In wake of Guatemala corruption scandals, Tahoe Resources’ Escobal license faces legal challenge

On July 12, 2015, the Guatemalan Center for Environmental and Social Legal Action (CALAS) filed criminal charges against former Minister of the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM), Erick Archila, and former mines director at MEM, Fernando Castellanos. CALAS is accusing Archila and Castellanos of violating the Constitution and for breach of duty for having granted Tahoe Resources an exploitation license for the Escobal project without adequate consideration of more than 250 community complaints against the project. CALAS called on the UN-backed International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) to fully investigate the Escobal licensing process, citing Archila's possible involvement in influence trafficking and illicit enrichment.

CALAS’s complaint reflects ongoing and widespread opposition to mining in Santa Rosa and Jalapa, which the government and company alike have ignored. Beginning in December 2011, more than a year before MEM granted Tahoe Resources its license, residents from various communities in Santa Rosa and Jalapa began filing administrative complaints against the project, according to provisions within Guatemala's mining law. The complaints, over 250 in all, expressed opposition to the project based on anticipated environmental impacts, which would violate residents' rights to water and to live in a healthy environment. 

According to the mining law, MEM is required to hold a hearing with the affected individual and the mining company in order to resolve each complaint. However, on April 3, 2012, less than one hour before the press conference when the approval of Tahoe’s exploitation license was announced, all of the complaints were dismissed.[1] CALAS argues that the Escobal license was therefore granted illegally and in violation of constitutional rights.[2] In May 2013, they initiated legal proceedings to repeal MEM's decision.[3]

On July 23, 2013, the Civil and Mercantile Division of Guatemala's First Court of Appeals decided in favor of the communities, upholding the appeal and putting the legality of the Escobal exploitation license in question. Tahoe Resources' Guatemala subsidiary Minera San Rafael appealed the decision, sending the case to the Constitutional Court. A final decision is pending. 

The recent charges come in the wake of an ongoing political crisis in Guatemala sparked by joint CICIG and Public Prosecutor investigations that revealed rampant corruption in the social security and customs offices, as well as in the judicial system and Congress. So far, 42 people, including President Molina's former personal secretary, his general secretary and the head of the national bank, have been arrested. Vice President Roxana Baldetti resigned on May 8 under suspicion of illegal enrichment and Congress is considering stripping Otto Perez Molina of his presidential immunity. Former MEM Minister Erick Archila resigned on May 15 and is facing allegations of corruption, money laundering and anomalies in the granting of numerous government contracts.

[1] Prensa Libre, “MEM inválida oposiciones en Santa Rosa” (5 April 2013), online:

[2] La Hora, “Tensión por proyecto minero en San Rafael Las Flores” (10 April 2013), online: http://www.lahora.com.gt/index.php/nacional/guatemala/actualidad/176076-tension-por-proyecto-minero-en-san-rafael-las-flores

[3] El Periodico, “Despues de recibir ataques, CALAS anuncia acciones legales contra mina” (4 April 2013), online:

Victory for communities threatened by the Xalalá dam: Contract for feasibility studies canceled

NISGUA's 2014 Rivers for Life speaking tour featured ACODET, an association made up of more than 50 communities whose livelihoods and culture are threatened by the possible construction of the Xalalá dam. During the tour we mobilized our grassroots base to stand in solidarity with impacted communities by calling for the cancellation of the geological feasibility study - a necessary precursor to the dam's construction. The granting of the feasibility study to Brazilian company Intertechne Consultores S.A. was fraught with anomalies and a lack of consultation with indigenous communities.  

We are excited to report that earlier this month, the National Electrification Institute (INDE) announced that the contract was terminated in December 2014! This explains why the Xalalá project, declared a national priority by President Otto Perez Molina in 2012, was publicly removed from the national agenda at the same time. It remains unclear why INDE took months to announce that the contract had been revoked. 

INDE announced that the revocation of the $4.9 million contract with Intertechne S.A. for the Xalalá geological feasibility studies was due to the company's failure to fulfill the requirements. MEM and INDE also reported that they will request Intertechne to return the $1.4 million advance given for the project, which was double the percentage companies are typically given as an advance for similar work. 

As a result of this scandal, and others that have rocked the government since April, high-level officials from the National Electrification Institutes (INDE), the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) and the Ministry of the Environment (MARN) have been forced to resign. Erik Archila, former head of MEM was part of the mass resignation of cabinet members on May 15th, and is also facing multiple allegations of corruption in other cases related to the granting of illegal contracts. 

The communities threatened by the Xalalá dam have taken action to denounce the lack of transparency and illegality of the agreement signed with Intertechne in November 2013 ever since learning about the contract in January 2014. At the request of communities, the General Comptroller's Office (CGC) carried out a hearing with the Congressional Integrity Commission in April 2014 to present the numerous irregularities and allegations of corruption in this and other license granting processes. In June 2014, ancestral authorities from the region presented an injunction against INDE for irregularities and the lack of consultation with communities. 

“By canceling the geological studies contract [for the Xalalá dam project], INDE is attempting to distance itself from the illegal acts committed by signing the contract with the Brazilian company Intertechne Consultores S.A., possibly to cover up corruption, justify costs already incurred and evade penal prosecution of those responsible.” Press release from communities threatened by the Xalalá dam, May 4, 2015 

Today we can celebrate this victory while continuing to demand investigation into contracts that benefit transnational companies at the expense of local peoples and blatantly disregard legitimate community decision-making processes that have rejected these types of megaprojects.

How a quasi-military project was created to protect the Escobal mine

An affidavit given on November 24, 2014 by Donald Paul Gray, vice president of the Canadian mining company Tahoe Resources Inc., has shed light on the strong interests at play since 2011 in contracting private security companies for the Escobal mining project in San Rafael Las Flores, Santa Rosa. His affidavit points to the relationship between private security companies, with ties to military and intelligence services that carry out large military projects in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the mining and construction operations in Guatemala.

Written by Luis Solano / Translation by NISGUA
Read the original article in Spanish.
April 7, 2015

The affidavit was given by the vice president of the mining company to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in response to a lawsuit filed against Tahoe Resources on June 18, 2014 by community members of San Rafael Las Flores. The lawsuit stems from an attack carried out by private security acting on orders from the head of mine security, Alberto Rotondo Dall'Orso, in which the seven plaintiffs were injured.

Tahoe Resources Inc., a mining company with offices in Reno, Nevada, United States and in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, operates the mining project in San Rafael through its subsidiary, Minera San Rafael, S.A. (MINERASA). It is for this reason that the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, where it is currently being processed.

Tahoe Resources Inc. was founded by senior executives of the Canadian mining industry, particularly linked to Glamis Gold and Goldcorp. The company came to the forefront in 2010 thanks to the Escobal project, which it acquired from Goldcorp on May 3, 2010, seven months after Tahoe was incorporated under the Business Corporations Act of British Columbia. The sale was finalized on June 8 and included control of the Minera San Rafael, S.A., recently registered by attorney Jorge Asencio Aguirre and which Goldcorp maintains 40% of shares.

Asencio Aguirre is an important cornerstone to this process. He is the legal representative of the mining companies Montana Exploradora, Entre Mares, Explotaciones Mineras of Guatemala (EXMINGUA) and MINERASA and helped create reforms to the 1997 Mining Law, according to statements he made on January 23, 2005 on the television program "Libre Encuentro."

Since 2011, when the mining project came under the control of Tahoe Resources, community opposition has intensified as demonstrated by protest marches and municipal consultations that have taken place in the neighboring municipalities of Nueva Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa de Lima and Casillas.

