To International Cooperation Minister Julian Fantino:
We are writing to you from the Toronto-based group Mining Injustice Solidarity Network (MISN). If you recall, we had been in contact with your office requesting a meeting with you to discuss the topic of Canadian mining, a request which was declined.
We originally sent a request for a meeting on September 20th, 2012. After much follow up on our behalf, we finally received a response dated December 4, 2012 declining our request. We find it disappointing that as an elected official you would decline our request for a meeting, particularly as the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying indicates that you met with Pierre Gratton, the CEO and President of the Mining Association of Canada (MAC) on November 20th, 2012. The nature of our work puts us in direct communication with communities affected by Canadian mining and these are important perspectives to take into consideration given recent policy shift at the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in support of large scale mining as a development strategy.i As you are unwilling or unable to meet with us, we have set out in this letter our perspective on the use of public funds in support of Canadian mining interests.
Firstly, large scale mining does not represent a sustainable form of development for countries in the Global South. In terms of the economic aspect, most of the economic benefits accrue to private interests in the Global North, particularly Canada where over 75% of global mining businesses are based, instead of populations in the Global South. ii Economic returns from mining for countries in the Global South are limited given low royalty and tax rates. In the case of the Marlin mine in Guatemala, owned by Vancouver-based Goldcorp, royalties and taxes derived constitute a mere 6 percent of the Marlin mine’s revenue.iii However, as Goldcorp’s “lowest cost producer,” as well as “third best generator of earnings from operations,” the Marlin mine represents significant earnings for shareholders, the largest portion held by Canadian and European pension funds.iv It’s a similar story elsewhere. Beginning in the late 1990s, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador reformed their mining laws, engaging in a “race to the bottom,” competing with each other to attract foreign direct investment in mining by drastically reducing their already low royalty rates. Inevitably, the limited economic gains derived from such projects cease once operations have been completed, leaving enormous costs for communities in the Global South, for instance, in terms of closure. Mining-affected communities bear a number of unquantifiable costs, including social, environmental and cultural losses, emphasized by testimonies given during the Peoples International Health Tribunal.
The Peoples International Health Tribunal, organized by several international and Guatemalan organizations, convened in San Miguel Ixtahuacán, Guatemala last July. It sought to critically examine the impacts of Goldcorp on mining affected communities in Latin America, particularly Carrizalillo, Mexico; Valle de Siria, Honduras; and in San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipacapa, San Marcos, Guatemala. After hearing testimonies from mining affected community members, as well as expert witnesses, the distinguished panel issued a guilty verdict, finding Goldcorp responsible for environmental harms, health problems and illnesses, as well as human rights violations. We continually hear identical stories in other parts of the world. In Papua New Guinea, for instance, Toronto-based Barrick Gold has been implicated in forced evictions, as well as contamination of a 8000-km long river system. Moreover, locals have been subjected to police brutality, as well as sexual violence. In meeting with you, we had hoped to share these stories, and discuss possible solutions to these problems.
Secondly, and importantly, this recent policy change contravenes the Official Development Assistance Act which stipulates that Official Development Assistance must meet the following conditions: contribute to poverty reduction; take into account the perspective of the poor; and, be consistent with international human rights standards. This Act is meant to guard against the use of Official Development Assistance for interests which do not prioritize poverty alleviation in the Global South, including use as a tool for Canadian political and commercial interests. The support of mining companies, geared towards profit-making, to the benefit of Canadian mining companies, instead of poverty reduction, in projects that for the most part do not have the social license to operate locally, and which are often associated with human rights violations, does not appear to meet these criteria.
We urge you to consider these critiques in making important decisions regarding the operation of the Canadian International Development Agency, particularly the spending of Official Development Assistance. Finally, recognizing that the issues outlined in this letter also play out here in Canada, we urge the Harper Government to respect the right to free, prior and informed consent, in good will, with First Nations communities with regards to resource extraction, as required under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada is a signatory.
Mining Injustice Solidarity Network
Toronto, Ontario
i http://m.theglobeandmail.com/
ii http://www.international.gc.
iii Searching for Gold in the Highlands of Guatemala: Economic Benefits and Environmental Risks of the Marlin Mine. Zarsky and Stanley 2011: 4
iv Searching for Gold in the Highlands of Guatemala: Economic Benefits and Environmental Risks of the Marlin Mine. Zarsky and Stanley 2011: 20;19