July 30, 2006
MINING & MEDIA MANIPULATIONS
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published what is effectively a ‘PR’ article
for Vancouver-based Skye Resources nickel company operating in Guatemala.
The only thing positive about the article is that it shows how weak are the
arguments in defense of how the global mining industry is currently
operating in many exploited countries of the global south.
Rights Action has dissected the WSJ article as a contribution to a more
critical debate about the enviro- and development harms, human rights
violations and media distortions associated with the global mining industry.
This ‘dissection’ was prepared by Grahame Russell.
Please re-distribute far ‘n’ wide. If you want on/ off this elist:
info@rightsaction.org
BELOW:
- A dissection of a poorly researched and mis-leading Wall Street Journal
[WSJ] article. The article is re-produced at the bottom, without
commentaries;
- A letter to the WSJ editors from a leading Indigenous community
development organization where Skye Resources wants to operate;
- Two Prensa Libre articles [en espanol] documenting widespread
community-based and Indigenous opposition to the global mining industry
throughout Guatemala;
- What to do;
===
WHAT DO NGOS HAVE AGAINST POOR GUATEMALANS?
By Andrea Tunarosa, Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2006; Page A15
[The title “what do NGOs have against poor Guatemalans” is
ridiculous and shameless. There are well documented serious harms and
violations associated with the global mining industry and there are
obviously competing visions, across the globe, of what is “development” that
honest journalism should properly explore.]
Residents of El Estor, a small Q'eqchi community of 40,000 people located in
northeast Guatemala, cheered when they heard that Vancouver-based Skye
Resources was interested in reopening a local abandoned nickel mine.
[The writer is mis-informed. El Estor is a small town of perhaps
1000 people, located in a very large municipality of isolated Q’eqchi
communities; the total population of the Q’eqchi territory is approximately
40,000. The majority of these communities are openly critical of, if not in
outright opposed to the global mining industry.]
According to local press, the town's mayor and several community leaders led
a rally last September in favor of the mine with a banner that read, "El
Estor says yes to responsible mining." It's easy to see why there was such
excitement. Skye Resources estimates that it will employ 1,000 people and
create four indirect jobs in the community for every new mining job. That
plus an overall investment of at least $539 million is not irrelevant for an
impoverished town with one of the highest illiteracy rates in the country --
over 40% for indigenous men and 35% for indigenous women.
[There has been little excitement and widespread opposition in
Q’eqchi communities to how Skye Resources is proceeding, including the
physical blocking of heavy machinery carving new roads through untouched
jungle forests that provide livelihood and watershed to isolated
communities; including legal cases nationally and internationally trying to
stop or suspend mining.]
[These job creation estimates are widely contested by all Guatemalan
NGOs and by local organizations in the El Estor region. A cursory look at
other mines in the region (ie, Glamis Gold mines in Sipakapa, Guatemala, and
Siria Valley, Honduras), let alone around the world, would suggest that
these numbers are grossly exaggerated.
[The suggestion of $539 million investment in El Estor region is
patently misleading. The company may be planning to invest this amount in
its own operations, to then generate much larger profits; it is certainly
not investing $539 million – or any amount remotely close to this - in the
integral development needs of the local people.]
The festive mood didn't last long. Within months, opposition to the project
began to swell. Well-organized protesters were soon demanding that the
Guatemalan government withdraw the mining license it had issued, alleging
environmental risks and inadequate consultation with the community.
[Correct: there are well documented environmental harms with open
pit mining across countries of the global south and there was no
consultation with the affected Q’eqchi communities; there are well
documented environmental, health and water-shortage harms associated with
Glamis Gold’s six-year gold mining operation in neighboring Honduras.]
The democratically elected government did not comply with the protestors'
demands.
[It is mis-leading to call Guatemala a democratic government. All
national and international human rights organizations, including the U.S.
State Department, recognize that the powerful military and economic sectors
in Guatemala continue to commit systematic human rights violations with
impunity and that the democratic and legal institutions simply do not work
to curtail these abuses and hold the guilty accountable.]
Skye Resources has initiated a feasibility study for a 50 million pound
ferro-nickel project and is already looking at a potential expansion that
would double production. At the same time, it has also launched an
environmental and social impact assessment to comply with Guatemala's
regulatory framework.
[See: the Prensa Libre article, below, that explains how Skye
Resource’s “Fenix Project” environmental study was not approved. As with
Glamis Gold’s environmental assessment in San Marcos, Guatemala, groups
across the region are crying foul at how the assessments were carried out,
with no public consultation or participation, and at the simplistic content
of their findings.]