During this period, several acts of violence have occurred. One of the most dramatic events took place on April 27, 2013, when private security guards from the company Alfa Uno – associated with the Israeli company Golan Group - acted on orders of the then-head of security Alberto Rotondo Dall'Orso and indiscriminately shot at community members who were peacefully protesting in front of mining facilities in San Rafael Las Flores. Seven community members were injured.

"We have to protect investors." Óscar Berger, President of the Republic of Guatemala. Press conference, January 11, 2005.

As a result, on May 2, 2013, the government declared a State of Siege in four municipalities in the departments of Jalapa and Santa Rosa, militarizing the area under the guise of combating organized crime. The underlying reasons for the government’s response were published by Plaza Pública and revealed the contradictions between the actions taken and the real purpose behind them: to protect private mining interests.

On June 18, 2014, the seven people injured filed a lawsuit against Tahoe Resources Inc. with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The plaintiffs are: Adolfo Agustín García, Luis Fernando García Monroy, Artemio Humberto Castillo Herrera, Wilmer Francisco Pérez Martínez, Erik Fernando Castillo Pérez, Noé Aguilar Castillo and Misael Eberto Martínez Sasvin.

The lawsuit charges the company with the violent repression of peaceful protesters, based on the fact that Tahoe controls all important aspects of the operation of the Escobal mine, including security practices and policies, and community relations.

The lawsuit states, "Tahoe expressly or implicitly authorized the conduct of Rotondo and security personnel" and was negligent in preventing Rotondo and other security personnel from using excessive force. The plaintiffs argue that as owner of the subsidiary MINERASA, Tahoe is responsible for what transpired.

Tahoe denies that Rotondo is responsible. Instead, the company places blame on the Golan Group for not following international standards for security service providers. This stance is expressed by the company in the 2014 Annual Report of the Board of Ethics for the Government Pension Fund Global of Norway, published on January 26 of 2015. The report recommends the "exclusion of Tahoe Resources Inc. due to unacceptable risks of the company contributing to serious human rights violations."

Xalalá geological feasibility studies, an emergency contract?

The monitoring committee of the community consultation in the Ixcán writes to the public opinion, social organizations, indigenous organizations and human rights protection organizations with the purpose of informing about the situation created by the plans for the construction of the Xalalá hydro-electric dam. 

Last November 7, the National Electrification Institute (INDE) signed a contract for 12 months with Brazilian company, Intertechne Consultores S.A., to undertake the geological feasibility studies of the Xalalá hydro-electric project. These studies are a preliminary requirement for the project’s construction and an offering from the government before potential investors. The awarding occurred directly, secretly and without transparency. 

The Xalalá project, located at the convergence of the Chixoy and Copón rivers, dates from the 70’s and has been retaken by recent governments, from Berger to Pérez Molina, as it would be the second largest hydroelectric dam in the country. In an article published in Business News Americas – Spanish on July 17, 2012, one finds the following information provided by INDE: “Mid-way through next year there will be a call for bids on the construction of the 180 MW Xalalá hydro-electric project in Guatemala… In accordance with the information coming from INDE, geological studies are being undertaken and the Programming and Planning Secretariat (SEGEPLAN) is working on social matters related to the project, which will require close to US $350 million. The studies will end in February, while the commercial model should be defined between March and April. The latter could determine if INDE will undertake the project without help or through a public-private partnership.” However, the execution of INDE’s plans was not made by the deadline, the new objective is to begin the dam’s construction in 2014.

The invitation to bid on undertaking the “Xalalá Hydro-electric Project Geological, Geotechnical, Seismic and Geophysical Feasibility Study” was published by INDE on December 18, 2012 and was declared null and void on March 5, 2013 for the lack of offers. It is possible that the declared community opposition and nonconformity with some of the conditions weighed on the businesses that bought the terms.     

Facing the bidding failure, the INDE managing council agreed, “to instruct INDE administration that, in accordance with the bidders who showed interest, in agreement with the terms of reference, and who did not participate under obligation by the management of project development, that this is a rapprochement with them without taking on any agreement, with the purpose of understanding the motives of those that did not bid and asking them about the possibility of accepting a direct invitation to present an offer to manage the study of the same project. If viable, the latter join a short list of bidders (3 bidders in agreement with the records associated with the acquisition of the terms of reference); and to define the procedure to follow, with the corresponding judicial opinion. In contrary to this possibility, to propose and recommend the course of action to be able to contract said study, with backing by the appropriate legal dictum.”      

Contracting the company Intertechne Consultores S.A. took place through an emergency purchasing method and was not published in GUATECOMPRAS. According to the new purchases, contract and alienation regulation of INDE, emergency purchases and contracting is possible with the authorization of the general manager. Article 37 of the regulation says: “In emergency situations previously classified by the responsible manager, branches or businesses, the general manager will be able to authorize that urgent purchases or contracts be carried out directly to resolve the related emergency situation. For purchases that do not exceed two million quetzales (2,000,000.00), the general manager must inform the executive council within 15 days that follow; purchases exceeding two million quetzales (2,000,000.00) will require the authorization of the executive council.   

It should be remembered that this new regulation was approved in March 2013, “with the purpose of accelerating the administrative paperwork of INDE's purchasing, contracts and alienation processes and in the interest of having a larger participation in them, it is necessary to adjust and update its standards with the objective of achieving this end and so gaining a better execution”. That is, to increase the conditions’ flexibility, facilitate the contracting procedures and motivate investors. This regulation and the 2013-2027 Energy Policy were presented in the Guatemala Investment Summit forum, which took place in June of this year, as part of the offers presented by the government to promote foreign investment in hydro-electric projects.        

The undertaking of the geological studies requires the presence on the ground of the contracted company’s personnel in five Q’eqchí communities where it is expected that the tunnel and retaining wall will be constructed, making bore holes up to 250 meters deep. Since the start of 2013, INDE personnel maintain strong pressure on communities and their leaders so that they permit the undertaking of the geological studies. A team of 25 developers tries to gain the trust of communities by giving gifts to children, parties, sports uniforms, helicopter trips and offering projects that are not within INDE’s capacity.      

Since the start of 2013, INDE tried to meet with community leaders in Playa Grande, Cobán, and the Guatemala City. The response of the communities was to reject the invitation and ask them to arrive in the region to inform their representatives, since INDE is the party that is interested in the dam’s construction and not the communities. Finally, on November 13, a meeting took place in San Juan Chactelá between said public company and representatives of communities of the Ixcán, Zona Reyna, Uspantán and Cobán that will be directly or indirectly affected by the dam’s construction.  During the meeting, the project manager and other INDE employees explained the institution’s operations, the importance of the Xalalá project and described the geological studies. On their behalf, the communities reiterated the decision expressed in the good faith community consultation and pointed out the distortion of information and the deception on the part of INDE developers. They also made them see the noncompliance of the reparations plan in the areas affected by the Chixoy dam, to whom the damage caused by the construction of the dam has not been repaired, more than 30 years later. A memorial was signed by the attending communities and supported by close to 1,500 attendees where the rejection of the construction of the Xalalá Hydro-electric Plant was reiterated.

On December 4, a meeting took place in the community of Asunción Copón, sponsored by INDE, with representatives of nine communities in the Ixcán microregions III and VI that have been developing the electrification of their communities for 11 years. Marinus Böer, general manager of INDE, and other functionaries of that institution arrived in a helicopter to speak about the comforts of electric energy, the importance of the Xalalá project and the geological study, telling community members that if they don’t accept the Xalalá dam, there will not be sufficient energy for the electrification of the communities. Despite the cooptation or deception of some leaders who lent themselves to the ploy, the position of the majority of community members was to demand electrification, which is a need that is felt in the communities, but they rejected the condition of accepting the Xalalá project, since access to electricity is a right for Guatemalans. On the part of the company, it promised to speed up the electrification project. The development coordinator of INDE repeated that through the electrification projects in the zone, they look to gain the communities’ trust. 

