Memorandum submitted by the Columbia Solidarity
Campaign
Rio Tinto and the impact of the Mand
Norte/Murindó mining exploration
project on indigenous Embera and Afrocolombian communities in
the provinces of Choco and Antioquia, Colombia
INTRODUCTION
Rio Tinto is one of the world's largest diversified
mining companies, jointly listed on the London and Australian
Stock Exchanges. London-listed Rio Tinto plc and Australian-listed
Rio Tinto Limited have a joint Board and function as a single
company.
Rio Tinto is currently associated with a highly
controversial mining exploration project in Colombia: La Muriel
Mining Corporation's Mand
Norte/Murindó project on the borders
of the provinces of Choco and Antioquia in the north west of the
country. Colombia Solidarity Campaign has been informed about
the impacts of this project by the Comision Intereclesial de Justicia
y Paz (Interchurch Justice and Peace Commission) in Colombia,
which provides support and accompaniment to the communities affected
by the project. The Comision Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz enjoys
a close relationship with British development agency Christian
Aid and with British-based human rights defence organisation Peace
Brigades International. The Comision Intereclesial de Justicia
y Paz is also well known to the British Embassy in Bogota.
On the strength of the testimony of the Comision
Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz, the Colombia Solidarity Campaign
believes that the Mand
Norte/Murindó project is having a serious,
negative impact on human rights.
The Mand
Norte/Murindó project is being pursued
on collectively-owned Indigenous and Afrocolombian land against
the express wishes of the communities involved. It is alleged
that it has been accompanied by intimidation, deceit, manipulation
and falsification of community consultation procedures, militarisation,
terrorisation and forced displacement of families. According to
a written communication from Rio Tinto on 27 February 2009,
the company retains "an option to joint venture with Muriel"
though it currently has "no active engagement in the Murindo
project".[42]
At the company's London Annual General Meeting on 15 April
2009, the company's CEO Tom Albanese was happy to confirm the
company's involvement but was unable to describe the exact nature
of the joint venture and recommended contacting a company official
in Chile to clarify the matter. In an informal conversation after
the AGM, Mr Albanese suggested that the project's critics should
be relieved that Rio Tinto is involved, as it is in his view exercising
an improving influence on La Muriel Mining Corporation.
The headquarters of La Muriel Mining Corporation
is in Denver, Colorado, USA, and it has offices in Medellin and
Bogota in Colombia. The company's Director is Georges Juilland.
The Juilland family own a number of mining companies in different
countries—among them Panama-based Goldplata Mining International,
which owns La Muriel Mining Corporation and Toronto-based Goldplata
Resources, also active in Colombia.[43]
In 2005, according to mining journalist John Chadwick, La Muriel
Mining Corporation entered into an agreement for a 30%-70% joint
venture with Rio Tinto.[44]
Chadwick notes in an October 2008 article that "Muriel
Mining … negotiated an agreement with a major mining
company [presumably Rio Tinto], which is earning a 70%
interest in the property through work expenditures and a series
of payments."[45]
The Colombian Church organisation Comision Intereclesial de Justicia
y Paz describes this as a "shared risk agreement."
2. CERRO CARA
DE PERRO
(DOG-FACE
HILL)
The mining project is in an area declared a
Forest Reserve by the Colombian Government in 1959. In 1970, Indigenous
People obtained legal recognition of their territory, and in 2000 Afrocolombian
people achieved recognition of their ancestral rights in the area.
The land therefore legally belongs to these communities. The Murindó
Indigenous "Resguardo" (Reservation) is one of the largest
in Colombia. "La Rica" is considered a sacred place
by the communities because it is there that the "Jaibanas"
send spirits to provide protection to the community.
3. MINERAL POTENTIAL
AND THE
MINING PROJECT
Ingeominas, the Colombian Government's geological
surveying office, investigated the mineral potential of the area
in 1975 as part of a project financed by the United Nations.
It found a large quantity of copper, molybdenum and, in places,
gold. The survey was completed in the 1990s. The deposits are
on the eastern slopes of a small mountain range north of the town
of Murindó and about 165 kilometres north east of
Medellin. The Phelps Dodge company, which owned the concession,
sold it to La Muriel Mining Corporation in 2001. But only in 2005 did
communities in the area learn that a number of companies wanted
to exploit the area known as Cerro Cara de Perro (Dog-Face Hill).
Exploration began against the wishes of local people and has caused
a number of impacts on local people and the environment (see section
5 below). No environmental impact study apparently exists.
4. LACK OF
CONSULTATION
Among other irregularities, the communities
report that the people consulted by the mining company to obtain
their consent to the project were bribed, threatened or do not
live in the affected area. They allege that there has never been
a proper consultation with the people who will actually be affected
by the project. Members of low-income communities, they say, were
pressured by company representatives to sign documents. Despite
community demands, no discussions are taking place aimed at halting
the project. Both the company and the Colombian Government claim
that the consultation process was carried out according to the
law. In January 2009, a delegation of Indigenous people met with
the Human Rights Ombudsman to tell him that the consultation process
was illegitimate. The disagreement about whether or not there
has been legitimate consultation is central to the dispute and
warrants independent investigation.
Colombian law requires "consulta previa"
(prior consultation) with Indigenous communities before major
projects are carried out on their collectively owned lands. Colombia
has not yet signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (see http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html),
which states (Article 8.1) that "Indigenous peoples and individuals
have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction
of their culture", which violation of Cerro Cara de Perro
undoubtedly represents. Article 32.1 states that "Indigenous
peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and
strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories
and other resources." Article 32.2 declares that "States
shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous
peoples concerned through their own representative institutions
in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the
approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and
other resources, particularly in connection with the development,
utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources."