New lines of communication with the community have been opened and if all
goes well, the mine could be working in 2008. Had Skye Resources been less
intent on its investment, Guatemala could have lost an important
wealth-enhancing opportunity for thousands of Guatemalans.
[Mining is very “wealth-enhancing”, but hardly for the majority poor
population in places like El Estor. The writer’s implication is based on the
incorrect argument that by investing millions of dollars, big business
projects ‘help the poor.’ Guatemala’s economy has been dominated by big
business since long before the United Fruit Company sponsored coup in 1954;
over 70% of Guatemalans – mostly landless and exploited, … often by the big
businesses – live in predictable and endemic poverty. Guatemala law obliges
mining companies to pay the Guatemalan government a mere 1% of their
profits, and provides generous tax breaks.]
That came close to happening when another Canadian company, Glamis Gold
Ltd., bought land to invest in a gold mine in the northwestern highlands
town of Sipacapa.
[Again, the writer is mis-informed; Sipakapa is not simply a town.
It is the home territory of the Sipakapense-Mayan people; in 2005, 11 of 13
villages in Sipakapan territory voted overwhelmingly against the global
mining industry operating in their territory.]
Locals were eager to get jobs in the mine and to provide services around the
project. But last year organized and well-funded opposition nearly squelched
the deal.
[Never consulted with by the company or the World Bank, nor by the
Guatemalan and Canadian governments, as required by municipal, national and
international law, in July 2005 the vast majority of the Mayan-Sipakan
people voted against allowing mining in their communities and territories.]
In a country with such dire needs for capital and technology to lessen the
want of the poor, it is worth exploring whether such anti-mine activism
truly expresses the will of the people.
[Beyond providing a small number of low-paying jobs to local
inhabitants, mining transfers a pittance of capital and no technology to
host communities or even countries; the vast majority of capital flows to
North American shareholders, private and institutional investors. As stated
above, and as reported on in the Prensa Libre article below, across
Guatemala, campesino and Indigenous communities are expressing their own
will, rejecting the global mining industry out-right.]
Looking behind the scenes, the funding and instigation of the activism
appears heavily driven by international nongovernmental organizations that
end up discouraging development while trying to fulfill their own mission.
[It is condescending and racist to suggest that national or
international organizations “instigate” activism. Rejection to the global
mining industry, as it operates, is being led locally by campesino and
Indigenous communities throughout Guatemala and Central America.
Organizations like Rights Action are in opposition, ‘in’ North America, to
the global mining industry because we disagree with the exploitative, unjust
and environmentally harmful nature of how the global mining industry
operates.]
[Moreover, local, national and North American organizations -
critical of and opposed to the global mining industry - are pro-development
and pro-environment. Rights Action criticizes and opposes the global mining
industry, as it currently operates in most countries of the global south,
because it most often undermines any chance of integral, community
controlled development and because it is done in ways that are harmful of
the environment.]
Boston-based Oxfam America and Toronto's Rights Action are two
anti-development NGOs active in Guatemala.
[To call these two organizations “anti-development” is pathetic
journalism.]
Oxfam has partnered with MadreSelva (Mother Jungle), a Guatemala City
environmental group headed by affluent urbanites, to block mining projects.
Rights Action's agenda also coincides with that of MadreSelva. The nickel
project was problematic in this regard because MadreSelva was already busy
in Sipacapa, fighting the Glamis project. So it fell to Father Daniel Vogt,
an American priest previously known for his involvement in a land dispute at
El Estor, to take the lead in the opposition to the nickel mine.
[See, below, letter to editor of the WSJ from Father Dan Vogt. See
below an article by Magali Rey Rosa, of Madre Selva. It is our
understanding that the writer spoke with neither organization.]
International NGOs in Guatemala train local leaders to "empower" minorities
and indigenous groups and to denounce the mines as "neo-colonial" ventures.
[This is a distortion of our work and exhibits racist condescension
towards Indigenous communities. Throughout Guatemala (and elsewhere),
Rights Action and OXFAM support projects designed and carried out by local
communities and NGOs; we do not tell them what to do.]
But the reality is that the very nature of the NGO saves it from having a
real stake in the communities it affects through its activism. It can blow
through town like a hurricane disrupting development and then be gone.