With their lies and biased actions, INDE hopes to confuse public opinion and the communities, and at the same time promote a confrontation between the pro-electric energy committees and the organizations and communities that promote the defense of territory, who are labeled as opponents of development. The lack of electric energy in the rural communities in the north of Huehuetenango, El Quiché and Alta Verapaz, where there is less than 40% coverage, is not due to the lack of generation capacity, but rather the small investment in the rural distribution networks. The 2013 - 2027 Energy Policy, presented by the Ministry of Energy and Mines at the start of this year, notes that, “the current demand of electric power reports values close to 1,500 MW, while the Guatemalan generator park has a production capacity close to 2,700 MW”.  Meanwhile, the demand for 2027 is an estimated 3,000 MW. This surplus allows Guatemala to be the largest Central American exporter of electric energy today. The same government document highlights our country’s great hydro-electric potential and presents the possibilities of increasing the generation capacity and the international market opportunities. The policies and public and private investment have prioritized electric interconnection for large consumers, which is to say the urban and industrial centers and exportation through the Central American Electrical Interconnection System (SIEPAC).    

In light of the mentioned facts, the organizations and communities that form the Ixcán community consultation monitoring committee affirm that undertaking the "Xalalá Hydro-electric Project Geologic, Geotechnical, Seismic and Geophysical Feasibility Study" as contracted by INDE does not have the free, prior and informed consent of the communities where it is claimed that the study will take place and overlooks the results of the community consultations undertaken in the Ixcán (2007) and Uspantán (2009) municipalities. The imposition of government plans for the construction of mega-projects, without considering the decision and rights of the indigenous communities that will be affected could cause conflicts and confrontations, such as are occurring in Barillas and San Mateo Ixtatán (Department of Huehuetenango) and Monte Olivo, municipality of Cobán.

The strategy of making a condition of development projects, to mislead and divide communities is also a violation of the rights of indigenous people to information, to freely decide their development priorities, to a free, prior, and informed consultation and to non-discrimination.  One would have to ask the INDE executives: How much has this institution spent in social studies and paying consultants who direct the “social work” of promoting the Xalalá project? How much has it cost the Guatemalan people to sustain a large team of developers, the vehicles, the constant helicopter flights, the parties and the gifts to win the trust of the communities? Why not invest this money in compensating the communities affected by the Chixoy dam? Why believe that they can continue changing indigenous people's gold for glass beads? They have forgotten that we are neither in the times of the conquest, nor of Ubico, nor in the 80’s when our communities were massacred with impunity.

Playa Grande, Ixcán, December 9, 2013

1 http://content.yudu.com/Library/A2kzvp/IntertechneNoticias4/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intertechne.com.br%2Fesp%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D352%26Itemid%3D2
2 http://cmiguate.org/secretamente-inde-otorga-proyecto-de-xalala-a-empresa-brasilena/
3 CDR-084-2013. AJP-314-178-2013 OAI-110-79-2013 A-13-2013-4 Guatemala, 9 April 2013.
4 Reglamento de compras, contrataciones y enajenaciones del instituto nacional de electrificación, approved in session of 5 March 2013 by the Directive Council of INDE, act number 9-2013.
5 Idem
6 “Acuerdo Política entre el Gobierno de la República de Guatemala y los representantes de las Comunidades afectadas por la construcción de la hidroeléctrica Chixoy”, signed 10 July 2009 by the President of the Republic, Representative of COCAICH, the mediator of the OAS.
7 Ministry of Energy and Mines. Energy Policy 2013-2027, page 22.

Estudios de factibilidad geológica Xalalá, ¿Una contratación de emergencia?

La Comisión de Seguimiento a la Consulta Comunitaria en Ixcán se dirige a la opinión pública, organizaciones sociales, organizaciones indígenas y organismos de protección a los derechos humanos con el fin de informar sobre la situación generada por los planes para la construcción de la hidroeléctrica Xalalá.

El 7 de noviembre pasado el INDE firmó un contrato por 12 meses, para realizar los estudios de factibilidad geológica del Proyecto hidroeléctrico Xalalá a la empresa brasileña Intertechne Consultores S.A.1 hidroeléctrico y un ofrecimiento del gobierno ante posibles inversionistas. La adjudicación se realizó de manera directa, secreta y sin transparencia.

El proyecto Xalalá, ubicado en la confluencia de los ríos Chixoy y Copón, data de los años 70s y ha sido retomado por los gobiernos recientes, desde Berger hasta Pérez Molina, pues sería la segunda hidroeléctrica más grande del país. En un artículo publicado en el Business News Américas – Spanish del 17 de julio de 2,012 se encuentra la siguiente información proporcionada por el INDE: “A mediados del próximo año se realizaría una convocatoria para la licitación de la construcción de la hidroeléctrica de 180MW Xalalá en Guatemala… De acuerdo con información proveniente del INDE, se están realizando estudios geológicos y la Secretaría de Planificación y Programación (SEGEPLAN) está trabajando en los temas sociales relacionados con el proyecto, que requerirá cerca de U$350 millones. Los estudios concluirán en febrero, mientras que el modelo comercial debe definirse entre  marzo y abril. Este último podría determinar que el INDE realizará el proyecto sin ayuda o mediante una sociedad público-privada.” Pero la ejecución de los planes del INDE no se hizo en los tiempos previstos, la nueva meta es iniciar la construcción de la represa en el 2014.

La invitación a ofertar para la realización del “Estudio de Factibilidad Geológica, Geotécnica, Sísmica y Geofísica del Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Xalalá” fue publicada por el INDE el 18 de diciembre del 2012 y declarado desierto el 5 de marzo del 2013 por falta de oferentes. Muy posiblemente en la decisión de las empresas que compraron las bases pesó la manifiesta oposición comunitaria y la inconformidad con algunas de las condiciones.2 del INDE acordó “Instruir a la Administración del INDE que, de acuerdo con los Oferentes que manifestaron interés, adquiriendo los Términos de Referencia y que no participaron, por parte de la Gerencia de Desarrollo de Proyectos se tenga un acercamiento con los mismos sin asumir compromiso alguno, a efecto de conocer los motivos por los que no ofertaron y consultarles la posibilidad de aceptar una invitación directa para presentar oferta dirigida al mismo Estudio. De ser viable lo anterior integrar una Lista Corta de Oferentes (3 Oferentes de acuerdo a los antecedentes relacionados con la adquisición de Términos de Referencia); y, definir el procedimiento a seguir, con la opinión jurídica correspondiente. En contrario de esa posibilidad, proponer y recomendar el curso de acción para poder contratar dicho Estudio, con respaldo del Dictamen Legal que corresponda.”3

La contratación de la empresa Intertechne Consultores S.A. se realizó a través de la modalidad de compras de emergencia, y no fue publicada en GUATECOMPRAS, ya que según el nuevo Reglamento de Compras, Contrataciones y Enajenaciones del INDE, es posible la realización de compras y contrataciones de emergencia con la autorización del Gerente General. El artículo 37 del Dichos estudios son un requisito previo para la construcción del proyecto. Ante el fracaso de la licitación, el Consejo Directivo reglamento dice: “En situaciones de emergencia previamente calificadas por la Gerencia, Dependencias o Empresas que corresponda, el Gerente General podrá autorizar, que se efectúen compras o contrataciones urgentes en forma directa para resolver la situación de emergencia de que se trate. Adquisiciones cuyo monto no sea superior a dos millones de quetzales (2,000,000.00) la Gerencia General deberá informar dentro de los 15 días siguientes al Consejo Directivo; Adquisiciones superiores a dos millones de quetzales (2,000,000.00) requerirá autorización del Consejo Directivo.4

Cabe recordar que este nuevo reglamento fue aprobado en marzo del 2013 “Con el fin de agilizar la gestión administrativa de los procesos de compra, contrataciones y enajenaciones del INDE, y en aras de contar con una mayor participación en los mismos se hace necesario adecuar y actualizar sus normas con el objeto de lograr ese fin y así obtener una mejor ejecución”5 las condiciones, facilitar los procedimientos de contratación y motivar a los inversionistas. Éste reglamento y la Política Energética 2013 - 2027, fue presentado en el foro Guatemala Investment Summit, que se llevó a cabo en junio de este año, como parte de las ofertas presentadas por el gobierno para promover la inversión extranjera en hidroeléctricas.

