In the final days of business before the General Election, Parliament has passed new anti-bribery legislation, sending an unequivocal message that bribery by British companies will not be tolerated at home or abroad. Development and anti-corruption agencies including Bond, CAFOD, Global Witness and Tearfund welcome yesterday’s Royal Assent of the Bribery Act as an important step in combating bribery by UK companies. ‘We know from our work in Africa, Asia and Latin America that it is the poorest and most vulnerable people who suffer the most as a result of bribery,’ says Laura Webster, Tearfund Head of Policy. ‘The party which forms the next government must show a high-level commitment to use this legislation to stamp out bribery by UK companies.’  The Act brings UK laws up to date by creating a new offence of bribing a foreign public official and a corporate offence for companies that fail to prevent bribery.

See http://www.cafod.org.uk/news/bribery-act-2010-04-09.

The Catholic agency stresses the need for the publication of the contract and its amendments and calls on AngloGold Ashanti to share it immediately with the local community in DRC.

The contract between the South African company and the DRC government confirms a joint venture to mine one of the largest unexplored goldfields in Africa.

Although reduced from 9,000km2 under its exploration contract to 6,000km2, the mining area is still about 60 times the size of Paris and contains around 3 million ounces of gold.

AngloGold Ashanti has a subsidiary listing on the London Stock Exchange.

See http://www.cafod.org.uk/news/anglogold-2010-03-29.

Vedanta was just one of a number of investments in mining companies which the Church of England still holds.

Both the Church of England and the Methodist Church hold shares in Anglo American, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, despite the fact that the Catholic aid agency CAFOD, War on Want, Anglican bishops and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, amongst others, have previously condemned the companies for their actions. The combined Church of England shareholding in these three companies was valued at £62 million in the last annual report of the Church Commissioners.

Read more at http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11192.

New report from CAFOD and South Africa’s Benchmarks Foundation

AngloGold Ashanti is a South African company with a secondary listing on the London Stock Exchange.

See http://www.cafod.org.uk/content/download/106612/1178506/version/1/file/DRC_reportEN.pdf or  http://www.bench-marks.org.za/research/DRC_reportEN.pdf.

In 2008, it pulled out of the Gag Island project in West Papua. See: http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=8921.

The following year, the company also sold a major nickel refinery in Australia. See: http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=9384.

Then, last month, BHP Billiton withdrew from a controversial nickel joint venture in the Philippines.
See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=9778.

BHP Billiton quits Philippines mine after CAFOD campaign

BHP Billiton has pulled out of a nickel mining project in the Philippines following a campaign by CAFOD. BHP Billiton’s 40 percent stake in the US$22.7 billion project was sold to local joint-venture partner AMCOR (Asiaticus Management Corp), UCA News reports. “It looks like (AMCOR) will proceed with the nickel mine,” said CAFOD’s extractives policy analyst, Sonya Maldar. CAFOD is continuing its call for a new consent process before work starts on the mine at Macambol in Davao Oriental province. “Given the serious flaws in the official consent process, AMCOR and any future partners in the project cannot use this to push ahead with mining in the area,” Maldar said. “There must be a new consent process that is genuinely free and fair.”

Read more at http://www.cathnewsasia.com/2010/01/12/bhp-quits-philippines-mine-after-caritas-campaign/.

For background on the exchange between CAFOD and Goldcorp, see http://londonminingnetwork.org/2009/12/cafod-and-development-and-peace-canada-discover-evidence-of-severe-water-contamination-at-goldcorp-mine/.

