January 12, 2007

Norway “seeks the truth” on Bank conditionality
The Norwegian government, whose aid money cannot be spent on programs that require trade liberalization and privatization, hosted an inter-governmental meeting in November to assess the extent to which the World Bank and IMF still require developing countries to pursue privatization and liberalization as a condition of support. An independent study commissioned for the meeting, determined that while the World Bank and IMF are still pushing privatization and trade liberalization in their development policy lending, it is less pervasive than in the past. It also concluded that governance conditions are increasingly taking the place of economic policy prescriptions, and that developing government “ownership” over Bank and Fund policies is still weak.

Groundswell of Interest in Canadian Overseas Extractive Operations
This month the Government of Canada’s final roundtable on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries was held in Montreal (see April 2006, Issue update). In order to accommodate public demand, more time was dedicated to public sessions in the November roundtable than in any of the previous consultations. Roundtable participants heard diverse perspectives from an impressive range of stakeholders. An Indonesian speaker described how her community is affected by the operations of a Canadian mining company. John Ruggie, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on business and human rights also addressed roundtable participants.

Presentation to the Corporate S

28-29 November, Oslo

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]

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]

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]   

For pdf, click here.