The Dominion - bill c-300

Ngobe Protest Prevails

Tim McSorley — Wed, 04 May 2011 12:58:21 +0000

Indigenous Panamanians rise up against Canadian mining interests

PANAMA CITY—Massive Indigenous mobilization in Panama recently brought down a contentious law that made it easier for multinational mining corporations to gain entry into the Central American country. Law 8, a revision of Panama's 1963 mining code, enabled foreign, state-owned companies to directly invest in large-scale mining projects.

While seen as a tentative victory for the Indigenous Ngobe people, who strongly opposed the law, international corporations continue to scramble to win concessions to Panama’s mineral wealth. Canadian companies are at the forefront of international mining interests in the country.

The new laws granted foreign, state-owned companies the right to acquire concessions to vast tracts of land in Panama, a change many deemed a threat to national sovereignty. “It is a very good time in Panama for international mining corporations, as foreign governments will be permitted to buy national territory. This is impossible and prohibited in Panama’s constitution,” commented Julio Yao, a professor of international relations at the University of Panama.

Panama contains several major copper and gold deposits. The two largest copper deposits are Cerro Colorado and Cobre Panama. Canada’s Inmet Mining Corporation, a publicly-traded company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, owns 100 per cent of the Cobre Panama concession, located in north-central Panama. The proposed open-pit mine site neighbours several Indigenous Ngobe and campesino (peasant) communities. The Cobre Panama project is expected to begin operations in the near future, pending approval of its Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.

Covering approximately 630 square kilometres, Cerro Colorado is the world’s fifth largest untapped copper reserve. The deposit lies in the heart of Ngobe territory in the rugged mountains of Panama’s interior.

There has been much speculation that Inmet’s need for financing for its Cobre Panama project underlies the introduction of Law 8. The stipulations of Law 8 would allow Inmet to obtain the massive start-up capital necessary to begin operations in Cobre Panama through previously illegal investment from foreign, state-owned companies. Prior to Law 8’s approval, state-owned LS-Nikko Copper Inc. of South Korea and Temasek Holdings Ltd. of Singapore expressed interest in backing the Cobre Panama project.

“Singapore corporations are putting pressure on [Panamanian President Ricardo] Martinelli, threatening that they won’t invest in Cobre Panama, worth millions of dollars, if Law 8 is not put in place,” commented Yao.

Due to the cancellation of the mining code revisions, neither LS-Nikko Copper Inc., nor Temasek Holdings Ltd. will be permitted to directly invest in the Cobre Panama project. Inmet must now seek alternative funding.

Indigenous and campesino communities surrounding Inmet’s project are divided on whether they support the copper mine. While some community members feel mining development would create jobs and increase community welfare, a strong resistance movement emerged as Law 8 was debated in the Legislative Assembly of Panama. Roadblocks were established and marches held on the road leading to the Cobre Panama project site.

The Cobre Panama project lies adjacent to the Molejon Gold mine owned by Petaquilla, a Panamanian corporation. This is the only mine currently in production in the country and is reputed for its poor environmental track record; community members have suffered from contaminated water. They have also endured harassment from company employees and fear similar fall-out from the Inmet project.

Due to the rejection of Bill C-300 (The Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act) by the Canadian parliament in October 2010, Canadian companies operating in Panama, such as Inmet, are not obligated to meet Canadian standards of operation. Given the history of Canadian mining injustices across Latin America, and the poor precedent set for mining regulation in Panama, it comes as no surprise that communities fear Inmet’s project will have a negative impact on their livelihoods.

Although Law 8 was most directly related to the development of the Cobre Panama project, the focal point of resistance lay in the Ngobe–Bugle territory surrounding the Cerro Colorado copper deposit. Ngobe leaders feared that opening Panama’s mining concessions to foreign enterprises would accelerate development of the Cerro Colorado project, violating their territorial rights.

"These mega-projects put at risk our territory and our natural resources. This has not been co-ordinated with the leaders of the Comarca [Ngobe territory] or with traditional authorities. They are violating our Comarca legislation," explained Celestino Mariano, traditional authority of the Nedrini region in the Ngobe Comarca.

