The position of the Diocese of San Marcos on open-pit mining in Guatemala .

Bishop Alvaro Ramazzini,
Diocese of San Marcos, Guatemala
September 17, 2004
To the present government authorities and deputies:

For several months San Marcos has been in the national news once again. The reason: a long and permanent discussion on the theme of the exploitation of a gold mine in San Miguel Ixtahuacan and Sipacapa.

It is a shame that this region is often known for its conflicts and not for its natural beauty, its biological diversity, the customs and traditions of its communities, and the cultural richness of its ethnic groups, Mams, Sipacapenses, and, let's not forget the little Quiche town, Ixchiguan.

As Bishop of the diocese of San Marcos, I have been committed for fifteen years to looking for paths, through the Scriptures of our Lord Jesus Christ and the social doctrine of the Church, to real human promotion, that will change the poor and miserable lives, economically speaking, of the majority of the inhabitants of this region. Now I would like to express my reflections on the theme of open–pit mining, in my name and the name of my collaborators.

1. Why does a mining company come to this country? The answer is obvious: to make money. The companies have their own indicators that determine how much money they will invest. In general, according to reports I've read, mining projects should indicate a profit margin of more than 15% on capital investments. Individual investors want to know that they will make a return of 30 to 50% before deciding to invest in a mining project.

2. I understand that a mining company will analyse what type of legislation exists in the country where they are considering investing. They will more easily decide in favour of investing in those countries where the laws governing mining constitute an open–door. This is the case for Guatemala .

3. In Guatemala there are laws and international treaties signed by the government, but it is known by all that there are also many quasi–legal procedures that are used to give the public appearance of compliance with the law. In Guatemala , we don't have a real democracy, meaning that the public consultation that takes place on themes that affect a community is restricted to very small groups or sectors of that population.

4. Before starting business, a mining company should not only make sure that everything is in conformity with the law, but also that the communities wherein they will be conducting business are not resisting, that there be a harmonious relationship between the mining company and the (affected) communities. In the past, some companies have used the strategy of "divide and conquer". Will the same thing happen in Guatemala 's case?

5. To win the good–will of the national population and of the local communities, the mining company will surely list the benefits of its presence in the country: more investment, job creation, social assistance to communities, creating educational opportunities, creation of infrastructure, the purchase of real estate at prices exceeding their value, and above all, insisting that the environmental damage caused by mining activity will be minimal.

As to these wonderful claims, I ask myself the following questions: How many of the jobs will go to members of the local community? One thousand, fifteen hundred? For how long, two, three or ten years? How many of the jobs for the community will there still be ten years from now? Will it be the thousand or fifteen hundred as in the beginning? What type of worker will they hire? Who will have the best salaries? Will they be fully informed about the dangers of mining? What will the country gain in real economic terms, if the company wants more than a 15% return on its investments? Will there be a 50–50 split of the profit between the company and the country?

6. All human beings have the right and the capacity to be merchants, to conduct business. Nonetheless, there are many things that cannot be treated as commodities: the air we breathe, the water we drink, our fauna and flora, and our natural beauty, to give a few examples. Who should safeguard the value of what are not commercial commodities? Who should prevent the commercialization of basic goods and services that are of such vital urgency to the people? Will it be private initiative, the government, or the people themselves? Can we, in the name of this commercial activity, gravely injure life?

7. In Guatemala , different sectors, particularly environmental associations, the Bishops Conference, and those who live in the department, have signaled the risks of mining. On this occasion I want to mention only some of those risks, after researching serious and experienced authors:

7.1 Mining extraction can cause contamination and damage to flora and fauna. It can also cause social tension, as we've seen in Sipacapa where people have confirmed that they have seen armed individuals traveling in vehicles with polarized windows. The mining company insists that it needs protection, and for that has private security. It is important not to forget that Sipacapa lived a very intense armed conflict whose memory still reverberates in the community. Mining activity can also create social inequality and the destabilization of family life and the life of the community in general.

Once the company begins operations, workers come from outside the community with their own customs and sometimes their own prejudices. Alcoholism increases, prostitution appears. Work opportunities in mines are usually for men, while it is the women who are left to face most of the social problems associated with mining – family violence and the man's arrogance because he has the money.

7.2 I want to point out, regarding the environmental impact, the following facts taken from a) an October 2001 report by Irene Sosa and Karyn Keenan, part of a collaborative program, between the Environment Mining Council of BC and the Canadian Environmental Law Association and b) from the book, "The Environmental Impact of Mining: a community Guide", written by Lisa Sumi and translated by Pablo Mendez:

a. The legal standards, in many cases, are not sufficiently strict enough to protect communities and their natural resources.

b. Open–pit mines leave permanent scars on the landscape. A large area of land, where extracted materials are gathered in sterile piles, is sacrificed along with the area from which they have been excavated. What I have seen in San Miguel Ixtahuacan confirms this. Huge quantities of sterile materials can contaminate the water. They can also create long–term contamination by a process called "mining acid drainage".