La realización de los estudios geológicos requiere la presencia en el terreno del personal de la empresa contratada en cinco comunidades q’eqchí donde se pretende construir el túnel y la cortina, realizando perforaciones de hasta 250 metros de profundidad. Desde principios del 2013 personal del INDE mantiene una fuerte presión sobre líderes y comunidades para que permitan la realización de los estudios geológicos. Un equipo de unos 25 promotores intenta ganarse la confianza de las comunidades mediante la entrega de regalos a los niños, fiestas, uniformes deportivos, paseos en helicóptero y ofrecimientos de proyectos que no son de la competencia del INDE.

Desde principios del 2013 el INDE había intentado reunirse con líderes comunitarios en Playa Grande, Cobán y la ciudad capital. La respuesta de las comunidades fue rechazar la invitación y pedirles llegar hasta la región para informar a sus representantes, ya que el interesado en la construcción de la represa es el INDE, no las comunidades. Finalmente, el 13 de noviembre se realizó en San Juan Chactelá una reunión entre dicha empresa pública y representantes de comunidades de Ixcán, Zona Reyna, Uspantán y Cobán que serán afectadas directas o indirectas por la construcción de la represa. Durante la reunión el Gerente de Proyectos y otros empleados del INDE expusieron el qué hacer de esa institución, la importancia del proyecto Xalalá y describieron los estudios geológicos. Por su parte los comunitarios reiteraron la decisión expresada en la Consulta Comunitaria de Buena Fe y señalaron la tergiversación de la información y engaño por parte de los promotores del INDE. Se les hizo ver también el incumplimiento del plan de resarcimiento a los afectados por la represa Chixoy6 a quienes no se les ha reparado el daño a más de 30 años de haberse construido la represa. Se entregó en esa ocasión un memorial firmado por las comunidades asistentes y avalado por las cerca de 1,500 personas asistentes donde se reitera el rechazo a la construcción de la Hidroeléctrica Xalalá.

El día 04 de diciembre se realizó en la comunidad Asunción Copón, Ixcán, una reunión promovida por el INDE, con representantes de nueve comunidades de las microrregiones III y VI de Ixcán, que han estado gestionando desde hace once años la electrificación de sus comunidades. Marinus Böer, Gerente General del INDE y otros funcionarios de esa institución que llegaron en helicóptero, para hablar sobre las bondades de la energía eléctrica, la importancia del proyecto Xalalá y el estudio geológico, diciendo a los comunitarios que si no aceptan la represa Xalalá no habrá energía suficiente  para la electrificación de las comunidades. A pesar de la cooptación o engaño de algunos líderes que se prestaron a la maniobra, la postura de la mayoría de los comunitarios fue demandar la electrificación, que es una necesidad sentida de las comunidades, pero rechazaron la condición de aceptar el Proyecto Xalalá, ya que el acceso a la electricidad es un derecho como guatemaltecos. Por su parte la empresa se comprometió a agilizar el proyecto de electrificación. El coordinador de los promotores del INDE reiteró que mediante los proyectos de electrificación en la zona, buscan ganar la confianza de las comunidades.

Con sus mentiras y acciones tendenciosas el INDE pretende confundir a la opinión pública, a las comunidades, y al mismo tiempo promover la confrontación entre los comités pro-energía eléctrica y las organizaciones y comunidades que promueven la defensa del territorio, a quienes señala de opositores al desarrollo. La falta de energía eléctrica en las comunidades rurales del norte de Huehuetenango, El Quiché y Alta Verapaz, donde hay una cobertura menor al 40%, no se debe a la falta de capacidad de generación, sino a la poca inversión en las redes de distribución rural. La Política Energética 2013 – 2027, presentada por el Ministerio de Energía y Minas a principios de este año, señala que “la demanda actual de potencia eléctrica reporta valores cercanos a los 1,500 MW, mientras que el parque generador guatemalteco posee una capacidad instalada cercana a los 2,700 MW”7. Mientras que la demanda para el año 2027 se estima en 3,000 MW. Esa sobreoferta permite que Guatemala sea hoy día el primer exportador de energía eléctrica de Centroamérica. El mismo documento gubernamental destaca el gran potencial hídrico de nuestro país y plantea las posibilidades de aumentar la capacidad de generación y las oportunidades del mercado internacional. Las políticas e inversión de pública y privada ha priorizado la interconexión eléctrica hacia los grandes consumidores, es decir los centros urbanos e industriales y la exportación a través del sistema de interconexión eléctrica de Centroamérica SIEPAC.

Ante los hechos mencionados, las organizaciones y comunidades integrantes de la Comisión de Seguimiento a la Consulta Comunitaria en Ixcán, afirmamos que la realización del Estudio de Factibilidad Geológica, Geotécnica, Sísmica y Geofísica del Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Xalalá contratado por el INDE, no cuenta con el consentimiento libre, previo e informado de las comunidades donde se pretende realizar el estudio, y pasa por alto los resultados de las consultas comunitarias realizadas en el municipio de Ixcán (2007) y Uspantán (2009). La imposición de los planes gubernamentales para la construcción de megaproyectos, sin considerar la decisión y los derechos de las comunidades indígenas que serán afectadas, podrían causar conflictos y enfrentamientos, como está ocurriendo en Barillas, y San Mateo Ixtatán (Departamento de Huehuetenango) y Monte Olivo, municipio de Cobán.

La estrategia de condicionar los proyectos de desarrollo, engañar y dividir a las comunidades es también una violación a los derechos de los pueblos indígenas a la información, a decidir libremente sus prioridades de desarrollo, a la consulta libre previa e informada, a la no discriminación. Habría que preguntar a los directivos del INDE ¿cuánto ha gastado esta institución en estudios sociales y pago de consultores que dirigen el “trabajo social” de promoción del proyecto Xalalá? ¿Cuánto le cuesta al pueblo de Guatemala sostener un numeroso equipo de promotores, los vehículos, los constantes vuelos de helicóptero, las fiestas y los regalos para ganarse la confianza de las comunidades? ¿Por qué no invierten ese dinero en resarcir a las comunidades afectadas por la represa Chixoy? ¿Por qué creen que a los pueblos indígenas nos pueden seguir cambiando oro por cuentas de vidrio? Se olvidan los que ya no estamos en los tiempos de la conquista, ni de Ubico, ni en los años 80, cuando fueron masacradas impunemente nuestras comunidades.

