Canada's Goldcorp up to no good in Guatemala

At Goldcorp's annual stockholders meeting on May 22, the Canadian giant mining corporation was confronted by community leaders who had traveled to the country from Honduras and Guatemala. The purpose of the visit was to complain about the detrimental environmental effects of Canadian mining projects in their respective countries.

Goldcorp's president and CEO, Charles Jeannes, displayed remarkable candor in addressing the issue: "Mining is very impactful. We dig big holes in the ground and we bring a lot of people and trucks and business into an area, in some cases, like in Guatemala that didn't have it before." His statement stopped just short of admitting to the mining project's negative health effects. The Guatemalan Delegation of the Indigenous was alone at Goldcorp's annual meeting, finding no support from the [President Alvaro] Colom administration. Despite being largely dependent on indigenous groups for his support, Colom has shown time and again his lack of interest for their welfare....

The civil war's legacy of impunity lives on. The August 2008 assassination of Antonio Morales, a Guatemalan indigenous leader who was at the forefront of the fight against the intrusive roles of big lending-agency projects such as dams and open pit mines, underscores the adverse reality in which indigenous populations continue to live. The police and various security forces continue to repress the protestors, as was the case in March 2007, when they sprayed tear gas at those who were peacefully protesting Goldcorp's Marlin mine. Goldcorp (just one of a number of multi-national corporations investing in Guatemala) continued to pursue its campaign of intimidation by lodging a complaint against Italian biologist Flaviano Bianchini after his study found that the Marlin mine was polluting surrounding water sources with heavy metals resulting from the extractive processes. He subsequently left the country due to threats against his life....

At the turn of the 21st century, the harmful effects of corporate mining projects' were already well-known among the communities living near them. When a license for exploration for the Canadian corporate project, the Marlin Mine, was proposed in 1999 in the municipalities of San Marcos and Huehuetenango in Guatemala, indigenous leaders decided to vocally and physically oppose the venture. Often, the processes of mineral extraction require the use of dangerous chemicals such as mercury, or as in the case of the water sources surrounding the Marlin mine, arsenic, which is a chemical that can cause bladder, lung, skin, kidney, nose, liver and prostate cancer when ingested. The ensuing protests and road blocks were met with harsh police retaliation....

On January 11, 2005, then President Oscar Berger reacted to an eruption of protests against the Marlin mine by stating, "We have to protect investors." He subsequently deployed the military claiming the government must maintain law and order. As a result, one protestor was killed by military gunfire and others were injured. As of May 14, 2009, Nisgua.org reports that Goldcorp (previously Glamis Gold) holds exploration licenses in 14 villages in Guatemala, 13 of which have revealed their opposition to mining through community referendums. Nevertheless, Marlin mine continues to operate....

Guatemala - Marlin Mine

This silver-gold mine was discovered by Francisco Gold and developed by Glamis Gold, through its fully-owned subsidiary Montana Exploradora de Guatemala. There have been serious and prolonged protests by Mayan villagers in the greater municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán (which comprises 19 villages) and Sipacapa (which comprises 13 villages) in Guatemala's western highlands department of San Marcos.

Over the last two years, villages in San Miguel Ixtahuacán have been transformed into an open pit mine, which will eventually encompass five square kilometres. Eighty-five percent of the total expanse of the planned mine is in San Miguel Ixtahuacán, and 15% is in Sipacapa.

The municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán has a population of 39,000, most of who are Mam Maya peasant farmers who depend on subsistence agriculture to live92. The people are objecting to any further expansion of the mine, and say they are getting little benefit from it. Before production at the mine began, there were numerous protests and vocal opponents: two people were killed and a number injured.93

Two years ago, when residents of Sipacapa heard about the mine, they organized a referendum (Consulta) using the International Labour Organization's Convention 169, which affirms the right of indigenous communities to be consulted in good faith before industrial activity take place on their lands.94 The people of Sipacapa voted overwhelmingly against the mine.95

Montana Exploradora de Guatemala filed an unconstitutionality suit as well as an appeal against the Consulta in 2005.96 The suit was filed by Rosa María Montenegro de Garoz, who is part of the law firm Asensio Marrios, Andrade & Associates, with legal assistance from other lawyers in the same firm. Asensio Aguirre, the founder of the aforementioned law firm, is the legal representative for Montana in Guatemala.97

On May 8th, 2007, the Guatemalan Constitutional Court ruled that the Consulta was unconstitutional. Analysts in Guatemala have speculated that the recent decision by the Magistrates of the Constitutional Court could have been influenced by political, economic and commercial interests.98 In early 2007, the company offered the municipality a "gift" of over $150,000 CDN. It was refused.99

People in San Miguel Ixtahuacán, where the largest part of the mine is located, have reported that their houses have started to crack due to explosions at the mine site.100

The communities are also worried about contamination from the mine and there are reports of the accumulation of heavy metals in the river resulting from acid mine drainage.101

Until July 1, 2006, the company was not required to pay taxes other than royalties because it had negotiated to be legally recognized as a maquila (free trade zone),102 a deal which Monsignor Alvaro Ramazzini, the Bishop of San Marcos, called "clearly illegal."103 The tax payments to be made after July 2006 are earmarked for "improvements to services and infrastructure in areas near the Marlin Mine" and "increased capacity building within government ministries with mining responsibilities."104 As of December, 2006, the company had paid $670,000 in royalties to San Miguel Ixtahuacán.105

In 2006, Goldcorp predecessor Glamis paid for workers from its Marlin mine to participate in promining demonstrations.106

Goldcorp claims to be the largest taxpayer in Guatemala.107