The Ngobe are the largest Indigenous group in Panama. They have been fighting to protect their traditional territories from mining since prospecting began in the region in the early 1970s. Today, rising copper prices have renewed interest in the development of the area, including from Canada's Corriente Resources. According to Ngobe leaders, Corriente has been present in the community promoting sustainable mining opportunities through community capacity-building programs.

Law 8 pushed the Ngobe to new levels of opposition. Before the law came into legal effect, it passed through three rounds of debate in the legislative assembly in early February. As the first debate session began, over 500 Ngobe mobilized and took to the streets of San Felix, a small town located just outside the Ngobe territory. As word spread across the Ngobe territory, protests swelled to 3,000.

The Ngobe’s peaceful demonstrations were met by tear gas and police violence, leaving several with minor injuries. “We are a peaceful population,” said Eleto Martin, resident of the Ngobe community of Guabo. “So it was surprising that when 3,000 Ngobe demonstrated their rejection of Law 8, that instead of sending a commission to enter into dialogue with us, the government sent riot police.”

Despite opposition from the Ngobe and other civil society groups, Law 8 was passed on February 11, 2011. Immediately thereafter, waves of demonstrations spread across Panama. Protests in San Felix, a community of roughly 1,200 residents, grew to 10,000 people. Many protestors travelled several days by foot from the interior of the Ngobe Comarca to attend the marches.

Still unsatisfied with the government’s lack of response, the Ngobe intensified their efforts by establishing a four-day roadblock of the Transamerican highway. This effectively blocked the flow of people and goods through Panama.

Government and pro-mining groups attempted to delegitimize Ngobe protests by accusing outsiders of inciting Indigenous resistance. Daniel Esquivel of CAMIPA, a pro-mining lobby group whose member companies include Inmet’s Panamanian subsidiary, explained the uprisings this way: “Environmentalists and other outsiders opposed to mining transmitted these [anti-mining] ideas to Indigenous peoples and incited the Ngobe to rise in protest against Law 8.”

It was on these grounds that Francisco Gomez Nadal, a Spanish journalist freelancing for one of Panama’s national newspapers, was detained by police and deported from the country. The government blamed Nadal of encouraging Indigenous violence at an anti-mining protest held in Panama City on February 26.

The March 3 cancellation of Law 8 by President Martinelli came as a surprise to pro- and anti-mining groups alike. South Korea's government had already committed to help finance Inmet’s Cobre Panama project; Law 8’s repeal prevents such investments from proceeding.

Following Martinelli’s announcement of the repeal, Inmet stock price plummeted. Inmet immediately issued a press release attempting to appease investor concerns. The company claimed the project’s feasibility was not linked to Law 8 and that it would proceed with alternative funding. Industry representatives are certain that this project will become a reality, especially in light of recent core samples revealing higher-than-anticipated copper levels within the Cobre Panama concession.

With Inmet's Cobre Panama project looming on the horizon, the political atmosphere surrounding mining in Panama remains tense. The Ngobe realize that Cerro Colorado is still being eyed by the government for development. Mining in Panama remains an investment priority for Canadian companies. A Panama–Canada Free Trade Agreement was signed in 2009, promoting Canadian involvement in Panamanian industry. The mining industry is one of the major attractions for Canada’s participation in the Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

In hearings of the Standing Committee on International Trade last November, Don Clarke, manager of a consulting group working to promote what Clarke calls “sustainable mining” in Cerro Colorado, stated that, “Canadian industry, in our experience, is generally well received by people in Panama, and particularly in the Ngobe–Bugle Comarca, and we believe this is the biggest case that supports the FTA. In the case of mining, this industry needs to be founded, established, and legitimized in Panama.”

Despite Clarke’s assertions, the Ngobe have strongly demonstrated their opposition to mining development. The cancellation of Law 8 has been adopted as a platform from which they have called for a moratorium on all mining and hydroelectric projects in their territory.

