Search
Poll
Bulgaria
Dundee Precious Metals
CPP: $11 million [1]
Dundee Precious Metals hopes to construct the Ada Tepe gold mine in the East Rhodopi mountains, near the town of Krumovgrad. A substantial majority of local residents, concerned about the mine’s impact on agriculture, tourism and historic monuments, oppose the project. In 2005, the Municipal Council of Krumovgrad passed a resolution rejecting the project on environmental grounds.[2] Nearly 10,000 people, representing close to 90% of eligible voters, endorsed the resolution by signing the document.[3] In July 2006, Bulgaria’s Supreme Administrative Court blocked a complaint brought by the company against the Environment Ministry for its failure to issue a decision regarding the company’s environmental impact assessment.[4]
Burma
Burma Ivanhoe Mines Ltd.
CPP: $32 million [1]
Burma is ruled by a repressive military junta. The government, which is accused of committing egregious human rights violations, is the subject of international sanctions. In 1990, opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi handily won Burma’s first multi-party elections in 30 years. The junta refused to relinquish control and has detained Aung San Suu Kyi for years. In 1991 she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.[2] Since 1996, Ivanhoe has invested over $90 million in a 50-50 joint venture with the ruling junta to develop the Monywa mine.[3] The company reports that it consulted with the Canadian government before initiating business with the military regime.[4]
The Philippines
Placer Dome Inc. (Placer Dome was acquired by Barrick Gold Corp. in 2006)
EDC: US$1.36 million loan [1]
ADB: US$40 million loan [2]
CPP: $351 million (Barrick) [3]
The Marcopper mines are environmental disasters. Placer Dome’s partnership with repressive dictator Ferdinand Marcos enabled the company to mine within a protected area and to use Calancan Bay, the source of livelihood for 12 fishing villages, as a toxic dumping ground for 16 years.[4] Both the Mogpog and Boac Rivers have been literally overrun with toxic waste.[5] Two children died when they were buried in the Mogpog mine waste spill.[6] Studies conducted by the United Nations, government agencies and academics show that communities, who continue to rely on these rivers and on Calancan Bay, are exposed to unsafe levels of environmental toxins.[7] Placer Dome denies responsibility for these environmental disasters[8] and sold its stake in the project in 1997. The Province of Marinduque is currently suing Placer Dome and Barrick in the US, seeking damages for the environmental harm caused by the Marcopper mines.[9]
Thailand
Asia Pacific Resources Ltd. (Asia Pacific was acquired by SMRT Holdings, a New Brunswick company, in 2006)
Critics are concerned that the Udon Thani mine will generate significant salt pollution, destroying farmland and water sources, affecting the source of livelihood for 20,000 people.[1] Even the company’s environmental assessment, which has been criticized by Thai academics, politicians and environmentalists, predicts that land in the concession area will sink as much as 70 cm.[2] The Asia Times reports that leaders of the Udon Thani Conservation Group, who question the project, have received death threats from representatives of companies that were promised contracts for the mine by Asia Pacific.[3]
Peru
Manhattan Minerals
When Manhattan Minerals proposed an open pit gold mine in the town of Tambogrande, local residents came together and stopped the project. The San Lorenzo valley is a lush oasis in Peru’s barren desert coast. The area was transformed into an important agricultural centre with the installation of a World Bank-financed irrigation system. Area residents were concerned that the environmental risks associated with gold mining would threaten their thriving agricultural economy. The municipality held a popular referendum on the proposed project – the first referendum of its kind in the world. The vote, which was monitored by international observers, registered virtually unanimous opposition to the mine. The Tambogrande referendum, which played a vital part in halting the project, has since been replicated by other communities[1] threatened by mining projects.[2]
Indonesia
Inco Ltd.
EDC: loans of $60 and $200 million[1]
CPP: $130 million[2]
For thirty years Inco enjoyed a cozy relationship with the repressive and corrupt Suharto regime.[3]
Members of the Karonsi’e Dongi and Sorowako indigenous communities lost their most productive agricultural land when the PT Inco mine was built, and they received paltry compensation in return.[4] Mining activity has degraded land and water resources,[5] and initial monitoring suggests that smelter emissions affect air quality in neighbouring communities.[6] Despite apparent efforts by Inco to resolve community claims in recent years, protesting residents report being threatened and intimidated by the Indonesian military and police.[7]
Democratic Republic of Congo
Anvil Mining Ltd.