Playa Grande, Ixcán, 09 de diciembre de 2013

1 http://content.yudu.com/Library/A2kzvp/IntertechneNoticias4/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=htt%3A%2%2Fwww.intertechne.com.br%2Fesp%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D352%26Itemid%3D2
2 http://cmiguate.org/secretamente-inde-otorga-proyecto-de-xalala-a-empresa-brasilena/
3 CDR-084-2013. AJP-314-178-2013 OAI-110-79-2013 A-13-2013-4 Guatemala, 9 de abril 2013.
4 Reglamento de compras, contrataciones y enajenaciones del instituto nacional de electrificación, aprobado en sesión del 5 de marzo de 2013 por el Consejo Directivo del INDE, acta número 9-2013.
5 Idem
6 “Acuerdo Política entre el Gobierno de la República de Guatemala y los representantes de las Comunidades afectadas por la construcción de la hidroeléctrica Chixoy”, suscrito el 1º de julio de 2009 por el Presidente de la República, Representante de COCAICH y el mediador de la OEA.
7 Ministerio de Energía y Minas. Política Energética 2013-2027, página 22.

Tens of Thousands Oppose Tahoe Resources' Escobal Project in Guatemala

Please show your support for mining-affected communities in the area of Tahoe's Escobal project! Take action with this online petition directed at President, CEO and Director of Tahoe Resources, Kevin McArthur.

(Versión original en español abajo)

(Guatemala City/Ottawa) Contrary to Tahoe Resources’ recent claims, tens of thousands of people oppose its Escobal project in southeastern Guatemala. Repression and violence have been the outcome of company and government efforts to install the project without social support. A recent high-court decision in Guatemala reinforces the legitimacy and importance of local decision-making processes.   



More than half of the communities in the municipality of San Rafael las Flores, where the Escobal project is located, have declared opposition to mine. In five neighbouring municipalities, in the departments of Santa Rosa and Jalapa, a majority have voted against the mine in municipal referenda, in which tens of thousands of people participated. The most recent vote took place on November 10th in the municipality of Jalapa, department of Jalapa. Over 23,000 people participated with 98.3% voting against mining and 1.7% in favour.



“It is grossly misleading for Tahoe’s CEO Kevin McArthur to claim that the Escobal project enjoys strong community support when so many people have democratically expressed their opposition. The Constitutional Court has clearly stated that local plebiscites are an important measure of community sentiment near the mine site and they should be respected,” stated Jackie McVicar, Coordinator of the Maritimes Guatemala Breaking the Silence Solidarity Network.



In early December, the Guatemalan Constitutional Court decided in support of a municipal referendum in the municipality of Mataquescuintla, Jalapa and against a suit that an individual had brought to challege its constitutionality. The decision acknowledges the responsibility that municipal authorities have to convene such votes and to make decisions according to their results, affirming their value as “adequate means by which peoples may exercise their right to give their opinion and be consulted on topics of interest.”



Community members organizing local votes have faced repression and baseless legal actions in an attempt to quash their opposition to the project. During the past fourteen months, dozens of community members have had to endure more than 70 stressful legal processes, of which nearly all have been absolved of any charges.



The most recent crackdown against opposition to the Escobal project took place in late April mere weeks after the company received its exploitation license. Security guards fired on peaceful protestors outside of company property, injuring six, including two seriously. The company’s then head of security remains under arrest awaiting trial. Alberto Rotondo is charged with assault causing bodily harm and obstruction of justice.



Days after the attack, on May 2, 2013, the Guatemalan State declared a state of siege in four municipalities surrounding the mine project and issued multiple arrest warrants. Among the accused and imprisoned were key community leaders. In late November, a Guatemalan judge ruled that the police arrest and detention of five individuals for nearly seven months was illegal. Shortly later, arrest warrants were dropped against seven others accused in the same case.



“The President has accused of us being a few crazy people that are opposed to the mine, but we represent numerous departments, including the Xinca indigenous people, as well as people from all across Guatemala. I ask the company to please leave Guatemala because it is seriously hurting our families,” stated Teresa Muñoz a community leader from Jalapa during a press conference in early December.



Communities oppose the Escobal project given concerns over actual and potential impacts on water supplies and community wellbeing. The Ministry of Energy and Mines approved the company’s final license right after dismissing outright more than 250 individual complaints against the company’s project.



In July, a Guatemalan Appeals Court found that the Ministry of Energy and Mines did not follow due process in considering one of these oppositions. Lawyers for affected communities believe the appeals court decision puts Tahoe's license in limbo. Hearings on this case continued in November at which hundreds demonstrated their opposition to the project.



Tahoe is already under investigation for industrial contamination of water supplies near the Escobal mine.



“It is devastating to see the way that Tahoe is repeating the patterns of its top shareholder, Goldcorp, whose Marlin mine was built despite opposition and without community consent, leading to conflict and giving rise to broad-based opposition to mining throughout Guatemala. Instead of storming ahead and generating further upheaval, Tahoe should pack its bags and leave these communities in peace,” remarked Jen Moore, Latin America Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada.



Contacts:

• Jen Moore, MiningWatch Canada, (613) 569-3439, jen(at)miningwatch.com  
• Jackie McVicar, Breaking the Silence, 011 (502) 4824-0637, btsguatemala(at)gmail.com

SOURCE: http://www.miningwatch.ca/news/tens-thousands-oppose-tahoe-resource-s-escobal-project-guatemala

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Decenas de miles se oponen al proyecto de la minera Tahoe Resources en Guatemala

Jueves, Diciembre 19, 2013
(Guatemala City/Ottawa) Contrariamente a las afirmaciones de la empresa Tahoe Resources, decenas de miles de personas se oponen al proyecto Escobal, perteneciente a esta compañía, en el suroriente de Guatemala. Los intentos, tanto de la compañía como del gobierno, de instalar el proyecto sin apoyo social han resultado en represión y violencia. Una reciente decisión del alto tribunal en Guatemala reafirma la legitimidad e importancia de los procesos locales de toma de decisión.

Más de la mitad de las comunidades en el municipio de San Rafael las Flores, donde se ubica el proyecto Escobal, se han declarado en oposición a la mina. En cinco municipios aledaños en los departamentos de Santa Rosa y Jalapa, la mayoría de las decenas de miles de votos registrados en consultas comunitarias rechazan la mina. La votación más reciente se efectuó el 10 de noviembre en el municipio de Jalapa, departamento de Jalapa. Más de 23.000 personas votaron – el 98,3 por ciento votó en contra de la minería, mientras que el 1,7 por ciento votó a favor.

“Es altamente engañoso que el presidente de Tahoe Resources, Kevin McArthur, indique que el proyecto Escobal goza del apoyo de la comunidad, cuando tanta gente ha manifestado democráticamente su oposición. La Corte de Constitucionalidad ha indicado claramente que los plebiscitos son un importante indicador del sentir de las comunidades próximas a donde se ubica la mina y se deben respetar”, indicó Jackie McVicar, Coordinadora de la Red de Solidaridad Rompiendo el Silencio.

A principios de diciembre, la Corte de Constitucionalidad avaló la consulta comunitaria en el municipio de Mataquescuintla, Jalapa y negó la acción cuestionando la constitucionalidad de la consulta que había presentado una persona particular. La decisión reconoce la responsabilidad con que cuentan las autoridades municipales de convocar este tipo de votación y tomar decisiones de acuerdo a los resultados que éstas arrojen, y afirma su valor como “una adecuada forma de posibilitar el derecho de los pueblos a opinar y ser consultados sobre asuntos de su interés".

Pobladores que organizaron las consultas comunitarias se han enfrentado a represión y a acciones legales infundadas, en un intento de invalidar la oposición al proyecto. Durante los últimos catorce meses, decenas de comuneros se han visto involucrados en más de setenta tensos procesos legales, en los cuales la gran mayoría quedó absuelta de todo cargo.

