitrary functional titles do not visit the same place to finalise an inspection.

MINING AUDIT DIVISION
The CoI team has proposed a Mines Audit Division that will ensure quality assurance in the activities of the inspectorate, while following up disputes that occur inevitably in the sector.
This division will have “relatively senior/experienced technical personnel”, and they will report directly to the Deputy Commissioner, who supervises the Mines Division.

The unit must have an independent budget, and unannounced checks must be done on each district to ensure the law is observed.

“They would also manage a much-desired complaints desk in Georgetown,” the report said.

TRAINING
The Mining School should design and implement suitable “short courses” for GGMC and the public. Once implemented, this recommendation can see personnel becoming equipped in their respective fields, whether as mines managers, mines officers, rangers, or environmental assessors, to name a few.

Also, it is believed that, with the current transition of the mining sector to a highly mechanised one, the complexity of the processes necessitates “that targeted training of the professional engineering talent must also be contemplated.”

“A better appreciation of geotechnical and ground water issues, coupled with an understanding of the constraints imposed by the prevailing geology, and more robust prospection operations, may be required,” the CoI found, thereby recommending that there be an enhanced programme at the University of Guyana and training overseas to facilitate same.

By Ariana Gordon