Celestino Mariano confirms this position: “We [the Ngobe] know that consequences of mining are terrible, and we are working within our community to together stop mining projects in our Comarca.”

Dana Holtby and Rosie Simms are Montreal-based students and environmental organizers with a focus on water justice and Indigenous rights. They are currently travelling throughout Panama on a four-month field study semester.

Ngobe vs Canadian mining

Goldcorp Drilled by Shareholders

Moira Peters — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 09:28:38 +0000

Mining company challenged at AGM to respect host communities

TORONTO—Shareholders of Canadian mining giant Goldcorp Inc. got a glimpse—albeit brief—into the lives of Central Americans whose land is being exploited by the company for gold. Some even paid attention.

Representatives from communities hosting Goldcorp mines in Central America made their way from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador to address the company’s annual general meeting (AGM) in Toronto on May 19, 2010.

Shareholders learned about the devastating effects Goldcorp’s operations have had on communities in Central America. The presenters told of an increase in health problems, cracked houses, widespread social conflict and the criminalization of protest in their towns and villages.

Carlos Amador, a teacher from Honduras, challenged the company's reclamation process at the closed San Martin mine in central Honduras, which in 1999 displaced 14 families and contaminated water to the point beyond which even the World Bank recommended.

"Who will control the acid drainage? Who is going to clean up the water contaminated with heavy metals?" he asked.

The AGM was not an easy venue for the visitors to tell their stories. Goldcorp attempted to cut Javier de Leon of Guatemala short during question period when de Leon tried to explain the environmental, health and social devastation brought by a Goldcorp mine to his town of San Miguel Ixtahuacan. He had previously been given less than a minute to address the meeting. When a supporter of the visiting group refused to be silent—protesting that de Leon deserved to be heard after traversing a continent to address the meeting—President and CEO Chuck Jeannes relented and gave de Leon the platform.

All the presenters spoke of the need not only for effective and fair consultation with potentially impacted communities before mining operations begin, but also the consent of those communities.

To that aim, a shareholder resolution was brought forward by Kathryn Anderson of the Maritimes-Guatemala Breaking the Silence (BTS) Network, which called on Goldcorp to adopt a corporate policy on free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) by September 1, 2010.

FPIC is a central theme of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and is the basis of Article 169 of the International Labour Organization, which states that before a mega-project—such as a mine or a hydroelectric dam—can begin on Indigenous lands, residents need to be consulted about the proposed project and to give their informed consent.

The Goldcorp operations influenced by Anderson’s proposed policy would impact not only Indigenous communities, but all communities dependent for survival on natural resources.

Specifically, the resolution calls on Goldcorp to respect UNDRIP as best practice with regards to FPIC rights; to note the legal difference between consultation and consent; to implement the proposed policy retroactively to ensure that all Goldcorp’s mining licenses were obtained in adherence to this policy; to cease all operations, expansions, and exploration where consent of the affected population has not been obtained by the state; and to apply this policy to any license with partial or full Goldcorp ownership.

“The shareholder resolution was brought forward because in cases like San Miguel Ixtahuacan [in Guatemala], we have seen the results of not having FPIC. Communities have not had the full disclosure of costs, benefits, and risks of open-pit gold mining,” said Anderson. “When a full discussion is not there, it creates an enormous amount of conflict.”

In its pre-AGM letter to shareholders, Goldcorp urged its investors to vote against Anderson’s resolution, saying the company would be launching its own human rights platform at the AGM.

In fact, just days before its AGM, Goldcorp released a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) of the Marlin Mine in San Miguel Ixtahuacan—the result of a petition by shareholders. Initial assessments of the HRIA by various NGOs, including Amnesty International, express concerns that affected communities were not invited to discuss whether or not the study would have been appropriate or beneficial. Although both a Goldcorp representative and an investor sat on the steering committee for the HRIA, no resident was given such a privilege. Meanwhile, both the communities and NGOs argued that the study would only increase social tensions in the already-fractured communities; the assessor, On Common Grounds, itself concluded that the study resulted in escalated social tensions and polarization between and among communities.