La más reciente ofensiva hacia la oposición del proyecto Escobal ocurrió a fines de abril, unas pocas semanas luego de que se le otorgara a la empresa la licencia de explotación. Guardias de seguridad abrieron fuego en contra de un grupo que se manifestaba pacíficamente fuera de la propiedad de la empresa, dejando seis personas heridas, dos de ellas de gravedad. Quien fuera en ese momento jefe de seguridad permanece detenido a la espera del juicio. Alberto Rotondo ha sido ligado a proceso por lesiones leves y graves y por obstaculización de la investigación penal.

El 2 de mayo de 2013, pocos días después del ataque, el Estado de Guatemala declaró estado de sitio en cuatro municipios aledaños al proyecto minero y giró varias órdenes de captura. Entre los acusados y detenidos se encontraban dirigentes comunitarios clave. A fines de noviembre, un juez guatemalteco declaró que fue ilegal la captura de cinco personas y su privación de libertad durante casi siete meses. Poco después, las órdenes de captura que se habían girado para siete otras personas acusadas en el mismo caso quedaron sin efecto.

“No somos unos cuantos locos, como ha dicho el presidente, que se oponen a la mina, somos muchos departamentos; Xincas somos todos, es todo Guatemala... Pido a la mina San Rafael [la subsidiaria guatemalteca de Tahoe] de que por favor se retire de Guatemala, que nos está haciendo un gran daño a nuestras familias.” indicó Teresa Muñoz, dirigente comunitaria de Jalapa en rueda de prensa a principios de diciembre.

Las comunidades se oponen al proyecto Escobal debido a los impactos existentes y potenciales en las fuentes hídricas y en el bienestar de la comunidad. El Ministerio de Energía y Minas aprobó la licencia final de la empresa inmediatamente después de rechazar categóricamente los más de 250 recursos presentados en contra del proyecto de la empresa.

En julio, la Sala Primera de Apelaciones de Guatemala halló que el Ministerio de Energía y Minas no procedió correctamente en relación a uno de estos recursos. Los abogados de las comunidades afectadas estiman que la decisión de la Sala de Apelaciones pone la licencia de Tahoe en limbo. En noviembre continuaron las audiencias sobre este caso, durante las cuales se manifestaron cientos en oposición al proyecto.

En este momento, Tahoe es objeto de investigación por contaminación industrial de las fuentes hídricas próximas a la mina Escobal.

“Es devastador ver hasta qué punto Tahoe repite el patrón de comportamiento de su mayor inversionista, Goldcorp, cuya mina Marlin se construyó a pesar de la oposición y sin el consentimiento de las comunidades, llevando a conflictos y a una amplia oposición a la minería en todo Guatemala. En vez de avanzar a toda marcha y generar mayores disturbios, Tahoe debería empacar sus maletas y dejar a estas comunidades en paz”, indicó Jen Moore, Coordinadora del Programa de América Latina de Alerta Minera Canadá.

Contactos:

Jen Moore, Alerta Minera Canadá, (613) 569-3439, jen(@)miningwatch.ca
Jackie McVicar, Red de Solidaridad 'Rompiendo el Silencio', 011 (502) 4824-0637, btsguatemala(@)gmail.com
Por favor, mostrar su solidaridad con las comunidades afectadas por el proyecto Escobal de Tahoe y tomar acción con esta petición en línea acá (disponible solamente en inglés).

Fuente: http://www.miningwatch.ca/es/news/decenas-de-miles-se-oponen-al-proyecto-de-la-minera-tahoe-resources-en-guatemala

Jalapa says NO to mining! Guatemalan Constitutional Court hears case related to Tahoe Resources' mining license

Jalapa has said NO to mining. Photo: Xinka Parliament

On Sunday, November 10, in a community consultation in the municipality of Jalapa, 23,152 people said NO to chemical metal mining.

Members of Santa María Xalapán and other indigenous Xinca communities in Jalapa requested the popular vote in order to address the threat of environmental and social impacts from the nearby Escobal silver mine, owned by Tahoe Resources. Nearly 24,000 people participated in the vote. Over 98% of all participants voted against mining while 1.71% voted in favor.

Do you agree with the development, installation and operation of chemical
metal mining in any part of the municipality of Jalapa? YES or NO.
Photo: CPR Urbana

In 2011, other municipalities surrounding the Escobal mine began holding municipal-level popular votes on the issue of mining. Casillas, Nueva Santa Rosa and Santa Rosa Lima were the first to hold votes in the department of Santa Rosa. In 2012, Matasquintla in the department of Jalapa also held a consultation. All four votes resulted in the overwhelming rejection of mining on their territory.

This year, the municipality of San Rafael Las Flores, where the Escobal mine is located, planned to hold a municipal wide consultation but their request was denied. Instead, individual communities in the municipality organized community-level consultations. Eight of San Rafael Las Flores' 26 communities completed popular votes when the process was cut short due to a government declared state of siege in May. The community consultation earlier this month in Jalapa marks the first popular vote surrounding the Escobal mine since the state of siege.

Participants in the community consultation show off their inked fingers, a sign of their vote.
Photo: CPR Urbana

Meanwhile, in a separate process of legitimate opposition to mining, Quelvin Jiménez continues to defend his legal right to have his voice heard. Jiménez, along with over 200 other complainants, filed legal complaints against Tahoe Resources regarding potential social and environmental impacts from the company's Escobal project. While individual legal complaints are less utilized than the community consultation process to express opposition to mining projects, they are protected under Guatemala's mining law.

The Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) ignored community opposition to the Escobal mine and rejected the 200+ complaints in April of this year, just before granting Tahoe Resources the mining license necessary to move forward with production. Jiménez, with legal support from the Center for Environmental and Social Legal Action (CALAS), appealed MEM's rejection of his complaint, citing lack of due process. The appeal was upheld in July, which CALAS interpreted to mean the suspension of Tahoe Resources' license. However, Minera San Rafael, Tahoe's Guatemalan subsidiary, put forward another legal appeal against the decision, sending Jiménez' case to Guatemala's Constitutional Court.

Hundreds of supporters from the legitimate resistance to the Escobal mine traveled in to Guatemala City to attend the Constitutional Court hearing this past November 5. Jiménez, before a packed room, defended his legal right to self-determination. He reflected on the process saying, "We hope the court respects our rights, that justice be fulfilled, not just for me but for all the communities."

A community member in the attendance also commented on the hearing, "They think they can take the law in their own hands but there is rule of law in Guatemala and it must be respected… We are demanding our rights be respected."

CALAS and Jiménez currently await notification from the Constitutional Court regarding its resolution.

Support community resistance to the Escobal mine by echoing their voices internationally: Take Action! Write Kevin McArthur, President of Tahoe Resources, to demand the company respect communities' right to self-determination and leave Guatemala!

Take action: Tell Tahoe Resources to pack its bags and leave Guatemala!

The time has come to support community resistance to the Escobal mine by echoing their voices internationally. 

Take Action! Write Kevin McArthur, President of Tahoe Resources, to demand the company respect communities' right to self-determination and leave Guatemala!

Since communities surrounding Tahoe Resource's Escobal silver mine first organized community consultations against the project in 2011, NISGUA has closely followed and reported on ongoing resistance to the mine. During the past year, conflict around the mine site located in San Rafael las Flores in southeast Guatemala has intensified. For in-depth NISGUA analysis on community opposition to the Escobal mine and other movements in defense of territory, read our detailed report, Exercising rights: Communities defend territory.

