A Response to the Minister of International Trade

To read communication previous to what’s given in this post, please click here.

On February 23, 2010, I sent a response to our minister of international trade. By that time, Minister Day had moved on to his current position as President of the Treasury Board, and his previous position as Minister of International Trade has now been occupied by the Honourable Peter Van Loan. I don’t necessarily believe that the email that I received from Minister Day was written exclusively to me. Regardless of anything though, I should make clear the gratitude that I feel for the fact that my government is willing to involve me in this discussion and to put a single degree of freedom between me and one of their ministers. Before reading my response to Minister Day’s email, please understand that he deserves serious respect and credit for acting in such a way that the communication of an ordinary Canadian was responded to, especially since in doing so he was associating himself with a liability-laden political issue. Also, keep in mind that the opinions that he expresses are on behalf of the government that he’s representing. That said, I can’t help but be disturbed by the fact that my government wrote a response of that nature to concerns I had expressed about the possibility that people, livestock and wildlife are having their water and soil rendered toxic. At a time when nothing short of condemnation should be acceptable, it seems that perhaps they were trying to sweep the issue under the rug. My email to the Honourable Peter Van Loan follows.

February 23, 2010 Dear Minister Van Loan: I’m writing to you today in response to an email that the Honourable Stockwell Day sent to me on January 11, 2010. His email was written in reply to some concerns that I had expressed to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding an apparent lack of control that Canadians have over the environmental and human rights impact of companies that are registered in Canada. At the time that Mr. Day sent me his email, he was occupying your post of Minister of International Trade, but has since moved on to a new position where I wish him great success. If you’re interested in reading the rest of the communication that has taken place between our government and me on this matter, then you may find it attached at the bottom of this letter. I’m writing to you now since I feel that Mr. Day did not address in a meaningful way the concerns that I had expressed. In the previous emails that I had sent to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on this subject, I mentioned two examples that had caused me concern. The first example was regarding a failure on the part of Barrick Gold Corp. of Toronto to contain waste at their North Mara mine in northern Tanzania. The second example was regarding a mine in central Mexico that’s run by a subsidiary of New Gold Inc. of Vancouver. The mine in Mexico is in the process of demolishing the small mountain of Cerro de San Pedro, the emblem that supports the patron saint of San Luis Potosí on its coat of arms. San Luis Potosí, a city of a million people, is mentioned on Mexico’s Tentative List of UNESCO World Heritage sites where Cerro de San Pedro, which is located about twelve kilometers outside the city, is mentioned as being of specific historical significance. I also referred to the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade [1] which indicates clearly that Canadian companies are being allowed to operate in a fashion that is in violation of human rights and environmental standards, and specifies unequivocally that action should be taken to ensure that such standards are respected. In his letter, Mr. Day expressed an appreciation for the importance of improving Canada’s competitive position in a global market and offered the opinion that the best way to respond to concerns of the kind that I had addressed was through the promotion of voluntary initiatives. He listed some examples of the action that his government had taken, and expressed the opinion that in taking this action his government had responded to the points discussed in the aforementioned report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. You are probably already familiar with the initiatives that he referred to. I won’t list them here, but have attached Mr. Day’s letter to this one, so that you may read it if you wish. First and foremost, I would like to thank Mr. Day, and those who worked for him in the post that you currently hold, for recognising the importance of Canada’s competitiveness in a global market. This issue is obviously one that we do not want to lose sight of. I would also like to thank Mr. Day for recognising, and to some extent addressing, the failings that the Committee has referred to in their report. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Day for not only sending me a reply, but for also involving me and other ordinary Canadians in a discussion on this issue. Now I would like to explain why I feel that Mr. Day’s letter did not address my concerns in a meaningful way. I believe it’s likely that some Canadian companies, their subsidiaries, and the local communities and governments that host them, may end up improving their operations by voluntarily taking advantage of the services that were discussed in Mr. Day’s letter. However, it’s my belief that voluntary initiatives do not go far enough when dealing with the kind of issues that we’re talking about. Having read through the Committee’s report, it’s clear to me that they are not simply asking for an encouragement of voluntary initiatives. For example, they state that their Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development was concerned that Canada does not yet have laws to ensure that the activities of Canadian mining companies in developing countries conform to human rights standards, and had urged our government to establish clear legal norms in Canada to ensure that Canadian companies and residents are held accountable when there is evidence of environmental and/or human rights violations. This doesn’t sound to me like a question of voluntary initiatives. As such, I’m not convinced that the initiatives that Mr. Day mentioned respond to the Committee’s concerns. I would encourage anyone who reads Mr. Day’s letter to also read the Committee’s report and to decide for themselves. Regarding the specific examples that I have mentioned previously, I won’t refer any more in this letter to the Cerro de San Pedro mine, except to point out that it is still in operation. Regarding the North Mara mine, let me be clear that I do not myself know how the containment failure happened or what the extent of the damage was. Like most Canadians, I have to rely on second-hand accounts of what took place and what the possible consequences might have been to the local people and to the environment. The account available from Barrick Gold is that there was an incident in which heavy rains led to a failure to contain acid rock drainage from a waste rock storage area [2], and that this failure was exacerbated by vandalism. They explain that the failure was detected in May of 2009 [3] in the form of decreased pH levels at a section of river located a kilometer downstream of the mine. As may be expected, there have been conflicting reports regarding what occurred and what its impact has been on the local environment. What is troubling to me is not that there have been conflicting accounts, but rather that we do not seem to be watching what’s going on. Independent of this concern, it’s my understanding that the risks associated with acid rock drainage and accompanying toxic metal contamination are sufficiently important to alert our concern, and remain a concern for a considerably longer period of time than other contaminants such as cyanide [4]. With this last thought in mind, let me bring to your attention a study led by a research scientist from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. The study is published in the form of a report titled IPM-Report 2009: Investigation of Trace Metal Concentrations in Soil, Sediments and Waters in Vicinity of "Geita Gold Mine" and "North Mara Gold Mine" in North West Tanzania [5]. In this report, it’s indicated that the North Mara spill likely gave rise to severe toxicity of water, and to some extent degradation of soils and sediments nearby, particularly due to high arsenic content. Barrick Gold have expressed concerns regarding the conclusions of this study [6]. I respect their right to defend themselves and to express their opinion. Let me express my own opinion that the concerns expressed in a study led by a qualified research scientist from a Norwegian university is sufficient reason for us to seriously consider paying more attention to this issue. To add to the two examples that I provided in my two previous emails, I would now like to mention another situation that has caused me some concern. In January of 2009, the Norwegian Ministry of Finance issued a press release stating that they had decided to exclude Barrick Gold from their government pension fund [7]. This decision was based on a conclusion