Shareholders representing 90 per cent of Goldcorp’s shares voted against Anderson's proposed resolution. She was surprised by the 10 per cent of shares in its favour, given that shareholders rarely vote against the company line. “We do not have an explanation for that yet,” she said. “Did someone advise a large block of shareholders to vote against Goldcorp in this instance? Or is it because people specifically read and heard our concerns?”

Although Goldcorp claims it participates in consultations with populations affected by its mines, company representatives refuse to articulate a detailed consultation process or put one into company policy. Furthermore, nowhere does Goldcorp claim to respect the rights of communities to say no to mining, which is a keystone of Anderson’s resolution.

When it ignored the results of community-organized consultations in 2005 in Sipakapa, a region bordering the Marlin Mine—where 11 out of 13 communities unanimously opposed the mine’s presence—the local government was pressured to address the issue. The municipality of San Miguel has since organized its own upcoming consultation. Goldcorp General Counsel VP David Deisley said the company is not legally required to respect the results of such a consultation.

Goldcorp in general, and Jeannes in particular, consistently deny FPIC is directly applicable to the company, arguing the laws for consultation and consent apply to governments, not corporations.

Nelly Rivera de Silva of El Salvador explained that despite a moratorium on all mining exploitation in her country, she will be directly impacted by Goldcorp’s proposed Cerro Blanco mine to be built in Guatemala several kilometers upstream of Lake Guija—a binational lake. The lake is the tributary of the Lempa River, the most important watershed in El Salvador. Another 13 mining projects line El Salvador’s border with Guatemala, and 42 line its border with Honduras.

Rivera explained that she came to Canada to address Goldcorp on home soil and to inform people of the local repercussions of gold mining.

Goldcorp’s eight-page glossy handout on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) states: “Sustainable operations are dependent upon good working relationships with the communities in which we operate...We believe our transparent approach to doing business is the only way to fully engage our stakeholders in a meaningful, mutually beneficial relationship.”

But Rivera thinks this company line is an insult to shareholder intelligence.

“Why wouldn’t you think something is not quite right when members of the affected communities are coming all the way to Canada just to have their voices heard?” she asked.

As he was leaving the meeting, a shareholder addressed one of the 50 protesters demonstrating outside the AGM, asking why they were “anti-employment.” His sentiments reflect a feeling by many Canadians that mining companies are effectively bringing development and prosperity to people who would be starving if it weren’t for opportunities from the North.

De Leon had a different story. He maintained that Goldcorp is making millions in profit at the expense of the social fabric in Guatemala, where community tensions and social conflict are direct results of the affected communities having no say about the open-pit gold mine.

De Leon has felt this tension point-blank. After receiving numerous death threats, he was shot at four times on April 19, 2010, a few days before his departure for Canada. He said the majority of such threats come from mine workers or people with personal connections to the mine. Feeling tense, vulnerable, and worried for his family’s safety, de Leon said that a majority of investors do not know or care about this reality.

“No shareholder wants to hear what we have to say. They only want to see the renewal of their investment,” he said. “No-one claims ownership of the damages done to the environment, to society, or to the politics of Guatemala.”

Referenda have been organized across Guatemala to address the lack of informed consent, but neither the national government nor the company recognizes these consultations as legitimate, even though in some cases 100 per cent of an affected population has voted against mining.

Although it wouldn’t legally uphold FPIC, Bill C-300, a private member’s bill tabled by Liberal MP John McKay, could create some legal options for communities impacted by Canadian mines.

The Canadian government provides political and economic support to Canadian mining companies like Goldcorp operating abroad, through embassy relations, tax incentives and investment support with public funds like the Canada Pension Plan. Bill C-300 would make this political support and public money contingent on Canadian companies meeting certain human rights standards—standards these companies have already agreed to in various voluntary principles on corporate social responsibility, many of which are found in the CSR standards for Export Development Canada.

The bill would establish a legal complaints mechanism allowing people who wish to report human rights violations to do so with the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). If DFAIT concludes that a company's actions violate established guidelines for responsible behaviour, the company’s political and economic support from Canada would be withdrawn.