In May 2013, a series of referenda on the future of the Escobal project in mine affected communities of San Rafael Las Flores was abruptly cut short when the government called for a state of siege in the region. The state of siege, just one step away from a state of war, undermined legitimate resistance and quashed the consultation process.

In the days following the declaration of the state of siege, former security manager for Tahoe Resources, Alberto Rotondo, was charged with ordering the April 27 attack that seriously wounded six community members. A report recently made public revealed that in mid-2012, Rotondo authored an incident report for Tahoe subsidiary, Minera San Rafael, that outlined a strategy to respond to community opposition through the criminalization of community and religious leaders. 

In addition to expressing opposition to the project through community consultations, more than 200 individuals affected by the Escobal project filed legal complaints about the project with the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM). MEM dismissed all of the community complaints, clearing the path for the granting of Tahoe's mining license. The complainants appealed MEM's dismissal, and in July, a Guatemalan court ruled in their favor, a decision that partner groups believe should effectively suspended the company's exploitation license. Despite these still unresolved questions, Tahoe has moved forward with production, reporting its first shipment of mineral concentrate on October 15.

Take action: tell Tahoe Resources to leave Guatemala!

Comunicado urgente por detención a lideres de Santa Cruz Barillas

A LA OPINIÓN PÚBLICA NACIONAL E INTERNACIONAL MANIFESTAMOS:

El pueblo Q'anjobal de Santa Cruz Barillas a pesar de la represión y violación a sus derechos humanos a defendido su territorio a través de las consultas comunitarias ante la instalación de la hidroeléctrica propiedad de la empresa española Hidralia S.A.

No obstante el Estado no respeta la consulta comunitaria, y a raíz de ello han vivido diversos momentos de lucha, entre los cuales han pasado por el asesinato de uno de los pobladores de Barillas, Andrés Pedro Miguel el día 1 mayo del 2012 ese mismo día se dieron una serie de disturbios generados por la población.

Al día siguiente, fueron capturados: Antonio Rogelio Velásquez López, Saúl Aurelio Méndez Muñoz, Marcos Mateo Miguel, Ventura Juan, Amado Pedro Miguel, Pedro Nuñez, Joel Gaspar Mateo, Diego Juan Sebastián, Andrés León Andrés.

Luego que los 9 líderes fueron detenidos ilegalmente, de lo cual ha quedado suficiente constancia en los medios de comunicación e incluso en una denuncia internacional en Ginebra ante el Grupo de trabajo de detenciones ilegales, opinión 46/2012 en la cual se instaba al Estado a liberar a los detenidos, asimismo se documentó todas las violaciones de Derechos Humanos de los que fueron objetos los detenidos, por lo que el Procurador de Derechos Humanos emitió su resolución Ref. Exp. Ord. Gua. 7245-2012/DCP. El pasado 09 de enero fueron dejados en libertad al clausurar el proceso.

Hoy se presentaron hoy ante el Juzgado de Mayor Riesgo A, para concluir el proceso, al ingresar a la torre de tribunales fueron detenidos dos de ellos: Saúl Aurelio Méndez Muñoz y Antonio Rogelio Velásquez López, por personas vestidas de civil que se identificaron como agentes del DEIC de la Policía Nacional Civil, quienes los trasladaron fuera de la torre de tribunales y luego a las oficinas del DEIC, donde fueron fotografiados supuestamente por prensa. Pero a través de esta acción no lograron solventar su situación por su detención ilegal.

Este hecho se inscribe como una persecución constante en contra de los líderes de la resistencia de Barillas, Huehuetenango; siendo el fondo, una persecusión por sus opiniones políticas acerca del desarrollo en su municipio en la que la población se ha opuesto al modelo extractivo impuesto por el Estado y las empresas transnacionales.

DENUNCIAMOS:

La captura de los compañeros Saúl Aurelio Méndez Muñoz y Antonio Rogelio Velásquez López. El día 27 de agosto de 2013 cuando ingresaban al tribunal de Mayor Riesgo A, para concluir el proceso.

Las violaciones a los derechos humanos de líderes y lideresas del pueblo de Barillas al oponerse legítimamente a la instalación de la hidroeléctrica.

El otorgamiento de la licencia por parte del Ministerio de Energía y Minas para la instalación de la hidroeléctrica sin el consentimiento de las comunidades que tienen el legítimo derecho a decidir por su desarrollo.

EXIGIMOS:

La inmediata liberación de los compañeros Saúl Aurelio Méndez y Antonio Rogelio Velásquez.

El cese de la represión en contra de la población Barrillense que lucha en defensa de su territorio.

La cancelación de la licencia otorgada a la empresa Hidro Santa Cruz S. A. por la represión que han ejercido en contra de las comunidades.

COORDINACIÓN Y CONVERGENCIA NACIONAL MAYA WAQIB´ KEJ

Guatemala, 28 de agosto de 2013

Gains for communities defending life and territory as mining takes a hit in Guatemala

On July 22, a Canadian court ruled that Hudbay Minerals will stand trial in Canada for violence, including murder and rape, carried out by employees of its former Guatemalan subsidiary, Compañía Guatemalteca de Níquel S.A. (CGN). The struggle to hold this Canadian mining company responsible for human rights abuses committed abroad began in 2010 when Angelica Choc initiated a lawsuit for the murder of her husband, community leader Adolfo Ich Chamán, by private security guards contracted by CGN.

Today, Hudbay is set to stand trial not only for the murder of Ich Chamán, but also in the shooting of German Chub, and the 2007 gang rape of 11 women by mining security personnel. Angelica Choc, widow of Adolfo Ich, reacted to the court's decision saying, “Today is a great day for me and all others who brought this lawsuit…. It means everything to us that we can now stand up to Hudbay in Canadian courts to seek justice for what happened to us.”[1]

Angelica Choc filed her case against HudbayMinerals Inc. in December 2010
for the murder of her husband Adolfo Ich Chamán. Photo: Graham Hunt

This historic decision marks the first time a Canadian court will hear a case against a Canadian company for human rights abuses committed at a foreign mine site. It undoubtedly sets a strong precedent for future cases of abuses committed by North American companies operating abroad. In the words of Murray Klippenstein, lawyer for the 13 plaintiffs; “As a result of this ruling, Canadian mining corporations can no longer hide behind their legal corporate structure to abdicate responsibility for human rights abuses that take place at foreign mines under their control at various locations throughout the world.”[2] Read the full press release here or visit the Choc v. Hudbay website for more information.

On the heels of the effective suspension of Tahoe Resources' exploitation license for the Escobal silver mine, Canadian mining giant, Goldcorp, which is also a 40% shareholder in Tahoe's project, announced the indefinite suspension of its Cerro Blanco gold mine located close to the Guatemala, El Salvador border in the department of Jutiapa. Goldcorp contends that the project was put on hold due to falling metal prices, but that the company is not contemplating its permanent closure.[3]

Earlier this year, members of Breaking the Silence, MiningWatch, the Center for International Environmental Law and other North American organizations traveled to Asunción Mitla, the site of the Cerro Blanco mine, as part of a delegation to investigate the impacts of gold mining on water sources in El Salvador. The delegation reported on their visit to Asunción Mita where they heard firsthand from community representatives about nearby hot springs threatening the project and also community concerns related to the possible environmental impacts of the mine, especially on El Salvadoran water sources. 