made by their council on ethics [8] which explained that it had conducted an extensive review [9] of the environmental issues associated with the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea, 95% owned and operated by a subsidiary of Barrick Gold. The council provided the assessment that investment in Barrick Gold entailed an unacceptable risk of their pension fund contributing to serious environmental damage. Central to the Council’s judgement was the fact that the Porgera mine practices riverine tailings disposal, a waste management practice that the Council understands as being in breach of international norms. Barrick Gold discusses the issue of waste management at the Porgera mine on their website. I would like to bring your attention to a particular paragraph on that site [10]: Porgera Joint Venture operates based on a stringent, government-approved Environmental Management Program. Prior to disposal, the tailings undergo treatment. This includes neutralizing the tailings in the processing plant neutralization circuit, cyanide destruction of the carbon-in-pulp tailings, and extraction of dissolved metals through the addition of lime. The mine conducts extensive biological testing to determine the impact of the discharges on the aquatic environment. All discharges are within the water quality limits established by permit. Monitoring results are sound and the mine has never exceeded its compliance levels. At the webpage were I found that paragraph, I didn’t find any information to alleviate my concern that the government-approved Environmental Management Program that Barrick Gold refers to might not be appropriately referred to as stringent. With that in mind, please read the following extract from the Council’s report: Applicable as long as the mine is in operation, a concession has been granted by the authorities for the use of and discharge to water. In 1991, [the Porgera Joint Venture] was given permission to discharge tailings into the Maiapam River, a tributary of the Porgera River. The government requires that the water quality of the river, measured some 165 km downstream of the discharge point, does not exceed certain limits. These refer to concentrations of cyanide, ammonium, dissolved metals, as well as pH. The area from the discharge point to the compliance point (i.e. 165 km) is defined as a mixing zone where no requirements are made regarding discharge or water quality. In other words, the Council determined that there is no government control on what contaminants are present in the river for an entire 165 km-long stretch of river downstream of the mine. In addition, the Council mentions that, even at the so-called compliance point, there is no compliance level for mercury. The location of the compliance point and the egregious absence of a compliance level for mercury are independent of concerns that the Council expressed regarding an increased sediment load on the river, and the fact that the compliance levels for toxic metals do not take into account total metal content since they are based only on dissolved metal content. Finally, I would like to bring attention to the following two paragraphs that have been extracted from the Council’s report: Barrick Gold is a Canadian mining company, which, in several countries, has been accused of causing extensive environmental degradation. The Council has investigated whether riverine tailings disposal from the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea generates severe environmental damage, and finds it established that the mining operation at Porgera entails considerable pollution. The Council attributes particular importance to the heavy metals contamination, especially from mercury, produced by the tailings. In the Council’s view heavy metals contamination constitutes the biggest threat of severe and long-term environmental damage. The Council also considers it probable that the discharge has a negative impact on the population’s life and health, including both the residents of the actual mining area and the tribal peoples who live along the river downstream of the mine. The environmental damage that riverine disposal may cause are well known, but the company has not implemented any appreciable measures to prevent or reduce this damage. Neither has the company been willing to present data to underpin its allegations that environmental and health damage does not occur. It may also be worth making note of the Council’s view that Barrick Gold demonstrated a "lack of openness and transparency in the company’s environmental reporting" and that they found "reason to believe that the company’s unacceptable practice will continue in the future." In his reply to my concerns, Mr. Day expressed the opinion that voluntary initiatives are the best way to advance principles of corporate social responsibility in a flexible, innovative and effective fashion while improving the competitive advantage of Canadian companies operating abroad. He did not, however, mention whether corporate irresponsibility may in some cases be voluntary. He also didn’t state whether he thought that the possibility for life-sustaining water supplies to be rendered toxic is acceptable. I would therefore like to ask if you could provide me with the answers to two questions. First I’d like to ask whether, with Canada’s competitive position in the world duly considered, our government considers an allowance for the harmful and voluntary pollution of the environment to be beneficial, acceptable or detrimental. Second, I’d like to ask whether or not our government believes that there’s validity to the concern that we’re currently allowing for a harmful and voluntary pollution of the environment to occur. I realise that you and the people in your office work very hard at a difficult and important job. You clearly address many issues in addition to the ones that we’ve been discussing. I’m nonetheless very interested to know what answers my government can provide to the two questions that I’ve posed in the previous paragraph. If you can find the time to reply then I will be very grateful. As usual, please understand that I plan to share all correspondence on this matter with fellow Canadians and with other people who care about and are affected by the issues that I’m addressing. You’ll notice that I’ve copied this email to some human rights and environmental organisations so that they can be aware that I’ve been communicating with my government on this issue. Before I close, I want to be clear that although I have discussed some mining operations that have caused me some concern, I do not consider mining to be an inherently bad thing. Mining clearly offers economic benefits to many people around the world. Although I don’t work in the extraction industry myself, it’s clear that much of what I benefit from on a daily basis is made possible by the exploitation of natural resources. Furthermore, there are clearly many good people who work in the mining sector, and mining is not by any means the only industry that can have both negative and positive impacts. I look forward to receiving a reply on this issue. cc: The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada The Hon. Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs Amnesty International Canada Human Rights Watch, Toronto office Oxfam Canada Sierra Club Canada Canadian Wildlife Federation World Wildlife Fund Canada [1] The report is this one. [2] See the reports by Barrick Gold Corporation titled (i) Barrick Gold Corporation’s response to allegations that leakage from the North Mara gold mine has contaminated water sources in the Mara district of Tanzania with arsenic and other metals which is available from a link dated Dec 15 2009 here; and (ii) Submission to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development which is available here: http://www.barrick.com/CorporateResponsibility/KeyTopics/ Bill-C-300-Submission-to-the-Standing-Committee/default.aspx [3] Towards the end of Tanzania’s long rainy season which typically lasts from March to May. [4] Clearly if the heavy rains of early 2009 gave rise to a separate incident involving a release of cyanide to the environment, then that would also have also been a serious problem. Barrick Gold, however, states in report (ii) from footnote [2] that no cyanide was released into the environment. [5] This report, by Åsgeir R. Almås, Charles Kweyunga and Mkabwa LK Manoko, is available from the website of MiningWatch Canada here. [6] They express these concerns in report (i) from footnote 2. [7] The press release may be found here. [8] Referred to fully as the Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund — Global [9] The Council’s report recommending exclusion of Barrick Gold from Norway’s government pension fund may be found here. [10] You may read this paragraph and the full context that it appears in here: http://barrick.com/CorporateResponsibility/Environment/ WasteRockTailings/default.aspx More information from Barrick Gold on their tailings management at the Porgera mine may be found at their website here: http://barrick.com/CorporateResponsibility/KeyTopics/PorgeraJV/ TailingsManagement/default.aspx