CAFOD’s Rejoinder to Goldcorp’s Response to CAFOD Press Release: “CAFOD and Development and Peace Canada Discover Evidence of Severe Water Contamination at Goldcorp Mine,” 2 December 2009

CAFOD rejects Goldcorp’s claims that CAFOD’s allegations are “patent falsehoods and distortions”. CAFOD says: “Our press release was published following a thorough investigation of the San Martin Mine Closure Plan and its implementation by distinguished experts in this field. CAFOD, Development and Peace and our Honduran partner Caritas Tegucigalpa have attempted to raise concerns about acid mine drainage at the San Martin mine with Goldcorp on numerous occasions…for several years. We remain fully committed to a constructive dialogue with the company. However, this should not replace being open about the findings of our research or sharing this information publicly…The fact that Goldcorp had introduced remediation measures in the first place is tacit acknowledgement and recognition of a pre-existing problem of acid mine drainage at the San Martin mine…CAFOD’s press release did not dispute the fact that the mine closure plan was approved by SERNA [Honduran Ministry of Environment]…”

See the full rejoinder at  http://www.cafod.org.uk/content/download/106040/1172470/version/3/file/CAFOD+rejoinder+to+Goldcorp+1001.pdf.

Other Goldcorp news

Goldcorp makes deal with New Gold to grab 70% of El Morro – Chile
Vancouver-based Goldcorp (TSX: G, NYSE: GG) has entered into a binding agreement with New Gold (TSX: NGD) for the latter to exercise its right of first refusal on a 70% stake in the El Morro copper project in Chile held by Xstrata Copper, a branch of multinational group Xstrata (LSE: XTA), and then pass the share on to Goldcorp. “In El Morro, Goldcorp has identified an ideal project with which to re-enter one of the best mining jurisdictions in South America,” CEO Chuck Jeannes said in a statement.

See http://www.bnamericas.com/news/mining/Goldcorp_makes_deal_with_New_Gold_to_grab_70*_of_El_Morro/169106293.

Barrick sues to break up Goldcorp-New Gold deal
Barrick Gold is suing to halt Goldcorp’s planned acquisition from New Gold of a 70 percent stake in the El Morro copper-gold project in Chile, which Barrick is also trying to acquire. Barrick agreed in October to buy the El Morro stake from its owner, Anglo-Swiss miner Xstrata, for $465 million. However, that bid was scuttled when New Gold, the minority stakeholder in El Morro, claimed right of first refusal to Xstrata’s stake and structuring a deal with Goldcorp.

See http://www.miningweekly.com/article/barrick-sues-new-gold-over-el-morro-stake-sale-2010-01-13.

Goldcorp exceeds output guidance for 2009 at 2.4Moz
Vancouver-based Goldcorp (TSX: G, NYSE: GG) produced 2.4 Moz of gold last year, a record for the company and more than its 2.3Moz guidance. Output in Q4 totaled 601,000oz, Goldcorp said in a statement Monday. The company added it expects cash costs to have averaged US$290/oz last year after taking into account byproducts and US$390/oz on a co-product basis, both above its previous guidance. Goldcorp, one of the world’s biggest gold miners, finished the year with US$865mn in cash. The company is active in Argentina, Guatemala and Mexico as well as Honduras.

http://www.bnamericas.com/news/mining/Goldcorp_exceeds_output_guidance_for_2009_at_2,4Moz/169555623

London Mining Network and a number of its member groups and associates made submissions to this inquiry.

Volume 1 of the Committee’s report includes conclusions and recommendations. The cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament is very critical of what it sees as the UK Government’s lack of commitment to improving the human rights record of UK companies operating overseas, and the incoherence of Government policy on the matter. See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/5/5i.pdf.

Most of the oral and written evidence submitted to the Committee is included in Volume 2 of the report
(see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/5/5ii.pdf) though there are some omissions.

For materials related to the inquiry, including some of the individual submissions made to the Committee, see also http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/UKJointCommittee.

For comments on the Committee’s report, see http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/UKJointCommitteereport.

The role of London-listed mining companies, and mining companies raising finance in London, in human rights abuses around the world is clear from the amount of material on such companies that was submitted to the Joint Committee’s inquiry. Twenty of the eighty-seven published submissions and one of the two unpublished submissions deal wholly or partly with human rights abuses allegedly linked to mining companies with a London connection. Three of the remaining published submissions are responses by mining companies to the serious allegations made against them.

