This morning’s news is that Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper defended the Pascua Lama mine which straddles the Chile and Argentinean borders on his visit to Santiago. He is reported to have said that Canada abides by Canadian standards of corporate social responsibility and that it is up to Chile and Argentina to decide whether it is meeting environmental protection standards. The report does not make clear whether the “it” refers to Canada or to Chile and Argentina. Either way, Harper’s statement opens up some interesting possibilities:
First, if he is giving to Chile and Argentina the right to judge Canada’s own standards of corporate social responsibility and environmental practice, he is opening a bucket of worms: what is good and proper and done in Canada is not the issue in Chile and Argentina, and the doing thereof no defense for Canadian actions abroad.
Second, if he is saying that Chile and Argentina must decide if what was done at Pascua Lama is in accordance with Chilean and Argentinean law and standards, then he is ducking the issue completely. Although it is not a bad idea: each nation has an inherent right to decide what is in its own best interests and act accordingly, regardless of the good or bad intentions and practices of foreign nationals operating in that country.
It is sad to read the trite old defence trotted out by Barrick: “There’s a small minority of people who are very vocal against the project,” said Rodrigo Jimenez, Barrick’s local director of corporate affairs. “A lot of them, as a result of professional activism . . . unfortunately oppose any type of development – whether it’s mining, gas or any type of project around the world.”
That situation prevails everywhere there is change and development. It explains nothing and justifies nothing.
But there does seem to be a more vocal and powerful opposition developing. Witness this snippet from the report: “a committee of lawmakers from Chile’s chamber of deputies is studying accusations that the gold and silver mine project is harming the local environment and displacing indigenous populations. Over the past several weeks, they have heard from representatives of the region around the mine who say they have witnessed irrevocable damage to glaciers that are essential to their agriculture and water supply. Some of the federal politicians have expressed a willingness to start up a full-scale investigation into allegations of improper environmental assessments during the mine’s approval process.”
Personally I found the most fascinating part of the report the part where the miners blame global warming for shrinking glaciers in the vicinity of the mine. Most miners I know deny that global warming is occurring. The Colorado Mining Association’s website is vehement in opposition to the reality thereof. Seems that “facts” are twistable to needs. At least from this case we will get clarity on the adequacy of Canadian laws, justification or repudiation of Canadian environmental practices, a finding on the rights of nations to manage their own affairs, and a final rendering of the truth or falsity of global warming and its impact on mines.
Is this the one where the NGOs claim that Barrick plan to remove 90% of the glaciers when in fact barrick plan to RELOCATE 5% of the glacier?
I think this one is covered in Phelm McCaleer’s documentary – “Mine your own business” where a rather affluent Western NGO argues that removing part of the mountain to make way for the mine will affect the locals “spirtual wellbeing” or some similar jingo.
Anyway, the documentary mentioned above is a good one to watch and exposes some rather troublesome NGOs for what they really are.