Why is the UK coalition government proposing a bill that will make it harder for people from poorer countries to get legal redress for human rights violations?

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/oct/28/uk-bill-threatens-global-human-rights?newsfeed=true.

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11203.

The Brazilian government is reforming royalty rates, and this will affect, among others, Anglo American.

Meanwhile, although newly-elected Peruvian president, Humala, has been criticised by some indigenous leaders for failing to grant their communities a veto over new mining projects, others are praising a recently-promulgated law, requiring extractive companies to “consult”  about them with their communities. London-listed companies with operations in Peru include Anglo American, Monterrico Metals, Rio Tinto and Xstrata.

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/11170.

Although broadly welcomed as an “historic moment” (the enabling act was passed unanimously) a key question has yet to be answered: will communities be able to enforce the principle of “Free, Prior Informed Consent” (FPIC) when confronted with proposals they reject? Is it likely that mining companies will respect not just “how” – but also “if”-  there should be operations on indigenous and campesino lands and in their territories?

Already some in Peru’s media have leaped to assure members of Peru’s business sector – especially mining and oil companies – that the new law will not grant a right to veto projects.

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11129&l=1.

Among London-listed companies active in Peru are Anglo American, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata. London-registered Monterrico Metals, now owned by China’s Zijin Mining, has been mired in controversy in the north of the country for years.

CAFOD’s senior analyst on the extractives industry, Karen Luyckx said: “Monterrico cannot hide behind gagging orders and out of court settlements. They must not simply buy their way out of this case; they must change the way they operate in future. The truth is that – welcome as it is for the farmers – this settlement does not address the fact that the criminalisation of protest, and threats and violence against activists are on the increase around the world, and that in more and more cases, we are seeing collusion between the police and military authorities and the multinational mining companies. For every case like this, there are dozens more examples of abuse and violence which are going unnoticed and unpunished, and hundreds more communities whose livelihoods hang in the balance. Even in this case, despite the settlement, Monterrico’s mine is still going ahead without adequate
consultation with the community.”

See http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=18644.

20 July 2011

Legal proceedings by 33 Peruvians against UK-based Monterrico Metals PLC have been settled by compensation payments, without admitting liability. The London High Court trial was scheduled for 10 weeks from October with about 80 claimant witnesses. Claimants alleged torture by the Peruvian Police after protesting at Monterrico’s Rio Blanco copper mine (near Ecuador) in August 05.  The mine is owned by Monterrico Peruvian subsidiary, Rio Blanco Copper SA (“RBC”). RBC is owned (through two Cayman companies) by Monterrico.

See http://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news-archive-2011/peruvian-torture-victims-compensated-by-uk-miner.

This is a twelve-minute video by award winning film-maker and LMN supporter Mikey Watts.

See http://www.vimeo.com/19680941.

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=10571.

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=10365.

The campaign is calling for people to sign a petition to European and Peruvian authorities. See http://www.mininginparadise.org/sites/default/files/uploads/petition_long_ENG.pdf.

Sign the petition at http://www.mininginparadise.org/en/node/47.

See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100301/kennard?rel=emailNation.

CORE, Leigh Day & Co, The TUC, Amnesty International, Rights & Accountability in Development (RAID), One World Action, Global Witness and The Cornerhouse wrote to the European Commission, raising concerns regarding the UK Government’s position in relation to the European Court of Justice ruling in Owusu v Jackson…CORE believe any reversal of the Owusu ruling would be a significant step back for corporate accountability. This ruling has been essential in enabling justice to be carried out in relation to such cases such as those against Trafigura, BP (Colombia) and Monterrico (Peru); unimpeded by the enormous delay, cost and aggravation experienced in the cases against eg Cape PLC (5 years spent on fnc, during which time 1000 claimants died).

See http://corporate-responsibility.org/submission-to-european-commission-regarding-brussels-1-regulation-ec-442001/.

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

Two days after the attack, Peruvian organisation CONACAMI organized a protest in front of the British Embassy (because Monterrico Metals from the UK is still officially the owner of the Rio Blanco project). A short video (with English subtitles) of this protest is available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH1h1SGHlPA.

On Wednesday 2nd of December in the afternoon, a new violent confrontation between local residents and police occurred in the town of Cajas Canchaque, district of Carmen de la Frontera, in the province of Huancabamba (Piura, Northern Peru).

During the confrontation two residents died by police fire: Cástulo Correa Huayama, 39 years old, and Vicente Romero Ramírez, 52 years old. More than 17 hours after their death the corpses have not yet been removed. Further, another six residents were wounded, one of them an 18 year old adolescent with shotwounds to the head, as was reported by Radio ‘Coordinación Nacional’.

The circumstances of the tragedy are still unclear. According to the National Police, police officials who were trying to detain persons supposedly involved in the attack on the “Henry´s Hill” mining camp of mining company Río Blanco of November 1st, were ambushed and fired in self defence.

The organization OCMAL (Observatory of Mining Conflicts in Latin America) claims that the conflict started when local residents demanded workers of the NGO “Integrando” to leave, when they were working on the road that leads to Sapalache. “Integrando” informed the National Police force, who immediately sent a contingent of police agents to the town. The NGO is supposedly linked to the mining company Río Blanco (formerly known as Majaz) and thought to be responsible for earlier confrontations between residents of Segunda y Cajas.

It must be emphasized that this is not the first time residents of Huancabamba enter in conflict with the police due to the presence of mining company Rio Blanco in the region.

CONTEXT: some facts

The presence of the mining company Rio Blanco Copper has been contested ever since its arrival in 2002. During two peaceful marches in April 2004 and July 2005 two local leaders died. Recently, in October 2009, as a consequence of the torture of 28 farmers at the mining site during the second march, the funds of the company were frozen. In November 2009, another three persons died during an attack at the mining site, the investigation is still ongoing.

It must be emphasized that during a popular referendum the 17 of September 2007, 94.8% of the inhabitants of the districts of Pacaipampa, Ayavaca, Carmen de la Frontera declared itself to be against the mining company. Some of the most important reasons for refusing the company are its (il)legality, the violation of human rights, and the socio-environmental risks.

SOURCE : www.catapa.be