Bill C-300 is a watered-down version of recommendations made at the 2007 National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility, which was approved by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. Nevertheless, the mining industry has launched strong opposition to the bill.

Rare for a private member’s bill, C-300 has passed through two votes in the House of Commons, and is currently at the end of its committee stage. MPs have reported receiving more letters in support of C-300 than any other bill in recent memory. If it succeeds in the committee, the bill will return to the House for a third and final vote; and if passed, it will go to the Senate. Since the Conservative Party opposes the bill on the basis that it would hurt the image of Canadian mining companies and their global competitiveness, the bill will likely die in the Senate because of a Conservative majority.

All four Central American activists who flew to Canada to speak to Goldcorp’s shareholders were adamant that voluntary standards for Canadian companies do not protect against human rights abuses. Although they were all in support of Bill C-300, they continue to push for free, prior and informed consent to be a focal point of Canadian legislation.

Valerie Croft worked in Guatemala as an International Accompanier in 2008 and is active in issues relating to corporate accountability.

Cleaning up Goldcorp's toxic mess

Feliciano Orellana and Carlos Amador

Underground Diplomacy

Moira Peters — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 05:57:53 +0000

Canada’s transnational mining industry implicated in abuses

TORONTO—Balochistan Chief Minister Nawab Aslam Raisani announced the termination of a mining contract for Barrick Gold’s Reko Diq project on January 5, 2010, following a unanimous decision by the Pakistani province’s cabinet. According to the minister, “They [Barrick and Chile’s Antofagasta, co-owners of the mine project] only have an exploration license, which does not cover extraction,” adding his government would not approve an agreement undermining people’s rights.

Immediately afterwards, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson warned that “multinational corporations will not invest in a country where deals are cancelled.” Canada’s international trade ministry followed suit, pressing Pakistani officials to “fulfill their obligations under a 2006 Pakistani-Canadian-Chilean agreement potentially worth billions of dollars,” according to the Vancouver Sun.

According to the Asia Times, “Critics said the local government’s action [to cancel the mining contract] was politically motivated to appease Baloch nationalists in the desperately poor and insurgency-hit province, who have been demanding the cancellation of the agreement.”

Balochistan, the province in Pakistan bordering Iran and Afghanistan, has been struggling for independence from Pakistan since 1948. The fifth uprising of the Balochistan independence movement was in 2004. More than 8,000 Baloch have been disappeared since then and 26 prominent leaders have been assassinated.

This ongoing independence struggle was overlooked by Canadian and US delegates as they pushed the Pakistani state to force Balochistan’s approval of the Barrick/Antofagasta mine. Meanwhile, in a move that the group American Friends of Balochistan say reveals insensitivity to the region’s politics, Barrick hired a Pakistani army colonel as its public affairs manager and head of security for its Balochistan mine project.

Disregard for political conflict reveals an international diplomacy concerned primarily with profits, and is consistent with the actions of Canada and its corporate ambassadors in situations around the globe where mining profits conflict with human rights.

Despite their human rights record, these corporate ambassadors of the mining sector will again be well-represented at discussions during the G20 summit in Toronto in June. Mining companies Banro, Barrick, Iamgold and Freeport McMoran will attend a parallel conference to the G20 summit, “G20 Business Leaders: Partnering with Africa’s Dynamic Markets,” at Toronto‘s Marriott Downtown Eaton Centre.

Questions about the ties between the mining sector and governement do not end in Balochistan though. Canadian Ambassador to Guatemala James Lambert published an op-ed in support of mining in Guatemala on the same day a survey revealed that 95.5 per cent of the people in San Miguel Ixtahuacan, Guatemala, opposed mining projects in their region.

Six years after that survey and the subsequent establishment of Goldcorp’s Marlin mine in San Miguel, villagers suffer from health issues linked to arsenic levels seven times the maximum limit recommended by the World Bank.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper visited Barrick Gold officials during diplomatic visits to Chile and Tanzania, where Barrick mines have been widely protested for mistreatment of workers, environmental destruction, and for failing to pay Tanzanian taxes and royalties. Since Harper’s visit, a toxic spill killed 43 people and 1,358 livestock, according to the Ward authorities near Barrick’s Tanzanian North Mara mine.