To read the communication that follows, please click here.

Daily News: Tarime still worried by mine pollution

Here’s another article from Tanzania’s Daily News newspaper discussing the toxic spill at Barrick Gold’s North Mara mine. The mine is located in the Tarime district just outside of Serengeti National Park in northern Tanzania. The article is titled Tarime still worried by mine pollution and is dated January 1, 2010.

Read the article here.

A Reply from Stockwell Day

To read communication previous to what’s given in this post, please click here.

A week after sending my November 23, 2009 email to the Prime Minister’s office, I sent another email to the office of the Hon. Lawrence Cannon to keep his office up to date on the most recent development in the communication between the Prime Minister’s office and me. The message to Lawrence Cannon was sent using the address Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca as made available here. The message to the Hon. Lawrence Cannon follows. Note that in the following email I refer to an email dated September 30, 2009 for which the correct date is actually October 1, 2009. I wrote it late on September 30, but it was sent very early on October 1 Ottawa time.

November 30, 2009 To the office of the Honourable Lawrence Cannon: On September 30th, 2009 I sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper. In that letter I expressed concern about Canada’s apparent lack of control over the international operations of Canadian mining companies. I received a reply from the Prime Minister’s office on October 23, 2009 indicating that the Hon. Lawrence Cannon was in the best position to respond to those concerns, and that my concerns had been forwarded to him, although I don’t know for certain which of his offices it was sent to. I am writing to you now to let you know that as of the present time I have not received any correspondence from the Hon. Lawrence Cannon regarding this issue of the international operations of Canadian mining companies. On November 23, 2009, I sent another email to the Prime Minister’s office to let them know that I had not yet received a reply addressing my concerns. I am not taking any lack of response so far as an indication that either you or the Prime Minister do not plan to respond. The purpose of this letter is to keep you up to date on the most recent development in this correspondence and to notify you that I plan to share all correspondences on this matter with fellow Canadians and with other people who care about and are affected by the issue that I’m addressing. In case you have not been forwarded a copy of the email that I sent on November 23, 2009 to the Prime Minister’s office, I have attached it to this email so that you have the opportunity to be up to date on this correspondence. Thank you very much for your time and for hearing my concerns.

I attached to that email a copy of my second letter to the Prime Minister, the one dated November 23, 2009, including a note about the correction to the error in footnote [7]. On January 11, 2010 I received the second of the replies that I have received on this issue. This second reply arrived from Stockwell Day and was sent by an @international.gc.ca email address. Stockwell Day’s name is given as the one who sent the email. Since for the time being I’m writing this blog anonymously, I’ve left out the introductory greeting, but everything else is complete. The email from Stockwell Day follows.