[This is ignorant and wrong. The writer never spoke with anyone in
Rights Action, that has supported community based development, environment,
emergency relief and human rights organizations in Guatemala – and elsewhere
– since the early 1980s …, hardly blowing through.]
The mines, on the other hand, have long-term relationships to manage.
[Again, this is unfounded in many cases. Skye Resources bought its
nickel interest from Canada’s INCO nickel company. (INCO remains a major
investor in Skye!) INCO operated a nickel mine in El Estor for less than 2
years, in 1979-1981, then shut down its operation. INCO operated “like a
hurricane”, forcibly evicting Q’eqchi communities from home lands; depleting
local water sources; contributing to contamination of earth, air and water –
still evident today; INCO was cited by the 1999 United Nations Truth
Commission for direct and indirect participation in at least 6 cases of
serious political repression, including killings.]
Concerned about its role in Sipacapa, for example, Glamis funded the
construction of a local road that was not needed for the mine but was
beneficial to the poor community. It offered to fund 32 new teaching
positions to help meet the increasing demand for public education in the
area.
[According to the directors of the Sipakapa middle school – not
interviewed by the writer -, right after the Guatemalan ministry of
education suddenly and unconstitutionally cut education spending for
Sipakapa schools in early 2006, the government told the Sipakapan
municipality that Glamis Gold would pay for some of its teachers, … but
teachers would have to educate about the benefits of mining and stop any
education work critical of the environmental and development harms of
mining. The school, and the Sipakapan people rejected this ‘help’.]
The company also took an unprecedented step by helping to launch an
independent monitoring association that will provide environmental studies,
while ensuring that Glamis reports back to the communities and to other
stakeholders.
[Similar to voluntary international ‘codes of conduct’,
self-regulation and self-monitoring undermine and are contrary to the rule
of law and what enforceable accountability mean. This monitoring is not at
all independent.]
Activism against Skye Resources has been milder because nickel is not
directly associated with wealth the way gold is.
[The writer is wrong. There is huge opposition to nickel mining
right now in Guatemala, that builds upon widespread opposition to Canada’s
INCO company in the 1970s and early 1980s. See comment above concerning
harms and violations associated with INCO’s operations.]
The days when the old mine was operating are remembered as prosperous, so
it's been more difficult to incite the population against the project.
[This statement is patently false. See previous comments about
INCO. Rights Action, as well as AEPDI (see letter below), can provide
extensive information about the negative impacts – including what should be
considered illegal and criminal actions - associated with INCO’s operations
in the past.]
For the mayor of El Estor, Rigoberto Chub, environmental and human-rights
groups have not been able to put forward ideas that address the community's
real needs. "They justify their campaigns with our poverty," he says.
"That's unfair." On the day of the pro-mine rally, he declared Sept. 30 to
be El Estorian Dignity and Foreign and National Investment Day.
With the price of nickel at a historic high of $13 a pound, and the sharp
rise in China's demand for this major component of stainless steel, the
Canadian firm is bullish about the future. Over the past year, it raised its
stake in the project to 90% from 70%.
One thing is for sure: Even though Guatemala is still in the process of
building solid political and social institutions and a lack of trust
remains, this is not the Guatemala of the 1980s. Ten years have passed since
the peace treaties were signed ending a 35-year civil war, and much has been
done to modernize the telecommunications and financial sectors.
[While much has been done to “modernize the telecommunications and
financial sectors”, as desired by the economic elites of Guatemala and
demanded by North American companies and investors, World Bank,
Inter-American Development Bank, in terms of repression, Guatemala is closer
“to the 1980s” than the writer cares to explore; almost nothing has been
achieved in terms of ending the systematic violations of human rights and
the impunity of the powerful sectors.]
In the case of mining, most experts consider the 1997 law an adequate legal
framework that respects international standards.
[Again, this is poor and manipulative journalism. The 1997 mining
‘law’ – similar to many mining ‘laws’ enacted across Latin America at the
behest of mining companies, the governments of Canada and the USA, the World
Bank - has been widely condemned by environment, development and human
rights organizations north and south. At www.rightsaction.org, one can find
a report (“A Backwards, Upside-Down Kind of Development” by Sandra Cuffe of
Rights Action) that sets out how these laws were enacted, who they were
written by and how they favour companies and enable greats harms to the
environment, human rights and development. Many organizations (Madre Selva,
Mining Watch-Canada, the OXFAMs, CAFOD (England), Misereor (Germany),
Friends of the Earth, etc., have investigated and criticized these ‘laws’.]