The Committee’s report notes (Volume 1, page 94, section 7): ‘Our terms of reference do not permit us to conduct a full investigation into any specific allegations against individuals and companies. However, in the light of the seriousness of many of these claims, we are persuaded that further action is necessary and we hope that our conclusions and recommendations will contribute to advancing the debate in the UK, both among parliamentarians and the wider public.’

Committee Chair, Andrew Dismore MP, said: “UK multinationals may present a compliant face at home but show quite a different approach when operating elsewhere and some have a woeful record abroad. We were most concerned about the range and seriousness of allegations both in the press and in the evidence we received, including against 18 British companies which are household names.”

In a press release dated 15 December 2009, the Committee called on the UK Government ‘to develop a strategy that clearly sets out the human rights standards which UK businesses are expected to meet. The objective should be an international agreement on business and human rights.’ The Committee called on the UK Government to continue supporting UN Special Representative Professor John Ruggie in his work on business and human rights, and noted that few UK firms meet the ‘due diligence’ standards he recommends.

The press release continued: ‘The Committee notes that the UK’s current strategy gives undue priority to voluntary initiatives, without clear guidance. Business compliance with the voluntary OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises is monitored by “National Contact Points” or NCPs. The Committee says the UK’s NCP “still falls far short” of being an effective remedial body. The Committee considers that the UK Government should clarify its policy on business and human rights both at home and overseas.’

London Mining Network draws readers’ attention particularly to the following submissions included in Volume 2 of the report.

• Holly Hill Trust, page Ev 110; deals with Rio Tinto in Ecuador; makes a number of general comments about Rio Tinto’s behaviour which are borne out in the written submissions by Dr Mika Peck and the Colombia Solidarity Campaign and also by the comments of Rio Tinto Representative Sir Brian Fall when giving oral evidence to the Joint Committee: see Volume 2 of the report, pages Ev 27-51
• Dr Mika Peck, page Ev 119; deals with Rio Tinto in Ecuador
• Colombia Solidarity Campaign, page Ev 121; deals with Rio Tinto in Colombia and the right of Indigenous Peoples to Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
• Vigeo, page Ev 124; deals with Anglo American and Rio Tinto and mentions also BHP Billiton
• World Development Movement, page Ev 135; deals with UK Government support for mining companies and with GCM Resources in Bangladesh
• Action Aid UK, page Ev 137; deals with Vedanta in India
• Survival International, page Ev 161; deals with Vedanta in India, Gem Diamonds in Botswana, and FPIC
• War on Want, page Ev 164; deals with Anglo American and UK Government support for mining companies
• Forest Peoples Programme and Middlesex University Business School Law Department, page Ev 174; deals with FPIC
• Working Group on Mining in the Philippines, page Ev 179; deals with BHP Billiton, Crew, Rio Tinto and Xstrata
• London Mining Network, page Ev 182; deals with Anglo American, BHP Billiton, GCM Resources, Monterrico Metals, Rio Tinto, Vedanta and Xstrata
• CAFOD and Peru Support Group, page Ev 189; deals with BHP Billiton in the Philippines, Monterrico Metals in Peru and UK Government support for mining companies, and mentions Vedanta-owned Konkola Copper in Zambia
• Harrison Grant, page Ev 193; deals with an unnamed diamond mining company registered on London’s Alternative Investment Market (AIM) and active in Sierra Leone
• Margo Drakos, Tarek Maassarani and Jenik Radon, page Ev 236; mentions South African diamond company De Beers, in which Anglo American is a major shareholder
• Latin American Mining Monitoring Programme, page Ev 257; deals with BHP Billiton and Xstrata in Peru
• Global Witness, page Ev 260; deals with Afrimex, Amalgamated Metal Corporation and Anvil Mining (a Canadian-Australian company with some British connections) and UK Government support for mining companies in the Democratic Republic of Congo; also contains recommendations for tackling abuses
• RAID, page Ev 274; deals with UK Government support for mining companies, particularly Anvil Mining in DRC, and the role of AIM; also contains recommendations for tackling abuses
• Leigh Day and Co, page Ev 293; mentions Afrimex and Rio Tinto
• Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, page Ev 297; mentions Anglo American, GCM Resources, Metals Exploration, Rio Tinto and Vedanta
• Amalgamated Metal Corporation, page Ev 323; response to allegations
• BHP Billiton, page Ev 325; response to allegations; as usual with BHP Billiton, it claims that the allegations contain ‘errors’ without specifying what they are, and that some of the claims are ‘out of date’, without specifying which ones
• GCM Resources, page Ev 342; response to allegations

See http://www.cafod.org.uk/news/goldcorp-2009-12-02.