January 11, 2010 cc: pm@pm.gc.ca The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, P.C., M.P. Your email of October 1, 2009, has been forwarded to me for reply. I appreciate your sharing your concerns regarding the practices of Canadian companies operating at home and abroad and the implementation of the recommendations previously raised in the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a globally competitive, well-regarded extractive sector. Likewise, Canadian companies realize that a commitment to CSR is a commitment to their own success. The Government of Canada encourages and expects all Canadian companies working internationally to respect all applicable laws and international standards, to operate transparently and in consultation with the host government and local communities, and to develop and implement CSR best practices. Canada believes that voluntary initiatives are the best way to advance CSR principles in a flexible, innovative and effective fashion while improving the competitive advantage of Canadian companies operating abroad. Following recommendations raised by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in its 2005 report entitled, Mining in Developing Countries – Corporate Social Responsibility, the Government of Canada organized a series of National Roundtables in 2006 to hear Canadian perspectives on CSR in the extractive sector. A multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, which included industry and non-governmental organizations, issued a report containing 27 consensus recommendations to the Government of Canada in March 2007. Following additional consultations with industry and civil society in 2008, Canada announced its new CSR policy, Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector, in March 2009. The Strategy will improve the competitiveness of Canadian international extractive sector companies by enhancing their ability to manage social and environmental risks, while at the same time assisting host governments and local communities to manage and benefit from sustainable natural resource development. Building the Canadian Advantage is centred on four complementary pillars designed to engage multiple stakeholders and foster different aspects of CSR. To support the Canadian international extractive sector in implementing voluntary performance guidelines, the Strategy creates a CSR Centre of Excellence that will develop and disseminate CSR best practices, information, training and tools. The Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum will host the Centre, which is expected to be launched in December 2009. As there is a limit to what companies can provide to support social, health, environment, and education concerns of the communities within which they operate, the second pillar is designed to enhance the capacity of developing countries to responsibly manage their resources, and improve opportunities for economic development. To complement the capacity-building efforts of the first two pillars, the government has begun to create the Office of the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor to assist stakeholders in addressing issues pertaining to the activities of Canadian extractive sector companies abroad. Dr. Marketa Evans was appointed Canada’s first CSR Counsellor on October 2, 2009, and is currently engaging with stakeholders to develop an effective process. Building on Canada’s adherence to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the Strategy also commits the government to promoting three widely recognized international CSR performance guidelines: the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability; the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights; and the Global Reporting Initiative. In March 2009, Canada was welcomed as an engaged government at the 2009 Plenary meeting of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. In addition to Building the Canadian Advantage, the Government of Canada has already undertaken a number of initiatives to foster and promote CSR at home and abroad. As part of Canada’s adherence to the OECD Guidelines, the National Contact Point promotes awareness of the Guidelines and ensures effective implementation as well as assists in the resolution of any specific instances that may be raised regarding alleged breaches of the Guidelines. In 2007, Canada joined the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which seeks to improve governance in resource-rich countries through the publication and verification of company payments and government revenues from extractive operations. To date, Canada has allocated $1.15 million to the EITI. Also in 2007, Export Development Canada became the second export credit agency in the world to sign on to the Equator Principles, an international benchmark for assessing and managing social and environmental risk in project financing. For more information on the Government of Canada’s latest efforts in the area of CSR, please visit: www.csr.gc.ca. As you can see from the above, the government has responded to the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 2005 and is in the process of implementing a robust CSR strategy that complements the suite of policy and programming already underway. Thank you for sharing your views on this matter. Sincerely, Hon. Stockwell Day Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway

Updated Feb 25, 2010 To read the communication that follows, please click here.

Marmato Mountain

I’m posting a 10-minute documentary that was broadcast by the CBC in March of 2008. The video is about a mountain in Colombia called Marmato which has a town on it. A Canadian company called Colombia Goldfields is shown to be acquiring properties on Marmato in the interest of developing an enormous open-pit cyanide heap-leaching gold mine. I originally watched the video on the CBC’s website, but it’s since been taken down from there, so I’m linking to a copy of it that’s available on YouTube. I wasn’t the one who downloaded it from the CBC, but having viewed the original several times a few months back, I can see that the content of the YouTube version is the same as the content of the CBC version.

The company that’s currently buying up properties on Marmato is Medoro Resources Ltd., with headquarters in Toronto. On Oct. 6^th, 2009, Medoro put out a press release titled Medoro Announces Execution of Letter of Intent with Mineros S.A. This press release states that Medoro has “entered into a preliminary letter of intent with Mineros S.A., a private Colombian company, pursuant to which Medoro will purchase all of the issued and outstanding common shares of its subsidiary, Mineros Nacionales S.A.”

On October 30^th, 2009, Medoro put out another press release explaining that they had completed acquisition of Colombia Goldfields Ltd. This press release is titled Medoro Completes Acquisition of Colombia Goldfields Ltd.

On December 30^th, 2009, Medoro issued another press release indicating that they had signed an agreement towards acquiring Colombia Gold PLC. This agreement is described as “an important step in [their] plan to consolidate properties at Marmato.” According to the same press release, “if the acquisitions of Mineros Nacionales S.A. and Colombia Gold are completed, Medoro will have consolidated most of the mining rights in the Marmato region.” This press release is titled Medoro Resources Signs Support Agreement with Colombia Gold plc.

Independent researchers detect high levels of pollution around North Mara gold mine

The following article is one that I referred to in my first and second letters to the Prime Minister of Canada. The article was published in the Tanzanian newspaper ThisDay on Tuesday, July 14^th, 2009. Since both the original link on the ThisDay website and the Google-cached version for this article have disappeared, I’m including it below. If you look around elsewhere on the internet, then you’ll see that this article has already been recorded on several other websites. The article is written by Damas Mwita and is copyright Thisday Ltd.