MIGA: US$13.3 million political risk insurance[1]
CPP: $4 million[2]
Brutal conflict, fuelled by the country’s extraordinary mineral wealth, officially ended in 2003 with the establishment of a transitional government. While a fragile peace has held since then, tensions remain high and the government lacks control over large tracts of the country.[3] The Dikulushi mine began production in 2002. Two years later, Anvil provided logistical support to the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC) to suppress a rebel uprising. The company supplied the FARDC with planes, vehicles, personnel and food.[4] According to a UN mission, the FARDC utilized these resources to carry out a number of human rights abuses, including alleged summary executions.[5]
Bolivia
Orvana Minerals Corp.
IFC: issued loans to and held equity in COMSUR,[1] a Bolivian company that was an Orvana shareholder until 2005[2]
The Don Mario mine is located in the heart of the Chiquitano Dry Forest.[3] This rare, globally significant ecosystem supports the headwaters of the Pantanal wetlands and is home to numerous endemic species.[4] The Pantanal is one of the world’s largest freshwater ecosystems, recognized by UNESCO and the Ramsar Convention.[5] The area is also of great cultural, economic and social importance to the Chiquitano indigenous people.[6] In a complaint filed with the World Bank’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, an indigenous organization argued that the mine violates the rights of over 7000 indigenous communities.[7] Among other shortcomings, the ombudsman found that indigenous people were not adequately consulted by the project proponents.[8]
Spain
Boliden Ltd.
The 1998 failure of the tailings dam at the Los Frailes mine wreaked widespread environmental havoc. The toxic mine wastes that were released caused a massive fish kill, damaged thousands of acres of farmland,[1] threatened a United Nations World Heritage Site[2] and eliminated 5,000 local jobs.[3] The Government of Spain spent $275 million cleaning up the waste.[4] The company is challenging a high court decision awarding the government $74 million in compensation and damages.[5]
Kyrgyzstan
Cameco Corp.
EDC: US$50 million political risk insurance [1]
EBRD: US$40 million loan [2]
IFC: US$40 million loan [3]
MIGA: US$45 million political risk insurance [4]
CPP: $35 million [5]
In May 1998, a company truck spilt a load of sodium cyanide, a chemical used to extract gold, into the Barskoun River, raising the cyanide concentration in the water to 50,000 times the permissible level.[6] In the days following the spill, hundreds, possibly thousands of local residents sought medical attention and several deaths were reported. Thousands were evacuated from the spill area.[7] A study published by Natural Resources Canada [8] concluded that few, if any, significant environmental impacts were generated by the spill - conclusions that were questioned by an independent hydrogeologist.[9]
Guatemala
Glamis Gold Ltd.
IFC: US$45 million loan
CPP: $63 million[1]
Marlin, which became operational in 2005, is the first major mining investment in Guatemala in 20 years[2] and is an important test case. In January 2005, the break-up of a 40-day protest by the army resulted in one death.[3] Later that year, indigenous Sipacapan communities affected by the mine overwhelmingly rejected mineral development in a popular referendum.[4] In response to a community complaint, the World Bank’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) investigated the project. While the CAO found that some community concerns, particularly those involving impacts to local water supplies, were unwarranted, the CAO identified some serious shortcomings with project assessment and management. For example, the CAO described the lack of a clear policy on human rights as a “significant oversight” on the part of both Glamis and the IFC.[5]
Guyana
Cambior Inc. and Golden Star Resources Ltd.
EDC: $163 million political risk insurance[1]
MIGA: reinsured $55 million
CPP: $21 million (Cambior)
$14 million (Golden Star)[2]
The now infamous, massive tailings dam failure at the Omai mine occurred in August 1995. Millions of cubic metres of heavy metal laden mine waste spilled into the Essequibo River, the country’s main waterway. Large fish kills were reported and the government declared the area a disaster zone. Amerindian indigenous people living along the banks of the Essequibo claimed major fish losses, contamination of freshwater supplies and adverse health effects, as a result of the spill. A class action lawsuit on behalf of affected Guyanese was thrown out by a Quebec court, which denied the Guyanese plaintiffs standing.[3]
Mali
IAMGOLD Corp.