An Amnesty International report published in February 2010 found Indigenous peoples in Colombia are at risk of being exterminated by state forces, right wing paramilitary groups and guerrilla organizations. “Far from creating a legitimate economy, as Liberal MPs have been suggesting in defence of the Colombia free trade agreement, the deal before Parliament would increase the chances that Canadian companies invested in agriculture, mining and resource extraction in sensitive areas will be doing business with murderers, drug traffickers and arms smugglers,” said Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians in a recent press release.

As a consequence of this growing list of allegations, Canada has drawn criticism from around the world, first from environmental, religious and human rights organizations and labour unions, and now increasingly from international institutions such as the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxic Waste and Products.

The Canadian government has also begun to acknowledge its lack of accountability within the transnational mining industry. The first National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries was organized in 2006, in reaction to a 2005 report from Canada’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade (SCFAIT). The report acknowledged Canada does not have laws ensuring Canadian mining companies “conform to human rights standards, including the rights of workers and [I]ndigenous peoples.”

The Roundtables released a consensus-based, multi-stakeholder report approved by the main industry group, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC).

The Harper government took two years to respond to the Roundtables’ recommendations. Its report, “Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector,” rejected the recommendations and offered no tools for redressing the documented abuses of Canadian industry abroad.

Instead, the report offered increased subsidies to Canadian mining companies under the CSR banner. The “voluntary approach of CSR” is a strategy advocated by G8 countries as part of the Heiligendamm Dialogue Process, initiated at the 2007 G8 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany. Before this dialogue process, the Commission for Africa (CfA), launched in February 2004 by Tony Blair in the lead up to the G8 in Gleneagles, advocated the same strategies in a 2005 report.

In an analysis of the report, watchdog NGO Corporate Watch said, “The Commission for Africa does concede that ‘oil, diamonds, timber and other high-value commodities all fuel Africa’s conflicts.’ However, [CfA] points the blame at the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] Guidelines on Multinational Companies for failing to provide ‘clear enough guidance on what companies should do in these situations.’...Rather than regulating, or even dismantling, these corporations, the CfA will allow them to continue plundering at will, apparently satisfied by their ‘corporate social responsibility’ policies and promises to be more transparent.”

Recently, members of Canada’s parliament have proposed legislation to hold Canadian transnational resource extraction companies accountable to Canadian law. Liberal MP John McKay introduced private members bill C-300 to the House of Commons February 29, 2009. The bill would withhold government funds, including billions of dollars in Canadian Pension Plan investments and diplomatic support for companies found—following a government investigation—to be abusing human rights. Some contend that this bill—while a positive step forward in holding corporations to account for their crimes—is most valuable in its exposure of the Canadian government’s support for its mining industry abroad.

Canada is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Private member’s bill C-354 aims to codify these international agreements into Canadian law. The International Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Act (IPPHRA), introduced by NDP MP Peter Julian, amends the Federal Courts Act to permit people who are not Canadian citizens to initiate lawsuits based on violations of international law or treaties to which Canada is a party if the violations occur outside Canada.

“The IPPHRA contrasts with Bill C-300 in that C-300 keeps the monitoring of corporate activities out of the criminal or civil courts, in administrative processes controlled by ‘the Ministers,’” said Grahame Russell of Rights Action in an email.

“With respect to reforming Canada’s criminal code so that corporations and their directors could be brought to trial for criminal actions in their corporate activities in ‘developing countries,’” he added, “no one in Canada has taken up this challenge.”

Sakura Saunders is an editor for protestbarrick.net, an all-volunteer news site that networks organizations and community groups around the world against Barrick Gold.

This story was published in The Dominion's special issue on the G8 and G20 summits in Ontario. We will continue to publish independent, investigative news about the G8 and G20 throughout the month of June.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

G20 Mining image

Jalil Rieki