---

July 14 2009, ThisDay

Independent researchers detect high levels of pollution around North Mara gold mine

DAMAS MWITA
Dar es Salaam

INDEPENDENT experts have confirmed the presence of high levels of toxic chemicals in the area surrounding Barrick Gold Corp’s North Mara gold mine in Tarime District, Mara Region.

A three-member panel of local researchers has established that there are significantly high levels of poisonous heavy metals and cyanide in the environment around the mine.

According to the researchers, levels of nickel in the area have risen 260 times, levels of lead are up times 168, and chromium levels have also multiplied by 14 compared to the last time tests were conducted in the area about seven years ago.

The researchers were Dr Mkabwa Manoko from the University of Dar es Salaam’s department of botany, Manfred Bitala, and Charles Kweyunga.

’’The various health effects associated with heavy metal poisoning include a wide range of casinogenic effects such as skin, kidney, teratogenic effects; mutagenic effects; and brain damage,’’ they said in their report unveiled in Dar es Salaam yesterday.

They said the symptoms displayed by some villagers living near the mine are consistent with poisoning from heavy metals.

The researchers stated that the levels of heavy metals and cyanide in areas surrounding the mine owned by Canada’s mining giant Barrick Gold Corp are much higher than national and international standards.

The researchers found high levels of pollution in the soil and water samples near the mine.

’’Some people in the area show various disease symptoms, such as skin diseases that can be linked to heavy metal pollution. However, a more thorough study is required for this to be confirmed,’’ says part of their report.

’’In fact, some (medical) conditions caused by these pollutants do not show immediate or observable symptoms. Lack of symptoms therefore does not mean absence of health problems,’’ it adds.

The researchers recommended that an ’’intensive environmental audit’’ of the area be conducted involving local and international scientists from both Government and non-governmental organs

’’Since the level of heavy metals, cyanide and soil and water pollution around the North Mara gold mine project are higher than permissible levels, thus (posing) a threat to the survival of organisms (animal and plant life), this audit will be to assess the impact of any such pollution on the ecosystem in the area,’’ they said.

They warned that communities living around the mine are in danger of being exposed to hazardous chemicals from the Tigithe River and surrounding soil and vegetation.

’’If these chemicals find their way into the human body through direct indigestion of contaminated food, drinking water, or air, their health problems become of major concern,’’ explained Bitala, one of the researchers.

The researchers’ report also highlights some possible effects of exposure to such heavy metals and toxic chemicals like cyanide, as being cancer, heart disease, genetic problems, loss of memory, respiratory complications, and reproduction organs.

It notes that health hazards from exposure to such pollution could persist for more than 2,000 years.

The independent study, commissioned by several religious groups based in Dar es Salaam, was carried out in Kwimanga, Kwinyunyi, and Nyabigena Villages around River Tigithe in Tarime District, Mara Region.

As part of the study, samples of water and soil sediments were collected and analysed for four heavy metals – nickel, cadmium, lead and chromium – using atomic absorption spectrometer (AAS), while cyanide was analysed using pyridine and levels of acid.

Another researcher, Dr Manoko, criticised a previous report produced by the North Mara mine management in May this year, which claimed that the water in the Tigithe River was safe.

He said it was not feasible to reach such a conclusion without testing the level of heavy metals and cyanide present in the water.

The director of the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) in Dar es Salaam, Francis Kiwanga, similarly criticised the Government for failing to take stern measures against the gold mine management for polluting the environment.

’’There is a reluctance among senior Government officials to act immediately despite preliminary evidence showing that the mine has indeed polluted the environment,’’ Kiwanga asserted.

Public pressure has been mounting on the Government to shut down operations at the North Mara gold mine pending an ongoing investigation into reports of potentially deadly health hazards caused by the mine.

The Minister of State in the Vice President’s Office (Environment), Dr Batilda Buriani, has told THISDAY that samples from villagers reported to be already displaying symptoms of the pollution have been taken to the Government Chemist Laboratory Agency and health centres for analysis.

Results of the various tests being carried out are due out within a few days, Dr Buriani said.

---

This article is copyright ThisDay Ltd.

New Gold’s 2008 Sustainability Report

In a New Gold press release dated Dec 14, 2009 that’s titled New Gold Granted Injunction to Temporarily Lift Shutdown Order at Cerro San Pedro Mine, you can find the following statement ¹ :

New Gold Inc. (“New Gold”) (TSX and NYSE AMEX-NGD) today announces that it has been granted an injunction related to the suspension of operations at its Cerro San Pedro mine in Mexico. The court ruling temporarily overturns the Mexican environmental enforcement agency’s order to suspend mining operations at the Cerro San Pedro mine. New Gold’s wholly owned Mexican subsidiary, Minera San Xavier (“MSX”), filed the appeal seeking to overturn the suspension order on December 3, 2009. Mining operations will recommence at the Cerro San Pedro mine and are expected to continue through the duration of the appeal trial.

New Gold is one of the companies that I mentioned in my second letter to the Prime Minister of Canada. Out of concern for the possibility that they might not be running their mine at Cerro de San Pedro responsibly, I recently read through New Gold’s 2008 Sustainability Report ². My comments in this post are regarding that report.