Professor Thomas Wälde of the Center for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law
and Policy at the University of Dundee, Scotland, puts it this way: If there
were still doubts about the government's capacity to enforce proper rules,
"an international enforcement process with NGO standing, like an arbitration
procedure against non-complying companies, can guarantee proper mining
activity" even when the quality of local governance is poor.
[This sounds good, but such an “international enforcement process”
simply does not exist, and is resisted openly by many governments, the World
Bank, the IDB and the companies themselves, who all prefer – not
surprisingly – voluntary, self-regulating, non-binding, non-enforceable
‘codes of conduct’.]
According to a government official, no NGO has utilized the available legal
channels to challenge the mining licenses.
[Again, this is terrible journalism. Despite risks of repression
and the almost completely dysfunctional Guatemalan legal system, many
community based organizations and NGOs are regularly trying to use the
existing legal and political systems to detain and slow down the rampant
spread of mining companies throughout the country].
If Guatemala were a "global investors' oasis," as Rights Action says, more
than 50% of the population wouldn't be living below the national poverty
line. So while NGOs are asserting that the country is not ready for
investments in mining, the opposite would appear to be true for the people
of El Estor and Sipacapa.
[Rights Action has argued that over 70% of Guatemalans live in
conditions of exploitation and poverty in large part because Guatemala is a
“global investors’ oasis.” If successive Guatemalan regimes, since 1954,
had not mostly geared their economy to the interests of North American
consumers (cotton, beef, sugar, pineapple, African palm oil) and North
American investors (tourism, mineral and oil resources, hydro-electric
resources), and had – instead – geared their “development” model to
promoting and enabling local ownership and control over land and resources,
to promoting and enabling local and national markets, then the levels of
poverty and exploitation would be significantly lower.]
Ms. Tunarosa is a Robert L. Bartley fellow at the Journal.
===
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
El Estor, July 24, 2006
Editors, The Wall Street Journal, New York
Dear Gentlemen:
I am writing in regards to the article by Andrea Tunarosa that appeared in
the July 21 edition of the Journal regarding NGOs working in Guatemala. In
that article I am named and described as leading the opposition to the
mining project underway owned by Skye Resources of Vancouver. As I was not
contacted by the writer of the article to explain my position regarding the
project, I wish to correct the impression created therein.
As an El Estor resident for nineteen years, I have witnessed the growing
impoverishment of the Q’eqchi’ Mayan population in the region. Because of
discriminatory governmental policies, the Q’eqchi’ Mayans have long been
deprived of legal tenure of lands that they have possessed for centuries. I
have been involved with projects that survey and title community lands that
are held collectively through the years; however little progress has been
made due to the administrative quagmire that extends over many Guatemalan
governments. Lacking permanent titles to their lands, the Q’eqchi’ farmers
cannot access credit to improve their harvests nor can they take advantage
of reforestation incentives offered by the Guatemalan government. Many of
these communities have paid the government for the lands they possess, but
due to the administrative bureaucracy, almost no titles have been granted in
all the years that I live here.
What angers and perplexes the Q’eqchi’ farmers is that mining licenses have
been granted for the exploration and extraction of nickel on these same
lands, without any serious regard for the cultural impacts and without any
serious and transparent mechanism of negotiation so that these same
communities, long deprived of economic prosperity, might enjoy what is
justly theirs should nickel be mined in their communities. I view mining as
a viable, legitimate development option for our region, but it has been my
position and that of the organization I direct, that any development project
must comply with both Guatemalan law and the best international standards.
Rev. Daniel Vogt
Director and Legal Representative
AEPDI - Asociación Estoreña Para el Desarrollo Integral El Estor, Izabal,
Guatemala
===
LA RIQUEZA NATURAL DE GUATEMALA NOS PERTENECE AL PUEBLO, NO A LOS
FUNCIONARIOS DE TURNO, Por: Magalí Rey Rosa, Prensa Libre, 28 de julio de
2006
[On July 25, 26, over 25,000 mainly Mayan campesinos in five
municipalities in Huehuetenango voted against accepting mining
licenses/activities in their territories.]
Esta semana cuatro pueblos indígenas de Huehuetenango dieron prueba
fehaciente de su rechazo a la imposición de la explotación de metálicos en
sus tierras por medio de consultas. Este rechazo ilustra con claridad que
la destrucción ambiental que produce la explotación química de metales no
tiene justificación para pueblos que consideran a la Tierra como su madre,
la cual deben heredar a sus descendientes.
