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]

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] 

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]   

Norway cancels illegitimate debt
On October 2, in an unprecedented move, Norway's International Development Minister, Erik Solheim, announced that the Norwegian government would unilaterally and unconditionally cancel US$80 million (NOK520 million) of illegitimate bilateral debt held by Ecuador, Egypt, Jamaica, Peru and Sierra Leone. Acknowledging that these debts stemmed from a “development policy failure”, Oslo also accepted that as a creditor country it had a shared responsibility for the debts. Furthermore, the cancellation will not form part of Norway’s Overseas Development Assistance, meaning that it will be additional to current aid spending.

THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER
Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment

Canadian mineral industry abroad lawless

Struggle at the top of the Andes

September 24, 2006

Professor John Ruggie
UN Special Representative to the Secretary General on Business and Human Rights
Harvard University
John F. Kennedy School of Government
79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138

Dear Professor Ruggie

RE: General Principles on Human Rights Impact Assessments

We are sharing with you our collective views on general principles for a human rights impact assessment. These have arisen from a meeting on community-driven human rights impact assessments, convened by Rights & Democracy[1] in Johannesburg, South Africa, 21-24 September, 2006.

This power-point presentation was made as part of an expert session i

Click here for complete paper in pdf

Prepared by Özgür Can and Sara Seck, for the ECA-Watch, Halifax Initiative Coalition and ESCR-Net

INTRODUCTION
International human rights law has traditionally focused on establishing the obligations owed by states to individuals. Much recent attention has been given to the question of whether non-state actors, such as transnational corporations, can be considered subjects of international law and as such duty bearers of international human rights obligations. However, less attention has been given to the equally significant question of whether financiers of transnational corporate activities have an obligation to ensure that the activities they support comply with international human rights norms. This paper will explore the international human rights obligations of one type of financial institution: officially supported export credit and investment insurance agencies (Export Credit Agencies or ECAs). ECAs are primarily public or publicly mandated institutions that support and subsidise national trade and investment activities, particularly in developing and emerging markets.