In the report, you can find lots of positive statements about the importance of workplace safety and environmental and social responsibility. For example, on page 2 you can find reference to “a company-wide commitment to corporate social responsibility.” Given the data that they provide of zero lost-time injuries and zero fatalities for 2008, they do appear to have a good workplace safety record for their mine at Cerro de San Pedro. Their statements on environmental responsibility in particular are nonetheless extremely vague and unsatisfying to me, and some important concerns are not even addressed. Allow me to explain.

First of all, there’s a reference to ISO 14001:2004 which does nothing to allay my concerns for reasons that I discussed in a previous post. There is no mention in this report by New Gold that ISO 14001:2004 does not state specific environmental performance criteria, nor is there any mention of what specific environmental performance criteria their ISO 14001:2004 certification would entail.

Secondly, nowhere in New Gold’s 2008 Sustainability Report are the concepts of acid mine drainage or heavy metal pollution mentioned. As was explained in the video about Marcopper in the Philippines, some types of mining waste have been known to pollute local water with sulphuric acid and heavy metals. If a problem of acid mine drainage and heavy metal pollution were to develop at Cerro ³ de San Pedro, then it could persist for centuries, if not millennia, after the closure of the mine. The question of whether or not this problem could arise was not mentioned in New Gold’s 2008 Sustainability Report.

Another important question is the one of cyanide management. Cyanide heap leaching of gold typically involves soaking enormous amounts of crushed rock in a solution of sodium cyanide and water. Tonnes of sodium cyanide and millions of litres of water are used every day in the operation of a mine like the one at Cerro de San Pedro. Gold mining companies are of course aware of the public relations nightmare associated with soaking mountains in sodium cyanide. If the word cyanide on its own weren’t enough, then catastrophes such as the spills at the Baia Mare mine in Romania and the Omai mine in Guyana would be. So it’s clearly in the interest of gold mining companies to manage the cyanide responsibly, at least to the extent that doing so will provide for a maximal balance between the image of the company and the other benefits seen by the people, such as the shareholders, that each company answers to.

It’s also true that people deal every day with all kinds of dangerous substances, not just cyanide, and that within many developed countries regulations exist to ensure that hazardous operations are carried out properly. Towards the end of New Gold’s 2008 Sustainability Report, on p. 19, there’s mention of the International Cyanide Management Code. I quote directly from their report:

While cyanide has its inherent toxic properties, its safe transport, handling, use and destruction are well understood and manageable. New Gold mine operations use cyanide as part of the process of extracting gold from the ore using strictly controlled procedures for the safety of personnel and the environment alike. The International Cyanide Management Code (ICMC) provides an excellent international reference standard for transporting, storing and using cyanide. The ICMC is renowned as the international benchmark for cyanide management. For more information go to: http://www.cyanidecode.org/cyanide_use.

It’s interesting that they don’t state there whether or not they actually adhere to the ICMC guidelines that they mention. Take a look at the list of signatory companies of the ICMC. New Gold isn’t on that list ⁴.

Independent of anything to do with New Gold Inc., there’s a question in my mind of whether or not a company’s presence on that list indicates that it necessarily deals with cyanide responsibly in all of its operations. Two additional points come to mind however, as a result of New Gold’s statements regarding the ICMC:

• If New Gold is implementing a “company-wide commitment to corporate responsibility,” then it would seem natural to assume that the “strictly controlled” cyanide management procedures that they refer to would be good ones. But if they are good ones, then why would they appear to not satisfy what New Gold itself describes as “an excellent international reference standard for transporting, storing and using cyanide”? If on the other hand their procedures do satisfy the ICMC criteria, then what’s holding them back from either explicitly saying so in their 2008 Sustainability Report, or from being a signatory member of the ICMC?

• If New Gold is implementing a “company-wide commitment to corporate responsibility,” but did not see fit to become a signatory member of the ICMC, then why are they talking about how good the ICMC is?

Cerro de San Pedro is elevated above the city of San Luis Potosí, the latter being located at the bottom of the Tangamanga Valley. The outskirts of the San Luis Potosí urban area are about 10 kilometers from the leaching pad and about twelve kilometers from the extraction site. According to some 2005 data from the INEGI, Mexico’s federal agency specialising in the collection of statistical and geographical information, the neighbourhood of Cerro de San Pedro where the extraction occurs was at an altitude of 2040 meters and the neighbourhood of La Zapatilla where the cyanide leaching occurs was at an altitude of about 1950 meters ⁵. The municipality of Soledad de Graciano Sánchez, on the east side of the San Luis Potosí urban area, the side that is closest to the mine, has an elevation varying between 1740 meters and 1870 meters ⁶.

Including only the municipalities of San Luis Potosí and Soledad de Graciano Sánchez, the city of San Luis Potosí had just under a million inhabitants in 2005 and was growing at a rate of 2 % per year ⁷.

update May 2, 2010: One thing that also shouldn’t go unmentioned is the aquifer. I left out mentioning San Luis Potosí’s aquifer since it was harder to find details about it and I hoped to investigate it later, and assumed that the information that I’d presented was enough to explain why I was concerned. But it should go without saying that the aquifer is of extreme importance, not only due to the fact that the mine is dealing with a lot of toxic material, but also due to the fact that mines such as this one use immense amounts of water, and San Luís Potosí does not have an abundance of water to begin with.

---

[1] The press release is available at www.sedar.com or from New Gold’s home page at www.newgold.com.

[2] A link to New Gold’s 2008 Sustainability Report is currently prominent on their home page, so please go ahead and read that report along with any other information that they have to offer.

[3] In case you’re wondering what cerro means, it’s a Spanish word with a definition that would fall somewhere between the definitions of the English words hill and mountain. Cerro de San Pedro is in the Sierra Madre Oriental mountain range.

