Sandra Ascencio of the Justice Office of Peace and Integrity of the Creation Order of Young Friars in El Salvador. Photo: Jennifer Lentfer / Oxfam America

Sandra Carolina Ascencio has worked for more than ten years to protect the health of her people and her county of El Salvador from mineral mining, which is one of the most environmentally-destructive industries on the planet. Nowhere is this more apparent than in El Salvador where runoff from mining operations has polluted the San Sebastian River with dangerous levels of cyanide and iron.

As a member of the National Roundtable on Metallic Mining in El Salvador (La Mesa), Ascencio was part of a group of community activists from El Salvador who participated in a speaking tour in Canada and the US in March and April, entitled “Water is More Precious than Gold.” They shared stories from the frontlines and the ways in which the mining industry is bullying their way into Latin American communities. As part of the speaking tour, Ascencio appeared on an Oxfam-sponsored panel on land, natural resources, and food justice during Ecumenical Advocacy Days in Washington DC.

Ascencio serves as a pastoral agent with the Office of Justice, Peace and Integrity of the Creation of the Order of Friars Minor, supporting parish communities and environmental and human rights educators throughout El Salvador. Oxfam was fortunate to have Ascencio share her experiences with us in our offices.

***

Jennifer Lentfer: Tell us why you’ve come to Washington, DC.  

Sandra Ascencio: People doing advocacy work in Canada and the US want to know more about how we are organizing communities and what inspires them to resist mining. The message is the same no matter where I go. I want people to know why it is that we want open-pit, metallic mining to be banned in El Salvador.

We need real transformation in government policies of all developed countries. In the case of the US, for example, towards the kind of development the Millennium Challenge Corporation is promoting. As of now, these policies are supporting infrastructure development that benefits the mining companies, instead of looking at a true development that focuses on eradicating poverty and promoting a better quality of life in the Salvadoran population.

Lentfer: What will you remember most from your time in the US and Canada?

What I have found out in our visits to the US and Canada is that people want to know what they can do to help us and how we can work together in a global resistance movement. When I shared my experiences with the faith-based community at Ecumenical Advocacy Days, I saw how people got inspired and how they demonstrated their solidarity with us. It’s important to transmit those emotions into the work. For us, promoting everybody’s well-being remains the center of faith. Only that way, people can keep in mind that the most important things for humans to survive are water, air, and land.

Lentfer: Tell us more about the Justice Office of Peace and Integrity of the Creation of the Order of Friars Minor and the National Roundtable on Metallic Mining. What are these bodies trying to achieve?

Ascencio: The Office of Justice, Peace and Integrity of the Creation was founded in 1987 to continue spreading the voice of the church and build rapport with communities to promote justice, peace and the protection of the environment. The Mesa was formed in 2005. The Office joined the Mesa in 2007, when we realized that contamination from mining was a big issue to address when it came to our food and water and our health.

At the Order of Friars Minor, we try to maintain a spirituality based on St. Francis de Assisi, focused on serving others and relating to nature and the environment. It’s what motivates us to protect creation. The rights of the earth and the rights of human beings are one in the same.

Lentfer: Where is the national-level debate about mining in El Salvador today?

Ascencio: Currently El Salvador does not have a law to regulate water management and so that’s where the National Assembly is focused right now. Within the proposed law there is a provision that mining is not promoted. La Mesa is trying to include mining provisions in all laws.

The proposal to ban mining has been offered, but has not moved forward in the legislature. After years of remaining silent about this, the Industrial Association of El Salvador is now actively asking the government to think twice about importance of mining to the development of our country. The civil society is watching their next steps closely, due to the level of influence the Association has on the national policies, in particular in regards to the management of the use of water and land.

Lentfer: What do you say when someone tells you that mining is a “good option” for development?

Ascencio: From my spiritual perspective, mining is not a viable option. Millions of years have to pass for the equilibrium to be re-established following the impacts of contamination, and our generations will never see repair. There is already enough minerals/metals extracted that could be re-utilized. There is no need to keep extracting more. What matters most is our ways of consumption and demand for such things.

A community meeting on mining near Ilobasco, El Salvador. Photo: Jeff Deutsch / Oxfam America

Lentfer: What are some of the consequences of industrialized mining that you have seen at the community level in El Salvador?

