extractive

On 27 April, the day of the meeting, my intention was to gain access to the AGM and ask a few difficult questions of the board. Sakura Saunders, co-editor of ProtestBarrick.net, owned a share in Barrick Gold and was therefore entitled entry to the AGM, or send a proxy, as is the right of any shareholder. I was to be Sakura's proxy.

However, as soon as I walked up to the registration desk I was surrounded by three burly cops that knew my name. I was asked whether I was there to disrupt the meeting. I replied 'No', I was there to ask questions on Barrick Gold's mine in Lake Cowal, Australia and I had a proxy.

I was then handed over to a man who was official Barrick Gold security. He also asked me what my intentions were. When he led me back to the registration desk I noted a piece of paper with my name on it, the Papua New Guinea representatives' names and those of a few other people who have been campaigning with communities impacted by Barrick Gold. They told me at the desk that my proxy hadn't been registered.

I went back outside and asked Sakura, the shareholder, to go in. They also refused to let her in. She is now in process of seeking legal advice as it is illegal to not let a shareholder into an AGM.

BARRICK'S INFLUENCE OVER WHO ENTERS CANADA

Meanwhile the two community members from Porgera, Papua New Guinea, Jethro Tulin and Mark Ekepa were delayed getting into Canada. This saga had started the night before when they were trying to leave the United States. As they were going through the boarding process they were stopped and told that they couldn't go to Canada because they didn't have visas. Both have come to Canada for the past three years and never had this problem. We are not sure if the power of Barrick is behind this or it's simply coincidental. We are investigating.

Pieter, a member of the Lawyers Environmental Action Team/Friends of the Earth Tanzania also had a proxy - fortunately he got in as he has never been directly associated with the work of any protest group. Before he read the Tanzanian statement and questions he had prepared he also stated that I had not been allowed in with my proxy and that the Papua New Guineas hadn't made it in time.

Aaron Regent, the CEO of Barrick Gold stated that it was a shame that the Papua New Guineans' flight had been delayed. How did Barrick Gold know that the Papua New Guinean delegation's plane was delayed? This does pose the question whether Barrick Gold is trying all avenues to make sure affected communities don't get to ask questions inside their shareholder meetings.

200 PEOPLE STRONG PROTEST BARRICK RALLY OUTSIDE THE SHAREHOLDER MEETING

Meanwhile outside the meeting up to 200 people gathered with colour and music rallying against Barrick's ongoing environmental and human rights abuses around the world. ProtestBarrick.net's editor, Sakura Saunders introduced the speakers, which included: Myself (Natalie Lowrey), Friends of the Earth Australia; Catherine Coumans, Mining Watch Canada; Jacob Nuremberg, Anthropology student the University of Toronto (UofT) and organiser for the UofT General Assembly and Munk Out of UofT campaign; Illian Burbano, CUPE International Solidarity; Marcos from Latin American Solidarity Coalition and Jethro Tulin from the Porgera Alliance.

The rally started outside Barrick's shareholder meeting at the Toronto Metro Convention Center then we all marched to Barrick Gold's head office.

Thanks for your ongoing support. We have two mining conferences we will be attending with other mining impacted communities before we hit the road for a speaking tour to Southern Ontario, Montreal and New York for the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. We will be keeping you posted, you can also get updates by joining ProtestBarrick.net facebook and twitter

Photos: Top, Natalie Lowrey outside the Barrick Gold AGM. Bottom: Protesters outside the AGM. Credit: Allan Lissner

On May 16, over 1,000 people entered a mine in northern Tanzania, desperate to collect whatever gold they could from the modern industrial site that used to be their bread and butter. But instead of providing the displaced artisanal miners with a boost to their meager income, the day ended in horror.

