What are the implications of the Maya Land Rights ruling?

On Thursday, the Court of Appeal issued a split decision ruling in the case of Mayan land rights in Southern Belize. On one hand, the Court re-affirmed the rights of the Mayas to their ancestral lands in thirty-eight communities in southern Belize. On the other hand, the Court held that government has no obligation to protect those rights. It is a ruling which favors no side over the other, and it’s important because it means that government is not held back from allowing third parties access to those lands. Two days before that decision, Sarstoon Temash Institute of Indigenous Management and interested parties filed an injunction against G.O.B. and U.S. Capital Energy by to stop oil drilling and related activities in the Sarstoon Temash National Park. Attorney Eamon Courtenay is representing SATIIM in that case and today, we asked him about the implications of the ruling on Thursday.

Eamon Courtenay, Attorney for SATIIM

Eamon Courtenay

“It does affect it, but it is certainly not fatal. My clients propose to continue the claim and the primary point for consideration in the court in that claim is whether or not there can be drilling in the national park. And we believe that the law is very clear that that is not allowed and it has nothing to do as to whether or not you are an indigenous person. That was an additional limb on which we were going to argue and in fact, we are probably still going to argue it. Certainly it has affected the case, but it is not fatal at all. We have very strong arguments to deploy. The National Parks Systems Act provides for nature reserves, national parks, etc.  And when you look at that legislation, it does not contemplate commercial activity in a national park. And what we have here is a decision by the government to allow U.S. Capital to go into the national park to do commercial drilling. And it is going to be our argument very forcefully that the law does not allow for that. In addition to that, we will argue that under the petroleum act—and it is very similar as to what was said in OCEANA—that you cannot give permission for somebody to either explore or to actually drill for oil, when you have a law that prohibits it. So for example, there is no point giving somebody a concession over the barrier reef because you can never allow them to drill in the barrier reef. And our argument is that the National Park System Act does not allow for commercial drilling. And if it does not, the Minister of Energy cannot give a PSA to allow somebody to in effect contravene another law.”

In a related case, this Monday, an application for contempt filed by the Maya Leaders Alliance against the government will be heard. The MLA says that the government is not respecting a court judgment relating to the Mayan rights to communal lands.