The instability of the slopes and inclines can be dangerous. Over the long term, after the mine has closed, the instability of the mine walls can continue to be a danger for people and animals. Water used in the excavation can become contaminated or lead to scarcity in the aquifer. Apart from this, there are other effects that include the noise of the machinery, the possibility of chemical spills, and the possibility of contamination by fuels, oils and additives for the machinery.

c.– " Concerning the use of chemical products to dissolve the minerals, there is not sufficient expertise to extract the purified minerals by this method without contaminating the ground water supply. The chemical solutions that are used also mobilize other metals that can contaminate the subterranean water. If these emissions are not carefully controlled, the chemicals can move outside the limits of the mine, and contaminate nearby water sources".

d.– "The piles of mine tailings, the mounds of materials to be processed and the tailing ponds can have serious environmental repercussions: materials stored above ground are susceptible to water and wind erosion, as well as to chemical reactions such as acid drainage, liberating toxic metals into the natural environment."

After the mine has been exploited, the affected area is not left as it was found. Whatever the previous use of the land, the restoration of the land to an acceptable condition will take five to ten years. Who would be in charge of making sure that the land reclamation takes place? The mining company, which has already left town? The community, that sold the land? The state, which allowed the mining to take place?

Finally, I could elaborate on other negative aspects of the impact on the environment that would totally advise against mining, especially in a country as small as, and with as much biodiversity as Guatemala , but I don't want to forget to mention a very dangerous effect called acid mine drainage. Mining can increase the generation of acid far exceeding what occurs naturally.

During the mining process, with the procedures used, mineral sulphides are exposed to water and to air. This is what initiates and sustains the chemical reaction. This process is called acid mine drainage. Many years can pass before it begins and once it starts, it is almost impossible to stop. Acid drainage can occur over decades or even centuries, until all of the sulphuric material has completely dissolved.

There are mines in Sweden that were exploited in the 18th century and today they still generate acid. This acid drainage has noxious effects, and is deadly for many organisms. In 1994, in Canada, there were around 1800 tonnes of tailings and 700 million tonnes of debris that were generating acid, with an estimated total clean-up cost of $5.25 billion.

In Guatemala , once the gold mine in San Miguel Ixtahuacan is closed, who will verify that the clean–up is carried out? Who will assess the damage cause by the acid drainage and who ensure that the damage is avoided? The mining company? The state?

The mining tailings and the abandoned mines are in reality enormous deposits of toxic heavy metals. In many parts of North America , there have been massive quantities of fish killed and miles of river downstream from mines where all aquatic life has been extinguished due to this problem.

Much has been said about cyanide and its effects. A lot is known about the toxic effects of cyanide, thus it has become a controversial chemical element. In 1997, Turkey became the first country to prohibit the use of cyanide. At this moment, the states of Montana and Wisconsin in the USA as well as the Czech Republic are doing the same. And us?

Honorable Mr. President and Mr. Vice President of Guatemala and Honorable Deputies:

Allow me, as a citizen and as a Bishop who is interested in the wellbeing of my country, to ask you a few questions:

1. Has there been an environmental body created to oversee this project and has the right of the communities of San Miguel Ixtahuacan and Sipacapa to monitor the environmental impact of the mine been recognized? Has it been decided who would finance this system of environmental protection, which must be totally independent and well qualified to carry out this work? Will it be the government or the Montana mining company?

2. Can we count on Ministry of Energy and Mining to provide an inventory of all the products and materials used in the mine, including plans for their management and storage, as well as contingency plans in case of spills? Has an inventory like this been circulated to the members of the communities of San Miguel Ixtahuacan and Sipacapa? Do the communities have the expressed right to prohibit the use of certain chemical products, such as cyanide, for example?

3. In the case of the mine in San Miguel Ixtahuacan, has the Montana mining company submitted a plan for the closing of the mine and for environmental restoration? Has it presented a plan to address the grave problem of acid mine drainage? Has the company promised to follow the situation over the next 25 to 40 years, given that the acid drainage is a long-term problem? Who will look after these problems? Who will take responsibility for the abandoned mine in ten years, considering that the mine will continue to pollute for who knows how long?

Why doesn't the government of Guatemala demand a trust or a deposit of money especially destined to cover the future costs of environmental restoration? Guatemala has the right to demand this kind of guarantee, considering the cruel injury that Mother Earth will suffer.

Can the laws governing mining be radically changed so as to really protect our country effectively? What will you do, honorable deputies, who are called to represent the communal best interests of the Guatemalan people and not the financial interests of transnational companies? Have the strength and the wisdom to do it?

Conclusion: In the case of mineral exploitation in San Miguel Ixtahuacan and Sipacapa, we found out about the project too late. If we had known about it beforehand, two years ago, we would have dedicated ourselves to stopping it. Today, "the legality of the Guatemalan system" has tied our hands. Nonetheless, with this project you are playing with the well–being of our country, the future of our natural environment, the preservation of our natural resources and the use of them for the good of all Guatemalans in the defense of life and with respect for our biodiversity. Who can change this situation?

What remains clear is that from now on we must impede, at all costs, any mining activity in our country. We must mobilize all of our forces to achieve this: from legal actions to peaceful resistance on the part of the communities. In ten years, if God still gives us life, we'll see who was right: the defenders of mining activity, convinced of its benefits, or those who oppose it, convinced by the terrible consequences that have been experienced and studied in other countries. I hope its not too late.