The next day, African Barrick Gold, a subsidiary of Toronto-based Barrick Gold, released a statement admitting that seven people were killed and twelve injured at their North Mara mine in Tanzania. The killings came at the hands of Tanzanian police, who Barrick originally claimed were under sustained attack by 800 “criminal intruders” (a number Barrick revised to 1,500), who illegally entered the North Mara mine to steal gold ore. Since this fatal confrontation, tensions have been high in the Tarime District, with an increase in the number of police, the deployment of water cannons, the arrest of journalists and two members of parliament for “instigating violence,” and the theft of five of the seven bodies from the mortuary by police.

Confrontations between local people and the mine’s security forces are not uncommon near Barrick’s North Mara mine in Tanzania. As Bloomberg journalist Cam Simpson reported in a December 2010 feature story about the mine, before this latest massacre “at least seven people have been killed in clashes with security forces at the mine in the past two years.” These security forces, according to company documents, include police who Barrick pays to guard its North Mara mine.

“They are not arresting them or taking them to court,” said Machage Bartholomew Machage, a member of the Tarime District Council, the highest local government body, in an interview with Simpson. “They are just shooting them.”

One week after the most recent spate of killings, the police stormed a local mortuary and stole the bodies of four of the dead. This move, according to locals, was to prevent the villagers from holding a planned memorial service at the mine on Tuesday.

Police also arrested and charged two members of Parliament, a legal advisor, and journalists for “instigating people to cause violence.” MP Tundu Lissu, who was among those arrested, was in Tarime to assist with post-mortem medical examinations of bodies to identify exactly which parts of the bodies of the deceased were shot by the police.

“Normally if you shoot a person on the head it means you intended to kill them. However, if you shoot them on the leg it means you tried to stop them from doing something… this exercise will help us to know the police’s intention,” he explained to local journalists. Tundu was arrested two days later at the funeral of the local villagers killed by Barrick security.

At this time, Lissu and six others remain in police custody and their bail has been denied. Meanwhile, the four journalists, MP Esther Matiko, and opposition cadre John Heche posted bail and were released after six hours in custody.

According to George Marato of Tazania’s Guardian newspaper, these violent confrontations can be blamed in part on corruption amongst the security forces at Barrick’s mine. According to his interviews with locals following the latest killings, police and company staff conspire to facilitate illegal entry into the premises to scoop sand with gold concentrates. For example, one group would pay one million shillings (around $650) in exchange for a half-hour of scooping sand from the ground.

The violent confrontations occur, according to Marato, when disagreements arise over the amount of compensation for company insiders, often due to hikes in “gold theft fees.” He writes, “Ensuing wars of words turn into confrontations that provoke policemen to fire at the very people who had been co-conspirators not long previously.”

This situation, according to Marato, is then compounded by local youngsters who attempt to force their way to the compound to scoop the sand free of charge.

Tensions with the locals can be traced back to the mine’s early history of displacement and dispossession. Before the mine opened, an estimated 40,000 people living in the area, a large majority of the population, depended on small-scale mining for their livelihoods, according to a history compiled by the mine’s first proponent, Afrika Mashariki Gold Mines Ltd.

Small scale miners, represented by five villages, had mineral rights to the lands that they mined, but were forced to sell these claims to Afrika Mashariki under illegal and irregular circumstances, according to a legal complaint launched in July 2003 by the Lawyers Environmental Action Team (LEAT) on behalf of 1,273 former small-scale miners. In another lawsuit, 43 landowners alleged to have been paid no compensation, while being forcefully evicted from their lands.

Since then, there have been multiple fatal confrontations at the mine site. In December 2008, one such incident resulted in a civilian uprising where locals set fire to $7 million worth in mine equipment. This number, which was originally estimated at upwards of $15 million, is disputed by locals. As now, Barrick blamed the damage to equipment on “well-organized groups” that raided the mine site. However, signed affidavits [1, 2] from witnesses to the event claim that angry villagers had only set one Caterpillar loader on fire on a road outside the mine, after they had heard of the killing of their compatriot. These affidavits and others [3, 4] describe this incident in detail, as well as documenting the history of violence and impunity at the mine site, and the criminalization of community advocates following the murders.

