QUOTE: "The preliminary report of the 2012 census will reflect the situation as at December 2012."
According to KN, the report includes some specific info like total head count, regional population growth and density, and gender distribution.
MISSING: Population breakdown by race/ethnicity. This is the main interest of political people.
If you have regional population growth one can extrapolate the ethnic breakdown.
Not really. In 2002 Region 4 was around 42% African, and 38% Indian. The strong gains in APNU votes in Region 3 suggest that many blacks/mixed are probably moving there from Region 4. Also increased populations in the interior not only suggest larger Amerindian populations, but a shift in population as gold has become the largest industry, and a major source of direct and indirect employment.
Even Region 5 has the highest % of blacks behind Regions 4 and 10. Region 6 has as many as Region 3 (21%).
Also the mixed population is fluid and with increased hostility towards blacks it is probably than some who would have self identified as "black" in 1980 might select "mixed" now.
We have the historic ethnic breakdown from the regions to the voting district level. There is a definite pattern of ethnic breakdown consistency in these areas. If there is a population increase in a particular area, it will be unlikely that it will be an increase other than the breakdown of the ethnic groups who historically lived there.
Most mixed population do not self identify as Indian. They do not because historically they are not accepted and treated as "other" by the Indian community. Since the mixing will be predominantly Indian/Black the ethnic self identification will also most likely map to black voting patterns.