On Friday 16th October a High Court decision upheld the injunction to freeze the assets of British mining company Monterrico Metals. Mrs Justice Gloster ruled that the Claimants had a ‘good arguable case’ against Monterrico and that company assets of £5 million should remain frozen.

See http://www.perusupportgroup.org.uk/pdfs/Statement%20on%20MM%20Judgement%2023%20Oct%2009.pdf.

See under UK bioenergy firm pledges P6-billion investments in RP at http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/221395/uk-bioenergy-firm-pledges-p6billion-investments-rp.

President Arroyo Challenged to Act on Indigenous Racial Discrimination

Indigenous Peoples Links Press Release

19 September 2009

Indigenous Peoples Links (PIPLinks), a UK-based support group on indigenous rights, presented a letter to President Arroyo on her visit to the United Kingdom, raising issues around the recent concluding observations of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

The CERD, which is made up of experts from 18 countries, issued its critical recommendations to the Philippines Government following its review of the Government’s overdue report in Geneva in August 2009. The CERD welcomed various positive developments in the legal framework, such as the 1997 Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), but it raised a number of critical concerns and recommendations in relation to respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights in practice.

The extensive set of recommendations regarding the Government’s implementation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights included urging the Government to acknowledge that racial discrimination exists in the Philippines, to ensure that Indigenous Peoples are protected in situations of armed conflict and that independent and impartial investigations are conducted into all allegations of human rights violations.

Crucially, it recommended that the Government fully implement the IPRA, ensuring that economic activities, especially mining, carried out on indigenous territories do not adversely affect the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights under the Act. With regard to this it made specific recommendations on the activities of TVI Pacific, who are operating in the ancestral domain of the Subanon at Mount Canatuan. This case has been the subject of an ongoing complaint to the CERD for the last two years. The CERD urged the Government “to consult with all concerned parties in order to address the issues over Mt. Canatuan in a manner that respects customary laws and practices of the Subanon people”.

The CERD was concerned over the implementation of IPRA and its provision to ensure Indigenous Peoples are given the right to Free Prior Informed Consent before any mining or other development can take place on their lands. They called for an independent review of the IPRA to verify that the current structures and guidelines/procedures established to conduct FPIC are in accordance with the spirit and letter of the IPRA. They also called for an independent review, in consultation with Indigenous Peoples, of IPRA and all aspects of the legislative framework in relation to indigenous property. The CERD asked the Government to report back within one year.

PIPLinks was part of a consortium of groups concerned with indigenous rights that submitted a ‘shadow report’, and video, to counter Government claims that there was no racial discrimination in the Philippines.   As many of the concerns expressed by Indigenous Peoples in the ‘shadow report’ were over how the Government, through the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, was failing and mis-representing them, there is a real concern as to how the voice of Indigenous Peoples will be heard more directly with regard to these life and death issues.

We await a response from the Government, but in the meantime are concerned that the President prioritised meeting mining companies in London, when their activities are the source of so many of the ongoing concerns raised by Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines.

- ENDS -

QUOTE: “The government must tell the truth. We have been waiting for so long. The government’s report that there are no indigenous peoples’ discrimination is purely a lie as fabricated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), through its incompetent local officials. They should be held accountable.” – Timuay Lambo, Chief Elder of the Subanon Council of Seven Rivers in the Zamboanga Peninsula

Contact: Andy Whitmore, Indigenous Peoples Links (PIPLinks)
Mob: +44 775 439 5597 Email: comms@piplinks.org

President Arroyo
c/o the Philippines Embassy
8 Suffolk Street
London, SW1 4HG

18 September 2009

Your Excellency,

I am taking the opportunity of your visiting the United Kingdom, to write on behalf of Indigenous Peoples Links, a UK-based support organisation working to uphold and promote the collective and individual human rights of Indigenous Peoples. We would like to raise issues around the concluding observations of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which were made public on 31st August 2009.

