Marcopper Copper Mines

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] 

Omai Gold Mine

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]

Don Mario Gold Mine

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]

Sadiola Gold Mine

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]

Goro Nickel Mine

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]

Dikulushi Copper and Silver Mine

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] 

Rosia Montana Gold and Silver Mine

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] 

Kumtor Gold Mine

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]

Marlin Gold and Silver Mine

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]

Gross Rosebel Gold Mine

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] 

Pages