The Cerro Blanco mine has been the subject of international controversy due to its
potential negative environmental impact on both Guatemalan and El Salvadoran territories.
Photo: http://www.stopesmining.org

During an August 6 press conference the MadreSelva Collective responded to Goldcorp's announcement stating that closure of Cerro Blanco was the result of “poor planning since the project's beginning, the bravado of mining companies, and the negligence, incapacity and corruption of a docile Guatemalan government...”[4] It goes on to point out numerous deficiencies in the environmental impact assessment, including a lack of analysis and oversight by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources of the likely impacts of subterranean water high in temperature and arsenic. MadreSelva joins Guatemalan and Salvadoran communities and organizations in calling for the permanent suspension of the mine that includes a detailed and fully funded closure plan in place to address the outstanding negative environmental impacts of the project. 


While we have yet to see the outcome of the forthcoming trials against Hudbay Minerals Inc., the  announcement that the company will stand trial in Canada along with the effective suspension of Tahoe Resources' Escobal silver mine and Goldcorp's Cerro Blanco gold mine are huge gains for communities defending their life and territory. Furthermore, it is certain these historic advances will serve as examples for future struggles in defense of life and against the extractive mining industry in Guatemala.

---

[1] Press Advisory: Ontario court rules that lawsuits against Hudbay Minerals regarding shootings, murder and gang-rape at its former mine in Guatemala can proceed to trial in Canada. http://www.chocversushudbay.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/PRESS-ADVISORY-Ontario-Court-rules-claim-can-proceed-to-trial.pdf

[2] idem

 Read the full press release here or visit the Choc v. Hudbay website. 

[3] “Goldcorp takes $1.8bn hit on Mexican Peñasquito mine.” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23b3a128-f535-11e2-b4f8-00144feabdc0.html

[4] “La Mina Cerro Blanco no se suspende por la baja del precio del oro". Comunicado, Colectivo MadreSelva. http://www.nisgua.org/Comunicado_cierre_Mina_Cerro_Blanco_60813.pdf

Indigenous organizations denounce proposed mining moratorium

In a televised program broadcast from outside Tahoe Resources’ conflictive Escobal mine project, President Otto Pérez Molina announced a proposed two-year moratorium on the granting of new mineral mining licenses. A similar moratorium put in place under the Colom presidency was lifted under the Molina administration, allowing for the issuance of roughly 100 exploration and exploitation licenses during the last year and a half. The President and Minister of Energy and Mines, Erick Archila, took care in assuring the public and Tahoe executives in particular, that the decision would not impact the Escobal project, approved for mineral exploitation in April of 2013.

He also explained that the purpose of the moratorium is to allow the government to pass reforms to the 1997 Mining Law. In a groundbreaking legal action filed in July 2012, this same law was denounced by the Western Peoples Council (CPO) as unconstitutional, as it fails to fulfill national and international mandates that require the State to consult with indigenous people regarding policies that will significantly impact their territories. In March, 2013, more than eight months after the action was filed, Guatemala's highest court upheld the Mining Law, rejecting the CPO appeal.

Indigenous and campesino organizations denounced the latest moratorium as a political show intended to calm widespread resistance to harmful mining projects, while pushing through reforms that do nothing to address the real issues including the lack of respect for communities' right to consultation on projects that impact their lives, livelihoods and territories.

Read NISGUA's translation of the declaration from the Western Peoples' Council and the Departmental Assembly of Huehuetenango below. See the original Spanish version here. 

THE ORIGINAL PEOPLES HAVE NEVER ASKED FOR A MORATORIUM; A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RESULTS OF THE GOOD FAITH COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS

The announcement of the President of the Republic of Guatemala to present a law initiative to the Congress of the Republic to decree “a two year moratorium on the granting of additional licenses for mineral mining” in the country, while starting the debate for a new Mining Law in the legislative branch, is neither novel nor substantive for the Original Peoples of Guatemala. The current president’s predecessor, Mr. Alvaro Colom Caballeros, had already put this into practice.

To bring back a moratorium on the granting of mining licenses is more evidence of the hasty and improvised attitude of the current government in lifting the moratorium previously in place.

Furthermore, after the Original Peoples presented a legal action of unconstitutionality against the current Mining Law, the Executive Branch carried out two desperate actions: a) the suspension of the moratorium put in place by the previous president, and b) the presentation of a new initiative to reform the Mining Law.

The suspension of the first moratorium brought the massive granting of un-consulted licenses for mining in indigenous territories, while the Mining Law reform initiative demonstrates the lack of patriotic interest in protecting national sovereignty. This Machiavellian initiative makes clear that the  recently announced proposed moratorium would be repealed in the case of reforms to Mining Law Decree 48-97, or if a new law is created.

The moratorium law initiative - “suspension of the granting of licenses” - will not immediately go into effect as it must be read in the plenary, sent to the Commission of Energy and Mines for analysis and then sent back to Congress for discussion.

This initiative is a “smoke screen and a total show” that seeks to placate community resistance and conflicts as a result of the imposition of the mining model in the country. This proposal is contradictory because during the last year and a half the Executive has granted roughly 100 mineral mining licenses.

The people have not asked for a moratorium on community consultations; the people have demanded that the government respect the decisions of the good-faith community consultations that have overwhelmingly rejected this model of death disguised as mining activity.

Guatemala does not need to plunder the country in order to generate its own development. Mining activity is not the only alternative nor is it a priority for an integral development model.

Huehuetenango, July 2013

DEPARTMENTAL ASSEMBLY OF HUEHUETENANGO  -ADH-

MEMBERS OF THE WESTERN PEOPLES' COUNCIL  -CPO- 

Members of La Puya resistance meet with President Otto Pérez Molina

Yolanda Oquelí (foreground) meets with Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina and
Minister of The Interior Mauricio Lopez Bonilla. Photo: Giles Clarke

In an uncharacteristic move, President Otto Pérez Molina and the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) invited members of the peaceful resistance of La Puya to a high level meeting last week to explain their ongoing opposition to the El Tambor (Progresso VII) gold mine located in the municipalities of San José del Golfo and San Pedro Ayampuc. Community members have maintained a constant presence at the entrance of the mine site for the past 15 months.

In the hours long meeting, community representatives explained the reasons for the resistance highlighting the lack of consultation and serious flaws in the Environmental Impact Assessment, as demonstrated in the analysis conducted earlier this year. Leader of the resistance, Yolanda Oquelí described the meeting stating: "This isn't a quick fix or a negotiation. We came at the invitation of the president and the minister of Energy and Mines because they wanted to know why we oppose the mining project." According to an article published on the MEM website, the authorities insisted on the environmental and economic viability of the project and offered to carry out a physical inspection of the mine installations with the participation of relevant local organizations.

Also invited to the high level meeting were representatives from the US company behind the project, Kappes Cassiday & Associates, their legal council, which also represents Canadian mining giant that owns Guatemala's Marlin Mine, GoldCrop, and principle investors in the project. However, at the request of the representatives from La Puya, KCA's meeting with the president was held separately. La Puya maintains firm that their concerns and demands are with the Guatemalan government, and not the private company.

A supporter holds a sign saying "I peacefully resist" outside the presidential palace.
Photo: CPR Urbana

While just 10 representatives were allowed inside the meeting, scores of community members and supporters of the peaceful resistance gathered outside the Presidential Palace. At the request of La Puya resistance, the Independent Media Center (CMI) gained access to the meeting in order to film the proceedings from within. 

A boy watches footage of the presidential meeting in La Puya. Photo: NISGUA

On Sunday, June 16, the resistance at large gathered at La Puya to watch the footage from Wednesday's meeting. A community assembly is pending to discuss the meeting and to make a decision surrounding next steps moving forward. In the assembly on Sunday, the La Puya representatives recognized that there struggle has been hard and exhausting, but reaffirmed that after 15 months in resistance they have no intention of stopping now.