The CERD issued its recommendations to the Philippines Government following its review of the Government’s overdue report (and in doing so invited the Philippines “to observe the deadlines set for the submission of its reports in the future”). The CERD welcomed various positive developments in the legal framework, such as the 1997 Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). However, it raised a number of concerns and recommendations in relation to respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights in practice.

In relation to the mining operations of TVI in the Ancestral Domain of the Subanon of Mt Canatuan, which has been subject to a submission to CERD’s Early Warning Urgent Action Sub-Committee, the Committee noted that it “remains concerned that contradictory information continues to be presented to it with regard to the status of actions taken to address the violations of the Subanon people’s rights and destruction of their sacred mountain.” To address these violations of the Subanon’s rights the Committee urged the Government ‘to consult with all concerned parties in order to address the issues over Mt. Canatuan in a manner that respects customary laws and practices of the Subanon people and welcomes information from the State party in relation to further developments’.

The Committee made an extensive set of recommendations in relation to its concern regarding the Government’s implementation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including urging the Government to:
·    acknowledge that racial discrimination exists in the Philippines;
·    gather disaggregated data on the situation of Indigenous Peoples through a consultative process with them;
·    ensure that Indigenous Peoples are protected in situations of armed conflict and that independent and impartial investigations are conducted into all allegations of human rights violations;
·    adopt adequate measures in order to ensure the enjoyment by internally displaced [Indigenous Peoples] of their rights under article 5 of the Convention, especially their right to security and their economic, social and cultural rights;
·    conduct an independent review, in consultation with indigenous peoples, of the legislative framework in relation to indigenous property, with particular regard to the question of consistency between the IPRA, its implementing guidelines, the Regalian doctrine and other related doctrines, as well as the Mining Act of 1995;
·    fully implement the IPRA, in particular by securing the effective enjoyment by indigenous peoples of their rights to ancestral domains, lands and natural resources, and ensuring that economic activities, especially mining, carried out on indigenous territories do not adversely affect the protection of the rights recognised to indigenous peoples under the aforementioned Act;
·    streamline the process for obtaining land rights certificates and take effective measures to protect communities from retaliations and violations when attempting to exercise their rights;
·    verify that the current structures and guidelines/procedures established to conduct FPIC are in accordance with the spirit and letter of the IPRA and set realistic time frames for consultation processes with indigenous peoples.’;
·    verify that the apparent lack of formal protests is not the result of a lack of effective remedies, the victims’ lack of awareness of their rights, fear of reprisals, or a lack of confidence in the NCIP;
·    ‘to consider ratifying…ILO International Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (No. 169)’ and ‘making the optional declaration provided for in article 14 of the Convention’.

Finally the Committee required the Government to report back in one year in relation to:-
·    actions taken to implement the recommendations of the reports of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions and of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous People;
·    developments at Mt Canatuan in relation to the respect for customary laws and practices of the Subanon people;
·    steps taken to streamline the process for obtaining land rights certificates and to put effective measures in place to protect communities from retaliations and violations when attempting to exercise their rights.

Given the above we would like to enquire what concrete measures your Government will take in order to implement these recommendations, particularly to ensure that the voice of Indigenous Peoples is heard more directly with regard to these important issues. Specifically we would like to know how you intend to “conduct an independent review, in consultation with indigenous peoples, of the legislative framework in relation to indigenous property”, that also verifies “current structures and guidelines/procedures established to conduct FPIC are in accordance with the spirit and letter of the IPRA”.

We look forward to hearing back from you at your earlier convenience.