The United Kingdom is a signatory to this Declaration and, we
would assert, therefore has a duty to ensure that companies listed
on the London Stock Exchange respect the requirements of that
Declaration. This should extend to their involvement as minority
partners in joint ventures.
5. IMPACTS TO
DATE ON
LAND AND
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Local communities allege that there have been
multiple violations of human rights and Indigenous rights, including:
— Failure to recognise Indigenous and Afrocolombian
territorial rights.
— Militarisation of the zone to protect
the interests of the mining companies, with illegal raids and
use of hoods to hide the identity of agents, which has generated
panic during military operations .
— Use of apparatus which inhibits movement
around the area and presents a threat to life and safety.
— Continuous brutal intimidation of communities.
— Local people have repeatedly had to suspend
their daily work, with consequent economic losses.
— Severe health impacts, including the
deaths of four babies, which local people believe to have been
caused by disruption to people's means of livelihood and ability
to travel within the zone of exploration and the stress caused
by fear of soldiers and the consequences of violation of sacred
sites.
— Loss of primary forest (in which the
mining camp has been set up and where soldiers are based).
— Profanation of the sacred hill, causing
massive stress and uncertainty among the communities, for whom
the hill restrains the spirits of evil.
— The situation has led to suicides and
suicide attempts because of the fear that what is sacred is being
destroyed.
Despite repeated requests by local people, neither
the company's owners nor the national government, who are responsible
for what is going on, have yet visited the area to engage in dialogue.
6. LEGAL SITUATION
A number of separate legal actions have been
taken in Colombia with the aims of protecting the lives and livelihood
of the local people, ensuring a legal consultation process is
carried out, stopping deforestation, demilitarising the area and
getting the company to leave. A case may also be made before the
Interamerican Commission. In response, the company has attempted
to discredit local communities, the Comision Interclesial de Justicia
y Paz and the international organisation Peace Brigades International,
through paid advertisements in the press and communication with
the President of Colombia. The company does not recognise the
legitimacy of the locally-organised "popular consultation"
in February (see below) and intends to continue its exploration
work.
7. CONSULTATION
IN FEBRUARY
IN THE
COMMUNITIES AFFECTED
BY THE
PROJECT
The "popular consultation" was the
first of its kind to be carried out in Colombia. Such consultations
have been used elsewhere in Latin America to gauge support for
and opposition to mining projects. They are based on the principles
of community custom and local autonomy. This consultation was
also based on Indigenous rights to territory established by the
Colombian constitution of 1991 and the principles of International
Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169. Article 7 of ILO
Convention 169 says: "The peoples concerned shall have
the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development
as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual
well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to
exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic,
social and cultural development. In addition, they shall participate
in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and
programmes for national and regional development which may affect
them directly." The purpose of the consultation was to ensure
that the Colombian authorities, Muriel Mining Corporation and
Rio Tinto would know and accept the communities' decision about
the mining project in their territories.
The consultation, an initiative of the Indigenous
communities themselves, produced a resounding "No" to
mining in their territories. The intention is that with the help
of the legal actions being taken, the consultation will be legally
recognised by the State. Voting took place over three days in
four places, with the participation of 17 communities from
three Indigenous Resguardos—all Emberas—and a community
council from the Afrocolombian communities.
Communities have also been carrying out frequent
rituals seeking forgiveness from the spirits for the violation
of their most sacred place. These are an expression of their objection
to mineral exploration. They are demanding that the company cease
its activities in their territory and that their sacred place
be demilitarised.
8. DUTIES OF
THE STATE,
RESPONSIBILITIES OF
BUSINESSES AND
ACCESS TO
REMEDIES
The Colombia Solidarity Campaign believes that
the UK Government is bound to uphold the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other human rights instruments,
and that companies are bound to observe them. Rio Tinto is clearly
associated with a company against which serious allegations have
been made. Colombia Solidarity Campaign does not have confidence
that the Colombian authorities are effectively imposing on companies
operating in its territory even the minimal obligations to which
they are bound by Colombian law, let alone the stricter obligations
imposed by such international instruments as the UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UK law needs to be changed
in order that London-listed companies can be held to account for
their own actions and those of subsidiaries, associates or joint
venture partners in other jurisdictions around the world. People
from directly and negatively affected communities need to have
an easy and effective avenue for investigation and redress of
their grievances, and this should not be frustrated by the so-called
"corporate veil" which so often precludes the initiation
of legal proceedings in British courts.
We urge the Joint Committee on Human Rights
to hear oral evidence from representatives of the communities
affected by the Mand
Norte/Murindó mining exploration project
in Colombia. At a minimum, we believe that the JCHR should have
the opportunity to hear from Father Henry Ramirez Soler of the
Comision Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz, currently in Europe
for some months, whose attendance in London could be arranged
with minimal cost and delay.
Richard Solly
Chair, Colombia Solidarity Campaign
May 2009
Much of the information in this submission
was collated by Guadalupe Rodríguez of Salva la Selva/Rettet
den Regenwald, Berlin, to whom the Colombia Solidarity Campaign
is very grateful. It is based on information provided by the Comisión
Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz, the Organización Indígena
de Antioquía OIA (Indigenous Organisation of Antioquia)
and others. Photos are from the OIA.
42 Email from Julie Dennis, Rio Tinto, to Digby Knight,
27 February 2009, 09.25 Back
43
Goldplata, Big Plans, John Chadwick, October 2008, in http://www.infomine.com/publications/docs/InternationalMining/Chadwick2008ff.pdf Back
44
Going for Gold in Guyane, John Chadwick, in International
Mining, December 2006 Back
45
Goldplata, Big Plans, John Chadwick, October 2008, in http://www.infomine.com/publications/docs/InternationalMining/Chadwick2008ff.pdf Back
| 