IFC: owns 6% of the operating company
CPP: $38 million[1]
Two villages were displaced in order to make way for the Sadiola mine. The vast majority of relocated agriculturalists and pastoralists who did not possess title to their lands have seen their livelihoods diminish. Replacement lands are less fertile and some are located far from villages. Water resources are scarce. Natural areas used by locals have been degraded through deforestation caused by the mine. Mine workers live in poor conditions and locals report a rise in prostitution, alcoholism, drug use and the spread of HIV/AIDS since the arrival of gold mining.[2]
Chile
Barrick Gold Corp.
CPP: $351 million[1]
The Pascua Lama gold deposit is located high in the Andes, in an area rich with glaciers. Glacial run-off irrigates the productive Huasco valley, an agricultural centre just south of the Atacama desert.[2] Barrick’s original plan to relocate portions of several glaciers[3] was met with public outcry and was rejected by the Chilean government. Barrick now claims that it can extract the gold without damaging the glaciers or significantly impacting water resources in the valley.[4] However, a government report reveals that exploration activity may already have caused significant damage to several glaciers.[5] The Indigenous Diaguita community of Huasco-Altino claims that the concession includes part of its ancestral territory and is suing to recover the land.[6]
India
Alcan Inc.
CPP: $256 million[1]
Thousands of tribal and low-caste people living in Kashipur, India prefer to die rather than abandon their lands to make way for Alcan’s proposed mine and refinery.[2] Local residents have organized massive mobilizations against the project.[3] Opponents describe a climate of fear and hostility, and claim that they routinely meet with police repression.[4] In 2000, three protesters were killed and several others injured.[5] Alcan suspended operations after the incident until it was satisfied that local authorities would responsibly enforce the law and keep order.[6] The villagers have found an important ally in Canada. Alcan workers in British Columbia, represented by the Canadian Auto Workers union, have vowed that they will not smelt any alumina originating from Kashipur.[7]
Suriname
Cambior Inc.
EDC: $100(+) million political risk insurance[1]
CPP: $14 million[2]
The Aucaner (or N’djuka) Maroon community of Nieuw Koffiekamp is located in the heart of the Gross Rosebel mining concession. Relocated in the 1960s to make way for a hydroelectric dam, Nieuw Koffiekamp now faces a second relocation which, according to a human rights expert, “would be tantamount to [its] cultural and social death.”[3] Maroon authorities were not consulted about the project, and groups within the community vociferously oppose relocation.[4] Suriname lacks legislation that requires mine proponents to undertake environmental impact assessments and is the only country in the Western Hemisphere that does not recognize the rights of indigenous or tribal populations.[5] Critics argue that the country’s draft Mining Act discriminates against these populations and a UN human rights body has called on the Government of Suriname to rectify this problem.[6]
The Philippines
Placer Dome Inc. (Placer Dome was acquired by Barrick Gold Corp. in 2006)
EDC: US$1.36 million loan [1]
ADB: US$40 million loan [2]
CPP: $351 million (Barrick) [3]
The Marcopper mines are environmental disasters. Placer Dome’s partnership with repressive dictator Ferdinand Marcos enabled the company to mine within a protected area and to use Calancan Bay, the source of livelihood for 12 fishing villages, as a toxic dumping ground for 16 years.[4] Both the Mogpog and Boac Rivers have been literally overrun with toxic waste.[5] Two children died when they were buried in the Mogpog mine waste spill.[6] Studies conducted by the United Nations, government agencies and academics show that communities, who continue to rely on these rivers and on Calancan Bay, are exposed to unsafe levels of environmental toxins.[7] Placer Dome denies responsibility for these environmental disasters [8] and sold its stake in the project in 1997. The Province of Marinduque is currently suing Placer Dome and Barrick in the US, seeking damages for the environmental harm caused by the Marcopper mines.[9]
Colombia
Conquistador Mines Ltd.
