Resources

On 28 February 2024, leaders of Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples and civil society representatives from Peru, Colombia, Guyana and Brazil participated in a thematic hearing organised by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR or Commission) to highlight violations of their rights and collective territorie

In the lead-up to historic agreements on climate and nature being made in Glasgow at COP26, more than 180 civil society and indigenous organisations, and academics, from more than 50 countries, have signed an open letter that that calls on world leaders to put human rights at the centre of climate and environmental policy.

14 April 2021 (Disponible aquí en español)

​​​​​​The National Toshaos Council -- the body of leaders of the indigenous villages in Guyana – held its annual conference in October 2019.

Clear improvements can be seen in the final text, but much still remains to be done before future FLEGT licensed timber can guarantee that indigenous peoples’ rights are fully protected.

In Guyana, communities are suffering because they do not have title to the full extent of their traditional lands, or have no title at all. This report seeks to present a detailed picture of the current status of land rights for communities in the Potaro-Siparuni region (Region 8) in west-central Guyana.

In two newly released reports, indigenous leaders point out that the current concession allocations system in Guyana is unjust, severely flawed and facilitated by a national legal framework that does not fully respect their internationally protected rights to their customary lands and resources.“The foreign companies come and they have legal rights and we the people who have been living here all the time do not have legal rights.” [Resident, Kwebanna village]

 letter submitted by APA to the Carbon Fund of the FCPF before their meeting (27-30 April) to consider the eligibility of Guyana to develop an Emission Reduction Project Idea Note (ER PIN) under the FCPF framework. The letter makes arguments for why Guyana is not ready to develop an emission reductions programme yet.

This statement was presented by the indigenous representatives participating in a seminar organised by the Amerindian Peoples Association in Georgetown, February 2015.

Guyana has been a major proponent of international funding for avoided deforestation in tropical countries. In 2009 the government signed an MOU with the Kingdom of Norway under an agreement to reduce deforestation, pursue low carbon (non-fossil fuel) development and enter into negotiations with the EU on a trade treaty under the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) initiative. Almost five years after the signing of this bilateral agreement, how are indigenous peoples’ rights and local benefit sharing issues being addressed in Guyana’s land use, forest and climate policies?

A side event to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. In this event, the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) will review the treatment of indigenous peoples' rights in national policies and practices in the mining, forestry, infrastructure, conservation and climate finance sectors.The event will be held on the 16th May 2014.To view the flyer for this event please click here

Source: Survival InternationalPlans to build a massive hydro-electric dam on the land of two unique tribes in Guyana would lead to the destruction of a unique people and vast tracts of rainforest, a new report has revealed today.

In April and May 2013 the Amerindian Peoples’ Association (APA) of Guyana and a consortium of European NGOs, including Forest Peoples Programme, sent letters to the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) and the European Commission (EU) respectively, expressing concerns about rushed consultation processes and a lack of meaningful participation by forest dependent communities in the FLEGT process. 

At the beginning of 2013, indigenous peoples in Guyana are becoming increasingly alarmed over continuing and growing disregard for their legitimate rights by miners and government agencies and gross rights violations which have been endorsed by the judiciary in two recent cases. In 2012, the mining lobby publicly attacked indigenous peoples’ land rights in the Guyanese press and pledged to oppose recognition of customary lands. Meanwhile, the government agency responsible for regulating the mining sector appears to be accelerating the issuance of mining permits and concessions on Amerindian customary lands, despite the fact that these same lands are the subject of legal actions in the courts seeking recognition of traditional ownership rights and/or unresolved village applications for land title and title extensions.

Forest Peoples Programme and a delegation of indigenous peoples’ leaders from Guyana, Suriname, Peru, Panama and Kenya attended the Rio+20 Indigenous Peoples’ International Conference on Self-Sustainable Development and Self-Determination from 17-19 June and the formal Rio+20 intergovernmental meeting from 20-22 June 2012.

Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at their recent COP17 did not support performance indicators for reporting on the implementation of indigenous peoples’ rights in REDD+. However, they did recognise that REDD+ benefits have to go beyond carbon to include biodiversity conservation and support for local livelihoods.Forest Peoples Programme, with a delegation of indigenous peoples from Guyana, Kenya, Cameroon, Suriname and Peru, attended preparatory negotiations and the 17th Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Durban, South Africa, in late November/early December 2011. The main purpose of FPP’s attendance was to support the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus and closely follow negotiations on REDD+ safeguards and finance. 

In October 2011, Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) conducted a survey of our local partners asking them to pinpoint key experiences and emerging lessons learned in relation to REDD+ and rights issues over the last three years. Partners who contributed include the Centre for Environment and Development (CED) and Association Okani (Cameroon), CEDEN (DRC), Foundation for the Promotion of Traditional Knowledge (Panama), Amerindian Peoples Association (Guyana), Association of Village Leaders in Suriname, Association of Saamaka Authorities (Suriname), AIDESEP (Peru), Federation for the Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples (Paraguay) and Scale-up, Pusaka and FPP field staff (Indonesia). Observations and lessons are also drawn from workshops with local partners, field studies and issues stemming from indigenous peoples’ representatives in dialogues with national and international REDD+ policy-makers. Key observations and lessons are summarised below.

Indigenous leader and President of the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA), who is leading a campaign in support of the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in Guyana, is reported to have received death threats. See Amerindian Peoples Association press release, December 2010.

While the President of Guyana was named a “Champion of the Earth” by the UN earlier this year in relation to his efforts to secure international support for forest protection and “low carbon” growth, some indigenous leaders and civil society organisations both inside and outside the country continue to expose and challenge the deep contradictions in the government’s forest and climate plans. In June 2010, the President of the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) made a strong statement to the Sixth Participant’s Committee meeting of the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) in Georgetown, asking why key land rights issues raised repeatedly by APA have still not been addressed in the Guyana Forestry Commission’s (GFC) latest REDD+ readiness proposals.

During May, the Norwegian Government announced that it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Guyana to contribute US$230 million towards the country's Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). It only remained to be decided which financial agency would act as the intermediary with the fiduciary responsibility to make sure the monies were handed over with due care. Would this be the World Bank and what standards would the World Bank follow to supply this money?