Friends of the Earth Costa Rica (FoE Costa Rica), environmental organisations and the residents of Las Crucitas, have been campaigning against opening up the northern border region to mining for 17 years.

During that time they have initiated several legal processes, demonstrated outside the mine, marched on parliament and even engaged in hunger strikes.

The region, in the north close to the Nicaraguan border, is rich in biodiversity and home to endangered species of trees and the great green macaw. It was supposedly protected by Costa Rica's strict laws on environmental preservation. However, in 2008 the then president Oscar Arias overruled these laws by declaring that mining in Las Crucitas would be in the national interest. And so opposition to the mine continued.

The open-pit method of mining the company were going to use involves the use of cyanide and is one of the most destructive industrial practices there is. It's considered so dangerous that in May 2010 the European Parliament issued a resolution on the general prohibition of the use of technologies based on cyanide mining.

A breakthrough came when Oscar Arias' presidential term came to an end in early 2010 and the groups in opposition to the mine petitioned the new president Laura Chincilla to repeal the national interest decree.

As a result the case finally returned to court and the national interest decree was declared invalid along with the mining contract. The court also ordered a criminal investigation into the former president and environment minister for having signed off on a decree stating that the open-pit gold mine was in the public’s interest. The court found that since environmental studies were incomplete, Oscar Arias’ signing of the decree was illegal.

Speaking on the verdict Javier Baltodano from FoE Costa Rica said:

"This is a victory for the Earth, for Nature, and as a movement we have always felt the Federation very close to us".

Unfortunately the fight is not completely over as the Canadian mining company has lodged an appeal and may also seek international arbitration. 

Javier Baltodano believes the mining company has no case and should leave the country sooner rather than later:

"Former President Oscar Arias was responsible, and he must be the one to blame in the case the mining company files a complaint”, he said, referring to the Free Trade Agreement signed by Costa Rica with Canada which opens the door to these kinds of claims.

"The company is responsible because it continued with the project despite clear regulations against it. They carried on with the support of politicians, and they are the ones that must respond if the company files a complaint, not the Costa Rican State."

Citing various referenda that have taken place over the years, Baltodano said 98 per cent of Costa Ricans oppose these kind of extractive projects. Once the decision becomes final Costa Ricans "will lift the burden off our shoulders" he concluded.

Photo credit: flickr/betobeto

This is necessary because Shell has so far refused to allow inspection of the documents. The request is part of a court case* involving four Nigerian farmers and fishers and Milieudefensie versus the oil company, due to severe oil pollution in the Niger Delta in Nigeria.

Milieudefensie and the farmers requested the documents, which could provide additional evidence in the case, from Shell earlier this year via the court. The company denied access. Therefore the lawyer for Milieudefensie and the Nigerians have submitted an additional request (called a statement of reply), which requests that the court compel Shell to allow inspection. Shell then can submit a defence in writing.

"This refusal to allow access is typical of Shell," said Geert Ritsema of Milieudefensie. "The company excels at erecting smoke screens and obstructions to prevent being held responsible for the damage and oil pollution it has caused in the Niger Delta. We are optimistic that the court will recognise that the documents we have requested are of importance in helping the Nigerian farmers and fishers defend their rights."

Earlier in 2010, Shell presented purely legal and formal reasons to deny access to the documents. Especially noteworthy is that the oil multinational additionally claimed that the requested documents – a daily logbook detailing the effects of oil leaks, as required by Nigerian law – simply do not exist.