The town of Simiti, in northern Colombia, is the site of a gold mine whose ownership is a matter of dispute. The mine is claimed by both the Higuera-Palacios family and the 35,000 poor miners who have worked the deposit for 30 years. In 1997, at roughly the same time that Conquistador, through its subsidiary Corona Goldfields, expressed interest in the Simiti mine, paramilitaries began to appear in the area. They killed at least 19 people in towns around Simiti, beheaded one miner, and tortured and killed the Vice-President of a local miners association. Fearing for their lives, thousands of people fled the area. According to Francisco Ramirez, President of the Colombian Mine Workers Union, the death squads’ purpose was to displace small-scale miners in order to make way for foreign capital. Conquistador has since abandoned the project.[1]
Tanzania
Sutton Resources Ltd. Mine acquired by Barrick Gold Corp. in 1999.
EDC: $173 million political risk insurance[1]
MIGA: US$172 million guarantees[2]
CPP: $351 million[3]
Bulyanhulu is among the most controversial Canadian mining operations in the world. Artisanal miners were forcibly evicted from the concession area by Tanzanian troops in 1996 when the concession was held by Barrick’s predecessor, Sutton Resources.[4] A storm of allegations surround the evictions including one that as many as 52 miners were buried in mine shafts.[5] Barrick denies these allegations. A former Tanzanian Attorney General and an international team of researchers, lawyers and NGOs have called for an independent inquiry into the evictions.[6] The World Bank Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) found that the evidence regarding the alleged deaths was unconvincing and did not recommend an independent inquiry, deferring this decision to the Government of Tanzania.[7] No inquiry has been held, and the CAO report has been widely criticized by NGOs.[8]
United States of America
Placer Dome (Placer Dome was acquired by Barrick Gold Corp. in 2006)
CPP: $351 million (Barrick)[1]
The Cortez gold mine is located in the ancestral territory of the Western Shoshone indigenous people. The Shoshone argue that the mine, which was constructed without their free, prior and informed consent, violates their treaty rights.[2] In 2006, the United Nations called on the U.S. government to immediately cease the transfer of Shoshone land to multinational extractive companies, a practice that the UN argued could cause irreparable harm to indigenous communities.[3]
Mexico
Metallica Resources Inc.
When Metallica arrived in Cerro de San Pedro in 1995 to build an open pit mine, local residents, human rights organizations and environmental groups formed the Broad Opposition Front (FAO) to halt the operation that they say would destroy their 400-year old town. The company’s own environmental impact assessment reveals that if built, the mine would require the relocation of the community and would cause “significant adverse” impact to the area’s only aquifer.[1] The latter is of particular concern. Water is extremely scarce in the State of San Luis Potosi and the National Water Commission of Mexico reports that it is already being exploited at an unsustainable rate.[2] Local residents, whose property has been adversely affected by Metallica’s exploration activities, have sued the Government of Mexico over its decision to issue the company a permit.[3]
Romania
Gabriel Resources Ltd.
CPP: $8 million[1]
The proposed Rosia Montana mine has generated opposition across Europe. Over 1,000 scholars have voiced their objection to the mine, due to the area’s great archeological significance. The site includes historic Roman temples.[2] The Minister of the Environment in neighbouring Hungary has called the project a serious threat and advocates for it to be abandoned.[3] Mine development would require the relocation of 2,000 people, at least half of whom refuse to move.[4] Environmental concerns include the clear cutting of forests and the contamination of the water table.[5]
Kanaky-New Caledonia
Inco Ltd.
CPP: $130 million[1]
Home to the world’s greatest barrier reef system, largest lagoon, and unique plant and animal species, Kanaky-New Caledonia is a biodiversity hotspot.[2] This biological treasure-trove may be irrevocably damaged if mining giant Inco moves ahead with plans for a massive open pit mine. Arguing that they were not consulted, native Kanaks oppose further construction - citing the project’s potential social and environmental impacts.[3] The Kanaks’ concerns are credible - in 2006, erosion controls employed by the company failed, contaminating an important marine protected area.[4] In June 2006, an administrative tribunal responded to a complaint by the Kanak organization, Rheebu Nuu, by canceling Goro’s mining license, arguing that the project’s potential environmental impacts had not been adequately studied.[5] The company is appealing the decision,[6] but has proceeded with mine development, relying on a separate construction permit.[7]
