These groups are wrong to call on Barama to cease operations in Akawini village lands

http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56521171

These groups are wrong to call on Barama to cease operations in Akawini
village lands
Stabroek News
Monday, May 28th 2007

Dear Editor,

I wish to refer to your newspaper article under the caption "Amerindian
groups call on Barama to cease Akawini logging" in your issue of
Thursday May 24th 2007.

I am disappointed with both the APA and GOIP for allowing themselves to
fall prey to a known anti-Barama critic. But whether deliberately or
not both of these organizations instead of finding solutions for the
development of indigenous peoples are now carrying out the wishes of
Barama's detractors and critics.

These so called indigenous groups not knowing the truth about the
Akawini situation call on the Barama Company to cease its harvesting
operations in the Akawini village lands. But it must be known to the
Guyanese public and the international community that the root cause of
Akawini's squabble with the IWPI is as a result of competing logging
interests wanting to do business with the village council. Nevertheless
the truth has to be revealed and it is unfortunate that the Toshao of
Akawini while he was in Switzerland did not tell the society of
Threatened peoples and the Bruno Manser Fords the truth surrounding the
Akawini - IWPI fall out. Why didn't the Akawini Toshau tell these two
Swiss NGOs and the international forum which he attended that the
Akawini village had prior knowledge which was told at the Community
Consul-tations that the Barama Company would have engaged in
sustainable forest harvesting in Akawini. Why now this big cry about
'sub contract documents' when the Akawini people knew about Barama's
involvement in the harvesting of commercial forests. For the Akawini
village council to say that they knew nothing about Barama's role in
Akawini is lying to the Guyanese public as well as lying to the
international community.

But what is contradictory about both the APA and GOIP is that while
they target Barama, they allowed the pillage and plunder of the
commercial forests of Kwebanna, Bethany, Orealla, Cabacaburi, Manawarin
and Wakapau Amerindian communities by their continued silence over this
forest crime. Why didn't these two organizations stand up for the
rights of their constituencies amidst the plundering of their forest by
indiscriminate coastland loggers? Is this the policy position of both
the APA and GOIP that forest destruction by coastland loggers is
acceptable to them, while sustainable forest management by the Barama
company is not allowed?

What do APA and GOIP have to offer the Akawini people should Barama
decide to leave Akawini? This is what the village council should think
about and stop being used by the APA and GOIP as their political
football. Since Barama's operations in Akawini the village has earned
millions which should be used for their community development as well
as to provide small grants to grass-roots organisations of the village
to fund their projects.

Both the APA and GOIP are aspirants to serve on the Indigenous Peoples
Commission (IPC) and I am now concerned with the level of their
maturity to effectively discharge the IPC's functions which in the
final analysis will enhance the well being of Guyana's indigenous
peoples.

I am appealing to the Akawini village council to let good sense prevail
for an amicable solution to their concerns with the Barama Company.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Persaud

President

The Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana (TAAMOC)