Esta actitud de respeto contrasta con la actuación de los funcionarios
públicos que están dispuestos a hacer lo que sea necesario para facilitar la
vida a las transnacionales mineras.
Las transnacionales mineras cuentan con inagotables recursos monetarios,
gracias a los cuales contratan abogados, ingenieros, químicos, biólogos,
agrónomos, etc., para que éstos justifiquen profesionalmente lo que sea
necesario para que las mineras puedan operar como les da la gana. Así
también cuentan con el apoyo de muchos funcionarios, quienes hacen y
deshacen gracias a la eficiente impunidad que nos caracteriza.
El pulso entre los intereses de la población guatemalteca y los de las
transnacionales mineras – con diferencias abismales en recursos y
capacidades - no es una cuestión técnica. Detrás hay expresiones fehacientes
de cierta voluntad política. El equipo que actualmente nos gobierna ha
manifestado claramente a quién protege.
Se rumora que la salida de la ex secretaria ejecutiva del Conap, antes amiga
y protegida del señor Presidente de la República, está relacionada con un
dictamen negativo para que la minera CGN utilice el Parque Nacional Río
Dulce para arrastrar barcazas, con lo cual se afecta a la minera.
El señor Sergio Véliz, su feliz sucesor, declaró apresuradamente que él se
encargará de acomodar las normativas existentes para que las actividades
industriales sean compatibles con las áreas protegidas. El señor Véliz
tiene que recordar que él es un servidor público y que Conap ya resolvió
anteriormente que el paso de barcazas por el Parque Nacional Río Dulce es
ilegal.
La resolución 86-97 de la Junta Directiva del Conap es un precedente legal
importante para la conservación del Río Dulce, uno de los destinos
turísticos más importantes de nuestro país. Como Véliz, hay muchos
funcionarios públicos haciendo esfuerzos y hasta exponiéndose a sufrir las
consecuencias legales de retorcer las leyes en su afán de demostrar su
fidelidad a las poderosas mineras y sus socios locales.
Pero también hay muchas y muchos guatemaltecos que hemos entendido los
verdaderos riesgos de explotar de esa manera nuestra naturaleza, que no
estamos dispuestos a ver cómo se entrega impunemente el patrimonio natural
que nos pertenece.
===
The article below is about the Guatemalan Congress' Energy Commission
requesting the cancellation of Skye Resource’s “Fenix” nickel project
concession (exploitation license) due to the Ministry of the Environment's
rejection of an environment license for the processing plant.
ADVERSAN LICENCIA MINERA: ESTUDIO DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL EN IZABAL ES NEGATIVO
PARA EXPLOTACIÓN, Por: Martín Rodríguez P., Prensa Libre, July 27, 2006
CGN cuenta ya con licencia de explotación, a pesar de un estudio ambiental.
La Comisión de Energía del Congreso pidió ayer al Gobierno que derogue la
licencia de explotación minera otorgada en abril de 2006 a la Compañía
Guatemalteca de Níquel (CGN), pues un estudio de impacto ambiental oficial
desaprobó la planta de procesamiento en febrero.
La resolución número 503/2006/ECM/KC, del Ministerio de Ambiente, no aprobó
el estudio de impacto ambiental de la planta de procesamiento del proyecto
minero Fénix, de CGN, ubicada cerca del Lago de Izabal.
“El hecho de que este estudio de impacto ambiental haya sido denegado
debería invalidar el proceso de CGN. Pedimos al Ministerio que derogue esa
licencia”, aseveró Julio Morales, presidente de esa sala legislativa.
La demanda no parece tener futuro. Luis Ortiz, ministro de Energía y Minas,
informó de que está dentro del marco legal que CGN tenga una licencia de
explotación, aunque el estudio de impacto ambiental para la planta de
procesamiento haya sido negativo.
“Tendrán que mejorar la planta de procesamiento para poder aprobar un
próximo estudio de impacto ambiental; en la actualidad están en fase de
exploración. Cuando empiecen a explotar y a procesar necesitarán aprobar un
estudio de impacto ambiental de la planta”, comentó Ortiz.
Según ambientalistas, en el proceso de extraer, procesar y separar las
piedras del mineral se contaminará el Lago de Izabal.
El Ejecutivo no tiene una respuesta respecto de qué pasará si por haber
reprobado el estudio de impacto ambiental CGN no puede procesar el níquel.