Yours faithfully,

Geoff Nettleton
Coordinator
Indigenous Peoples Links

Local & International Groups Slam Mining Confab in Manila  – Raise Human Rights Violations and Climate-Disasters as Serious Risks

Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM) Press Release

16 September 2009

International groups criticized today the World Economic Forum and the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP), for  promoting a misplaced development priority policy in the Philippines, as the industry opened a conference and exhibit at the Sofitel Philippine Plaza Hotel in Pasay City, Philippines.

Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM) national coordinator Jaybee Garganera said the conference “is an attempt to drumbeat the revitalization of the Philippine mining industry. This revitalization strategy is an erroneous development policy of the Philippine government.”

Garganera said that based on official statistics, the contribution of mining to the national economy is minuscule; the jobs generated are not even one percent and even the investments made are off the mark by 80 percent. He also pointed to the many thousands of lost and reduced livelihoods in farming, fishing tourism and others that are caused, among some of the poorest peoples, by mining development.  He also criticized the national government’s policy shift in aggressively promoting mining, saying that “President Arroyo’s continued promotion of large-scale mining has introduced only increased human rights violations and vulnerability to climate-related disasters in mining-affected communities all over the country.”

In rebuking the event, Garganera said Arroyo, who ironically authored the Philippine Mining Act that paved the way for the influx of Canadian, Australian, British and US mining companies into the country, should realize that “large-scale mining poses serious threats to asset reform gains as it displaces and continues to displace indigenous peoples from their ancestral domains under Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA). It poses risks to protected areas and critical watersheds covered by the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS), directly impacts on irrigation and agriculture lands of farmers under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and will contaminate municipal waters and coastal areas, something that is condemned by the Fisheries Code.”  He claimed that these scenarios are not only likely to fuel social tensions in the area, but also amplify the probability of climate-disasters in geo-hazard areas in the Philippines.

Geoff Nettleton, coordinator of London-based Indigenous Peoples Links (PIPLINKS), and a member-organization of ATM, stressed that “large-scale mining operations are in direct conflict with sustainable development and has a clear record of association with human rights violations, intimidation and abuse. Although transnational mining companies claim to work to the highest international standards, time and again this has proved not to be the case, especially with regard to impacts on affected communities, and the failure to respect the legal requirement to gain Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), especially from affected Indigenous communities.”

Mia Pepper of Friends of the Earth-Melbourne and coordinator of MAP-Oz (Mining Action Philippines – Australia) slammed the mining grand show, explaining that “revitalization of mining is a misplaced economic policy, since the mining industry is still reeling form the impacts of the global financial crisis. Encouraging the entry of mining investments in this climate of financial uncertainty will only bring in companies to the Philippines with questionable reputation. There are already so many communities struggling to deal with the environmental impacts of mining in the Philippines, it would make more sense at this stage to create stronger safe guards to protect communities from mining companies rather than to create more opportunities for mining companies. This has the potential to create more social and cultural issues for local communities” she added.

Meanwhile, Sonya Maldar, Policy Analyst from the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD) in London, said that “before any large-scale mining project is allowed to proceed, both the mining company and the Philippine government should ensure that genuine information and consent processes should be ensured.”  Maldar also challenged the mining companies to “ensure that the partners and contractors it chooses to work with are not involved in bribery or corruption.” CAFOD release last year a hard-hitting report “Kept in the Dark” last October 2008, where it implicated a BHP Billiton’s joint venture partner, AMCOR, of employing bribery and misinformation to proceed with its project in Mindanao.

Canadian groups also expressed their reservations on continued promotion of large-scale in the Philippines.  Catherine Coumans, Research Coordinator of MiningWatch-Canada, based in Ottawa, Canada, said that “Unless the Philippine government legislates that mining companies must respect all human rights, and puts in place sanctions and remedies for non-compliance with binding human rights regulations, multi-national mining companies will continue to abuse human and indigenous rights in the Philippines with effective impunity” says Catherine Coumans of MiningWatch Canada, “and Filipinos will be left having to seek compensation for damages in foreign courts, such as the case of Marinduquenos against Barrick Gold in the United States.