Milieudefensie and the Nigerians hope to be able to use the documents they have requested to uncover new evidence for the key claim in the case: that Shell’s Dutch headquarters shares responsibility for the actions of its subsidiary in Nigeria, and so also for the leaks which the case centres on. Access is also requested to documents concerning specific leaks in the villages of Oruma and Goi.

background

The legal case of Milieudefensie and four Nigerian farmers and fishers versus Shell consists of three cases of oil leaks in the Nigerian villages of Oruma, Goi and Ikot Ada Udo. The court cases have been brought before the court in The Hague, where Shell’s international headquarters is located. The Nigerian plaintiffs, who lost their livelihoods after oil from leaking Shell pipelines streamed over their fields and into their fish ponds, are demanding that Shell properly clean up the oil and compensate them for the damage they have suffered.

Find out more about the case, including background, a timeline and legal documents

Drafts of the Fuel Quality Directive implementation plan [1] – the EU initiative aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels - seen by Friends of the Earth Europe suggest that the plan will not help to decarbonise the fossil fuel sector, and will do nothing to restrict imports of oil from tar sands to Europe. Oil produced from tar sands produces up to five times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil.

Friends of the Earth Europe together with other environment groups has written to climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard urging her to address the weaknesses in the draft. [2]

Darek Urbaniak, extractive industries campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said:

"European oil companies are already significantly increasing their tar sands portfolios through investments in Congo, Jordan, Madagascar, Nigeria, Russia and other countries. The Fuel Quality Directive is supposed to benefit the climate but the latest proposal from the European Commission leaves the European market wide open for fuels produced from tar sands and undermines the whole purpose of the legislation. The EU should be leading the world in stopping tar sands."

• Take action now!

Major oil companies have been pushing for the removal of greenhouse gas reduction targets for fossil fuels they produce in this legislation allowing them to continue to invest in the extraction of oil from tar sands.

Now they are coming under pressure from anti-tar sands campaigners and concerned investors who have succeeded in filing a resolution [3] to the forthcoming Annual General Meetings of BP plc and Royal Dutch Shell plc, calling on the companies to disclose the risks associated with their tar sands investments and their plans to address them.

From today European pension providers are also being targeted by the campaign and citizens across Europe have the opportunity to send a message to BP and Shell investors asking them to support the resolution on tar sands.

The resolutions are already supported by a number of major investors in the UK and the United States.

Duncan Exley, Director of Campaigns for FairPensions, said:

"The resolutions to BP and Shell were filed amid growing questions from investors, analysts and environmental groups about the financial, environmental and social implications of tar sands. We are calling on people to use the power of their pension or savings to force a review of this damaging and risky activity."

Tar sands – a naturally occurring mixture of sand or clay, water and an extremely dense and viscous form of petroleum called bitumen – cause more damage to the climate than conventional oil. The greenhouse gas emissions of converting tar sands into fuel is three to five times higher than for conventional oil. The pollution, deforestation and wildlife disturbance associated with tar sands developments also threaten the traditional livelihoods and wellbeing of indigenous communities.

Take action

Friends of the Earth Europe and FairPensions have collaborated on an action that will target Shell and BP shareholders directly.

You can express your concerns to your pension provider or if you don't have a pension you can email one of Shell and BP's largest shareholders.

• Click here if you are a member of a pension scheme and tell your provider to stop funding tar sands oil
  
  
• Click here if you are not a member of a pension scheme and tell one of Shell and BP's largest shareholders to stop funding tar sands oil

NOTES

[1] Fuel Quality Directive:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0088:0113:EN:PDF

[2] Letter to Commissioner Hedegaard regarding Fuel Quality Directive
http://www.foeeurope.org/corporates/Extractives/letter_Hedegaard_FQD_March2010.pdf

[3] More information on the resolutions and their supporters:
http://www.fairpensions.org.uk/tarsands/resolutions

The shareholder resolutions are co-ordinated by London-based responsible investment charity FairPensions and were filed by a broad coalition of individual and institutional investors, foundations and faith groups. FairPensions is urging investors to vote in favour of the resolutions, and members of the public to petition their pension provider to do the same.
http://www.fairpensions.org.uk/