“No quiero presumir qué va a hacer la empresa cuando saque el mineral de la
tierra. Pero está enmarcado en ley su actividad y nosotros no podemos ser
deliberativos”, dijo el ministro.
Diputados de la Comisión de Energía y Minas recordaron que Rodolfo Sosa, uno
de los abogado de CGN, es consuegro del presidente Óscar Berger.
VEN EFECTOS NEGATIVOS
La organización ambientalista MadreSelva aseguró que los efectos serán
devastadores para la fauna y flora del Lago de Izabal y que los otros
estudios de impacto ambiental, para las licencias de explotación y
exploración, tienen anomalías. “A pesar de que son áreas protegidas, se
pondrán en contacto con el aire metales como arsénico, plomo y mercurio, que
luego contaminarán las aguas subterráneas y acabarán con la vegetación. Y al
procesar los minerales al calor, regresarán al lago agua que destruirá la
biodiversidad”, opinó José Cruz, integrante de MadreSelva.
La Comisión de Energía dictaminó ayer a favor de una moratoria para detener
por tres meses las licencias mineras.
REACTIVACIÓN DE OPERACIONES
La empresa CGN anunció, en septiembre del 2005, que reiniciaría la
extracción de ese mineral cerca del Lago de Izabal. La empresa invertirá
US$530 millones y en el 2005 aseguró que pediría la licencia de explotación
hasta el 2008. Tiene 50 kilómetros cuadrados de concesión para explorar.
Según estudios de organizaciones civiles, en El Estor, Izabal, hay 50
millones de toneladas métricas de níquel.
Entre 1977 y 1980, la empresa Exmíbal [wholly owned subsidiary of INCO] –
que vendió sus derechos a CGN – extrajo y exportó 14 mil toneladas métricas,
según datos del Ministerio de Ambiente.
===
WHAT TO DO:
- The #1 line of work in favour of global justice and equality is to fund
and directly support local organizations so that they can continue to lead
their own struggles in defense and promotion of development, the environment
and human rights. Make tax-charitable donations to Rights Action in Canada
and the U.S., to help support community-based organizations in countries
where we work (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Haiti, Chiapas (Mexico);
- Get involved in education and activism work in your home community
concerning the negative impacts of global economic and military power abuse
whose policies and actions are controlled by the “G8” governments, including
Canada and the U.S. With respect to North American mining companies
operating in Central America, North American citizens have little or no
information about who are the investors in, and financial beneficiaries from
mining. Much research and education needs to be done on this issue - anyone
can do this research themselves;
- Consider establishing long-term “partnerships” between your community /
organization with grassroots organizations / communities in these countries
that are affected by the global economic and military policies and actions
of the G8 countries;
- Consider coming to these counties on an educational-activist delegation;
Rights Action is a development, enviro- and human rights organization, with
its main office in Guatemala. We channel your tax-deductible donations to
over 50 community development, environment and human rights organizations in
Guatemala, Chiapas, Honduras, El Salvador and Haiti. We carry out education
& activist work in the USA and Canada (and take educational delegations to
these countries) to learn about and get involved in good work for global
human rights, a healthy environment and a just economic development model.
TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATIONS - make check payable to "Rights Action" and mail
to: United States: Box 50887, Washington DC, 20091-0887. Canada: 509 St.
Clair Ave W, box73527, Toronto ON, M6C-1C0. On-line, credit-card donations:
www.rightsaction.org.
For more info and to get on our email and snail-mail lists:
info@rightsaction.org, www.rightsaction.org
===
[Full WSJ article]
WHAT DO NGOS HAVE AGAINST POOR GUATEMALANS?
By ANDREA TUNAROSA, Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2006; Page A15
Residents of El Estor, a small Q'eqchi community of 40,000 people located in
northeast Guatemala, cheered when they heard that Vancouver-based Skye
Resources was interested in reopening a local abandoned nickel mine.
According to local press, the town's mayor and several community leaders led
a rally last September in favor of the mine with a banner that read, "El
Estor says yes to responsible mining." It's easy to see why there was such
excitement. Skye Resources estimates that it will employ 1,000 people and
create four indirect jobs in the community for every new mining job. That
plus an overall investment of at least $539 million is not irrelevant for an
impoverished town with one of the highest illiteracy rates in the country --
over 40% for indigenous men and 35% for indigenous women.
