have been logged far above the rate of natural regeneration, often with severe ecological consequences for biodiversity and soil quality.

In addition to lack of support for monitoring and enforcement, the Forestry Commission is also weak in leveraging financial returns. As a result, transnational companies that control much of the country’s forests are paying some of the lowest taxes and fees in the tropics, providing only minimal economic returns to the people of Guyana. Economically, Guyana has been encouraged to base its growth on overexploiting its natural resources for little return, which in the future will translate into disruptions in employment levels, trade balances and macroeconomic stability, the very problems SAPs are supposed to rectify.

In mining, another important resource for Guyana, the government changed its policies in the mid1980s to allow majority holdings by foreign mining companies. The next few years saw the entrance of multinational corporations from Australia, France, Brazil, North Korea and Yugoslavia. As a result, foreignowned mining ventures have increased to the point that there are 32 foreign mining companies active in Guyana, and largescale mining permits now cover an estimated 10 percent of the total land area of the country.

Unfortunately many of the efforts to grant increased concessions were done without ensuring proper envi ronmental or social safeguards, and without the institutional capacity to monitor and regulate the environmental and social performance of these expanding industries. A World Bank report noted that not only did the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission lack the scientists to carry out studies of environmental problems, there were no proper regulations to control the environmental impacts of mining.³¹ Without adequate safeguard and enforcement mechanisms, the dangers associated with largescale mining—river pollution from tailing runoff, sedimentation and the resultant decline of fish populations, and loss of forests and topsoil—increase dramatically.

Guyana has already experienced a mining disaster: a tailings dam burst in 1995 due to faulty construction. The result was the release of 3 million cubic meters of cyanidelaced waste into a tributary of the Essequibo, Guyana’s main river. The foreign company Omai Gold Mines Ltd., which built the dam, was set up as a joint venture to open a large, openpit gold mine. When it came on line in 1993, it was one of the two largest gold mines in South America. This spill was the largest of four spills that had already occurred that year, and followed on the heels of unheeded calls to the government to review its mining contract with the company. For four days, cyanide waste flowed from the dam, contaminating the river, which residents use for drinking and bathing. The spill killed aquatic life, and led to the hospitalization of three people for cyanide poisoning.

Meanwhile, the government of Guyana continues to encourage investment in mining. In July 1999, two mining concessions were granted to transnationals for surveying of gold and diamond deposits. The two concessions combined amount to 12.1 million acres and will affect over 400 indigenous communities, none of whom were informed or consulted prior to the granting of concessions.

Guyana’s IMF-led economic adjustment strategy has been entirely predicated on the exploitation of precious natural resources, including tropical forests and minerals. This strategy has failed to translate into real benefits for ordinary people, and has instead led to the disenfranchisement of local communities and the transfer of Guyana’s natural resources into the hands of foreign companies.