[4] At the time of writing, this list had been last updated on December 1^st, 2009.

[5] Both neighbourhoods are in the municipality of Cerro de San Pedro. They’re referred to as localidades by the INEGI.

[6] The INEGI data can be found here (in Spanish).

[7] That census information is also available from the INEGI, and can be seen here (in Spanish).

Marcopper Mine on Marinduque, Philippines

An interesting but disturbing story that’s worth learning about is the one of the Marcopper mine on Marinduque Island in the Philippines. The mining company in charge of the Marcopper mine was Placer Dome Inc. of Vancouver which was later acquired by Barrick Gold.

A website from Oxfam Australia provides some information about the damage that was caused by Marcopper. At that website are links to some reports as well as a video documentary. In case you went to that site but missed the video then here it is:

MiningWatch Canada also has some well-presented and readable information about the Marcopper mine. For example, there’s this link.

The human cost of gold: And a deadly price to pay

In the two letters that I’ve written so far to the Prime Minister on the topic of Canadian mining abroad, I included links to articles from the Tanzanian newspaper ThisDay. When I originally read those articles, they were available on the ThisDay website. Since they ended up disappearing, I included links to Google’s cached versions of those articles in my second letter. I don’t think there’s any need to invoke conspiracy theories since a lot of other articles disappeared as well, and there’s probably a mundane explanation for what happened.

The second of the two articles disappeared from Google’s cache on or up to a couple days before the third of December. The first is still available at this time but will undoubtedly disappear as well. In the interest of recording the information that was in the second article, I’m including it below. The article is copyright © Thisday Ltd. I’m posting it for purposes of communicating an important environmental and human rights issue to the public.

What follows after this sentence to the end of this post is the article.

---

Tuesday, June 30 2009

The human cost of gold: And a deadly price to pay

THISDAY REPORTER
Dar es Salaam

VILLAGERS living near a gold mine owned and run by Canada’s Barrick Gold Corp. in Tarime District, Mara Region are demanding the immediate closure of the project, saying they are paying a deadly price for the mining activities in the area.

Already, scores of people residing around Barrick’s North Mara Gold Mine are showing serious signs of exposure to pollution in the form of water contaminated with various chemicals allegedly flowing out of the mine and into the nearby River Tigethe.

The villagers accuse the mine management, under the Canadian investor company, of causing fatal health hazards to human beings, livestock, and land in Kebasula Ward in Tarime, where the mine is located.

They say more than 20 people have died in recent weeks as a direct result of the contaminated water.

’’We have no problem with investors. But the investors must respect and treat us like human beings. These Canadians are killing us…they are not doing business,’’ said Ms Esther Mugusuhi, one of a group of affected villagers interviewed by THISDAY in Dar es Salaam yesterday.

Ms Mugusuhi said the mining activities by Barrick Gold have incapacitated her and many others, in her case rendering her right hand dysfunctional.

’’I used to work productively in my farm, but I am now a dependent person…all because of the investors,’’ she asserted.

She called on the Canadian Government to intervene in the environmental nightmare by ensuring medical costs for all the victims of pollution in the area are footed.

Another villager, Mkwave Mwita, pointed an accusing finger at the Tanzanian (home) Government for valuing mining activities by foreign investors more than it values the welfare of its own citizens.

’’I think this is the only country on earth where stones (gold) are more valuable than human beings,’’ Mwita stated.

Like Ms Mugusuhi, he also said the Canadian Government is morally obliged to help those affected by the North Mara Gold Mine operations because ’’it is Canadians that are reaping more benefits from Tanzanian mineral resources than Tanzanians themselves.’’

Pictorial and other evidence from the area strongly indicate a real danger of more people residing around the mine area and using the River Tigethe waters for various household uses contracting serious diseases that have so far remained a puzzle to local medics, and could eventually even kill them.

The villagers described infections that start with increased body itching and frequent yawning, causing victims to scratch their bodies and end up with lacerations.

The chairman of Kebasula Ward’s CCM branch, Keremani Nyakiha, was part of the group interviewed, and said more than 20 people have so far died as a result of the infections within the past couple of months.

He said many more villagers in the area are bed-ridden and with little hope of recovering due to lack of appropriate medical attention, while there are reports that over 150 cattle have died of the ’disease.’

Despite his CCM posting in the ward, Nyakiha did not hesitate to blame the Government for ’’playing politics’’ with the lives of people over this matter.

’’This is not an issue of politics…it is about people’s lives,’’ he said, adding: ’’The situation in Kebasula is terrible – people are dying, cattle are dying, dogs are dying, everything is dying. Soon there will be no living organism in the area…not even toads.’’

He castigated district and regional government leaders of deliberately turning a blind eye to reports of villagers dying of the allegedly poisonous infection, and favouring the investors instead.

’’It is ridiculous and shameful for a whole Government leader to dismiss in public what is obvious to everybody. If the Government has nothing to do for its people, it had better just keep quiet,’’ Nyakiha asserted.

Asked to mention any benefits the surrounding village communities may be reaping from the mining project, he retorted: ’’Nothing…just dust and skin diseases.’’

The group of villagers are in Dar es Salaam on a mission to raise public awareness on their case, courtesy of the Norwegian Church Aid non-governmental organisation.

Independent medical experts consulted by THISDAY say the villagers could be suffering from cyanide poisoning as a result of expanded mining activity. It is understood that short-term exposure to high levels of cyanide harms the central nervous system, respiratory system, and cardiovascular system. Even very small concentrations of the toxic substance can kill humans, fish, birds, livestock and plant life.