The festive mood didn't last long. Within months, opposition to the project
began to swell. Well-organized protesters were soon demanding that the
Guatemalan government withdraw the mining license it had issued, alleging
environmental risks and inadequate consultation with the community. The
democratically elected government did not comply with the protestors'
demands.
Skye Resources has initiated a feasibility study for a 50 million pound
ferro-nickel project and is already looking at a potential expansion that
would double production. At the same time, it has also launched an
environmental and social impact assessment to comply with Guatemala's
regulatory framework.
New lines of communication with the community have been opened and if all
goes well, the mine could be working in 2008. Had Skye Resources been less
intent on its investment, Guatemala could have lost an important
wealth-enhancing opportunity for thousands of Guatemalans.
That came close to happening when another Canadian company, Glamis Gold
Ltd., bought land to invest in a gold mine in the northwestern highlands
town of Sipacapa. Locals were eager to get jobs in the mine and to provide
services around the project. But last year organized and well-funded
opposition nearly squelched the deal.
In a country with such dire needs for capital and technology to lessen the
want of the poor, it is worth exploring whether such anti-mine activism
truly expresses the will of the people. Looking behind the scenes, the
funding and instigation of the activism appears heavily driven by
international nongovernmental organizations that end up discouraging
development while trying to fulfill their own mission.
Boston-based Oxfam America and Toronto's Rights Action are two
anti-development NGOs active in Guatemala. Oxfam has partnered with
MadreSelva (Mother Jungle), a Guatemala City environmental group headed by
affluent urbanites, to block mining projects. Rights Action's agenda also
coincides with that of MadreSelva. The nickel project was problematic in
this regard because MadreSelva was already busy in Sipacapa, fighting the
Glamis project. So it fell to Father Daniel Vogt, an American priest
previously known for his involvement in a land dispute at El Estor, to take
the lead in the opposition to the nickel mine.
International NGOs in Guatemala train local leaders to "empower" minorities
and indigenous groups and to denounce the mines as "neo-colonial" ventures.
But the reality is that the very nature of the NGO saves it from having a
real stake in the communities it affects through its activism. It can blow
through town like a hurricane disrupting development and then be gone.
The mines, on the other hand, have long-term relationships to manage.
Concerned about its role in Sipacapa, for example, Glamis funded the
construction of a local road that was not needed for the mine but was
beneficial to the poor community. It offered to fund 32 new teaching
positions to help meet the increasing demand for public education in the
area. The company also took an unprecedented step by helping to launch an
independent monitoring association that will provide environmental studies,
while ensuring that Glamis reports back to the communities and to other
stakeholders.
Activism against Skye Resources has been milder because nickel is not
directly associated with wealth the way gold is. The days when the old mine
was operating are remembered as prosperous, so it's been more difficult to
incite the population against the project. For the mayor of El Estor,
Rigoberto Chub, environmental and human-rights groups have not been able to
put forward ideas that address the community's real needs. "They justify
their campaigns with our poverty," he says. "That's unfair." On the day of
the pro-mine rally, he declared Sept. 30 to be El Estorian Dignity and
Foreign and National Investment Day.
With the price of nickel at a historic high of $13 a pound, and the sharp
rise in China's demand for this major component of stainless steel, the
Canadian firm is bullish about the future. Over the past year, it raised its
stake in the project to 90% from 70%.
One thing is for sure: Even though Guatemala is still in the process of
building solid political and social institutions and a lack of trust
remains, this is not the Guatemala of the 1980s. Ten years have passed since
the peace treaties were signed ending a 35-year civil war, and much has been
done to modernize the telecommunications and financial sectors. In the case
of mining, most experts consider the 1997 law an adequate legal framework
that respects international standards.
Professor Thomas Wälde of the Center for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law
and Policy at the University of Dundee, Scotland, puts it this way: If there
were still doubts about the government's capacity to enforce proper rules,
"an international enforcement process with NGO standing, like an arbitration
procedure against non-complying companies, can guarantee proper mining
activity" even when the quality of local governance is poor. According to a
government official, no NGO has utilized the available legal channels to
challenge the mining licenses.
If Guatemala were a "global investors' oasis," as Rights Action says, more
than 50% of the population wouldn't be living below the national poverty
line. So while NGOs are asserting that the country is not ready for
investments in mining, the opposite would appear to be true for the people
of El Estor and Sipacapa.
Ms. Tunarosa is a Robert L. Bartley fellow at the Journal.
===