Daphne Villanueva from Christian Aid raised the alarm regarding additional risks of mining, saying, “because the benefits to the national economy remain so unclear, it is vital to focus on the local impact of mining.  Here the picture is clear — people who live near mines in the Philippines are overwhelmingly being made worse off, because of environmental degradation, economic stagnation and human rights concerns.” The risks to mining communities are multiplied by geological and climate-induced hazards scientifically recognised to be present in many mining sites. “If there is a role for mining in the Philippines, it must be within a context of human rights and truly sustainable development” Villanueva added.

The national campaign group, Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), is composed of more than 80 organizations from mining affected-communities, Peoples Organizations, NGOs, Church groups and academe.  The alliance has been at the forefront of the campaign against the aggressive promotion of large-scale mining in the Philippines. An advocacy group and a people’s movement, ATM upholds the rights of the present and future Filipinos against the persisting injustices related to mining. ATM convened by HARIBON, Legal Rights and Natural Resource Center/Kasama sa Kalikasan – Friends of the Earth Philippines (LRC/FOEI) and PhilDHRRA.

ATM is calling for the Scrapping of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and the enactment of the Alternative Mining Bill (HB 6342); Rejection of the National Minerals Action Plan under EO-270 –A; and a moratorium on large-scale mining in the Philippines

References:

Jaybee Garganera, ATM Coordinator, (632) 426.67.40  /  (63915) 315.37.19
Roslyn Arayata, ATM Policy Research (63917) 521.79.37
Rodne Galicha, ATM SoS Coordinator (63908) 742.19.05
Email: jaybee.garganera@gmail.com  and  alyansatigilmina@gmail.com

CAFOD welcomes the publication of the Joint Parliamentary Committee report on the Draft Bribery Bill, but calls on the government to strengthen the Bill and enact it into law without delay.

Sonya Maldar, Policy Analyst with CAFOD said: “For too long our outdated laws have made it virtually impossible to prosecute companies who use bribery to secure business overseas.  We know that it is the poorest and most vulnerable people in developing countries who ultimately suffer most from bribery, which can lead to loss of investment and undermine public services. The Draft Bill is an important step in the right direction.”

See http://www.cafod.org.uk/news/root-out-bribery.

See http://www.cafod.org.uk/news/peru-2009-06-09.

See http://www.cafod.org.uk/news/bhp-answers-2009-02-26

The report revealed how the community of Macambol has been kept in the dark about the proposed mine and how the process to secure indigenous people’s consent for it, as required under Filipino law, was seriously flawed.

In response, BHP Billiton say it has investigated the consent process and found no problems – but has so far been unwilling to share findings with CAFOD.

CAFOD is disappointed the company has not to date addressed any of the serious concerns outlined in the report.

Therefore it is more important than ever to keep the spotlight on BHP Billiton’s activities in the Philippines through meetings with the company and by keeping up public pressure from campaigners.

For more details and to participate in CAFOD’s campaign, see
http://www.cafod.org.uk/news/bhp-2008-01-15

That this House supports the work of CAFOD in exposing the significant reservations about the Hallmark Nickel project in the Philippines run by BHP Billiton, the world’s largest mining company; notes the potential impact this project will have on the local community which relies mostly on fishing and farming to survive; expresses concern that CAFOD’s investigation has found flaws in the community consent process, allegations of bribery by BHP Billiton’s local partner and Philippine government officials, lack of transparency and information sharing with the community and potential dangers to the environment and to local livelihoods; calls on BHP Billiton and the Philippine government to act on the recommendations in CAFOD’s report; recognises that the private sector is an essential part of economic growth but that businesses need to operate within an effective regulatory framework which balances profits against the needs of citizens and reduces the risk of bribery; calls on the UK to adopt a new anti-bribery law that complies fully with the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development Anti-Bribery Convention and covers corporate liability for corruption abroad; and calls on the Government to introduce legislation requiring companies to disclose information about the human rights, environmental and social impacts of private sector projects as well as the payments they make to governments on a country by country basis, in order for citizens to access the information they need about the costs and benefits of such projects.