However, when contacted for comment late yesterday, Barrick Tanzania spokesperson Teweli Teweli dismissed the allegations as baseless, saying Kebasula Ward – situated about 30 kilometres from the mine – is too far to be vulnerable to any seepage from the mine’s sewage pond.

He named villages surrounding the mine as Nyangoto, Kewanja, Genkuru, and Nyamongo.

’’Following the problem of water leakage on May 9 this year, we conducted a meeting with the surrounding communities and agreed that any anomaly to cattle or human beings should be reported to us…but we heard nothing until the ward councillor wrote to us about the deaths of 18 people,’’ Teweli told THISDAY.

He dismissed any chance of a ’’scientific’’ connection between the claimed deaths and Barrick North Mara Mine operations.

Teweli said initial remedial work to intercept and divert water from the mine from reaching waterways in the vicinity has been completed and ongoing remediation and monitoring continues.

’’Management and monitoring of this specific situation will remain a priority of the mine,’’ he added.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Mizengo Pinda yesterday directed the Minister for Home Affairs, Lawrence Masha, to investigate the reported pollution at the Barrick North Mara Gold Mine.

The premier gave the directive when responding to a question from the Tarime Member of Parliament, Charles Mwera (CHADEMA), who wanted to know from the Government what is to be the fate of victims of the reported mine pollution.

---

What is ISO 14001:2004?

First of all, where will you find reference to it? If you read information made available by New Gold Inc. about their Cerro de San Pedro mine, then you’ll see they state that they have received ISO 14001:2004 certification for their environmental management system. For example, in their annual report for 2008, you can find the following statement:

Cerro San Pedro’s environmental management system received recognition from the International Organization of Certification, achieving ISO 14001:2004 status.

So that’s the context that it exists in. Let’s see if we can find out what it is. Let’s first figure out what ISO is. Some information on what ISO is is available at the ISO website. It’s a non-governmental organization formed out of a large number of member institutes around the world, many of which are themselves mandated by governments, with a central office in Geneva. They publish international standards in the interest of allowing businesses to operate in a way that meets not only the needs of the business in question but also the broader needs of society as a whole.

That sounds good. But then what is ISO 14001:2004? Again, an explanation is available on the ISO website. Look at the following paragraph that’s taken from that link:

ISO 14001:2004 specifies requirements for an environmental management system to enable an organization to develop and implement a policy and objectives which take into account legal requirements and other requirements to which the organization subscribes, and information about significant environmental aspects. It applies to those environmental aspects that the organization identifies as those which it can control and those which it can influence. It does not itself state specific environmental performance criteria.

That last sentence in particular caught my eye, although I’ll admit I had to read it a few times before convincing myself that I was reading it correctly. Read it again yourself. So in the case of ISO 14001:2004, ISO does not specify the environmental performance criteria that are decided upon by the company and the people who tell the company what it can do. I’m guessing that whether or not that’s satisfactory would depend on factors such as what country you live in, what kind of laws exist there, how well those laws are recorded and respected, what kind of influence you have in that country, what company is being certified, and how much you value environmental safety.

It seems therefore that the answer to the question of what ISO 14001:2004 actually is is not as straightforward or consistent as the answer to what it isn’t. I don’t want to trivialize the amount of hard work that I imagine is often involved in achieving this certification. But the amount of work or expense that might go into doing that can’t discredit the value of what we’ve been able to determine from a bit of reading.

If you don’t know what New Gold Inc. or Cerro de San Pedro are and would like to find out, then you can do so by reading my second letter to The Prime Minister of Canada, or visit their website at www.newgold.com.

Toxic spill discussed in Tanzanian Parliament

I’ll start this post by providing the link to an article from the Tanzanian newspaper Daily News. The article was published on November 2nd, 2009 and is titled Bunge braces for North Mara acid spillage report. “Bunge” is the Swahili word for parliament.

In that article, mention is made of a study led by a Norwegian university which “revealed that the concentrations of some of the elements in water at the mentioned sites were above the World Health Organisation (WHO) drinking water recommendations.” The Norwegian university that they’re talking about would have been the Norwegian University of Life Sciences as mentioned at this link on Mining Watch Canada’s website.

These are Norwegian and Tanzanian scientists that are doing these studies, not the innuendo-motivated group that we might have originally been led to believe.

The study is said to have been done at two mines, the North Mara mine and another at a place called Nyakabale. I’ve previously mentioned Barrick Gold’s North Mara mine, but I haven’t yet looked into any information about the Geita mine at Nyakabale which belongs to AngloGold Ashanti. Reading in detail the full report from the Norwegian university would also be interesting.

MiningWatch Canada has already presented in a readable fashion some essential information from that report and given you access to the report itself. So if you’re interested in learning more, then please go ahead and check out the link from MiningWatch Canada.

Update January 22/2010

In the original post, I mentioned that this Daily News article had made me wonder about a possibility of chronic seepage from the mine. I removed that statement. On rereading the article, it does not indicate anything that would be in addition to Barrick Gold’s statement regarding a waste-containment failure that was detected in May of 2009.

However, the fact that the seepage in question was associated with acid drainage indicates that the issue of controlling pollution from this mine will be a serious problem for a very long time after the mine has closed. This is one of the unfortunate realities of acid mine drainage (also called acid rock drainage). So the question in my mind of a chronic pollution problem remains.