Ascencio: In the Department of La Unión [in the north-east of El Salvador], there is still proof of contamination of a mine that operated decades ago. The river there is completely contaminated and potable water is now very scarce. After that experience, for everyone that struggles on a daily basis to get drinking water, to think of another mining project coming becomes an issue of life and death.

New mining projects are proposed in Northern areas, where there is a lot of poverty and the soils already need lots of fertilizers. These are the same areas that were very much affected by the civil war.

Lentfer: I’m sure that the environmental educators you work with are discussing much more than the environment when they meet with communities. How do you prepare them? What are some of the biggest challenges they face?

Ascencio: We educate them a lot about health problems from contamination and how to identify sicknesses. We also talk about the rights of people and the rights of the Earth and how to protect them so we have a better quality of life. If we protect the three basic elements—water, air, land—we will also have access to good food. We teach them how to open up these issues and talk about them with communities.

However, mining projects can break the social fabric of communities and divide them. Some people will always prioritize the so-called economic benefits of mining—employment and secondary businesses. What our educators must also share with the communities is the true price of mining—construction of dams that take their water, destruction of natural resources to make roads for big trucks, displacement of communities. For people with the hope of getting a job and having some security, it’s a big challenge weigh short- and long-term costs and benefits of mining. So we have to prepare our educators to talk frankly about the consequences of mining that people cannot often see.

Lentfer: So many people who have been fighting to protect their communities in El Salvador have been threatened, and even killed. Despite these risks, what drives you to continue?

Ascencio: A total commitment. My work is primarily spiritual and by conviction. God gives us each abilities to use according to our faith. When I die, I don’t want to go [up] there and think I didn’t do anything.

I’m preparing my two children to know that my work is for God. They also need to learn the values of service and discernment. I tell them that if something happens to me, then they know that it was worthwhile. But it’s better not to think of those things otherwise you could lose your energy and motivation.

Lentfer: What do policymakers in Washington DC need to know or do to best assist you in your efforts in El Salvador?

Ascencio: You are not the only country and the only generation of this planet. What they have is enough to exist in this world. We want to see a change towards solidarity in US economic and foreign policies.

Lentfer: What gives you hope for the future?

Ascencio: I think that every person is good, in their essence. My work is not because I’m a lawyer or a scientist, but because I believe in solidarity and harmony as the principles of life. We all are on a journey to encounter our common well-being.

Thanks to Sofia Vergara for assisting with translation.

“Africa is suffering from a new AIDs crisis: ‘Air-conditioned Induced Decisions.’  Our leaders live in air-conditioned homes, travel in air-conditioned cars, work in air-conditioned offices.  And it affects the decisions they make.” ~Maiko Zulu, Zambian reggae music star and activist

I had a chance to meet Maiko Zulu last week.  He wears frustration and disappointment with his country on his sleeve (and in his music).  Zambia is a country that should be improving economically.  Driven by mining large copper and cobalt reserves, economic growth has been high for the last decade, not less than 5% per year and more than 7% as recently as 2010.  The Economist in 2011 listed Zambia as one of the world’s 10 fastest-growing economies. Since, 2000, average income per capita has grown by more than 40%, lifting Zambia from “low-income country” to a “lower middle-income country.”

But high economic growth and increased average income have not translated into reduced poverty or better conditions for most Zambians.  If Zambia’s national income was a dollar, the poorest 10% of Zambians receive less than $0.02 and the richest 10% control $0.43, making Zambia one of the most unequal countries on earth. Despite good news on growth and income, Zambia is becoming more unequal and poverty is actually rising.

This analysis comes from a very important report released last week, Equity in Extractives, launched by the Africa Progress Panel.  It looks closely at the 20 African resource-rich countries that depend on extractive industries and finds they are performing quite badly in converting their mineral and energy wealth into benefits for the public. A few factoids:

• Twelve of the 25 countries in the world with the highest child mortality rates are resource-rich African countries.
• Equatorial Guinea, rich with oil, is actually now classified as a high-income country with an average income of more than $27,000 a year, higher than Poland.  But Equatorial Guinea’s child-death rate is 20 times higher than Poland’s.

In general, the resource-rich African countries are badly under-performing on basic human development and poverty reduction, despite how much money they’re making.  This chart tells the story: on the left are the countries’ ranking on wealth (actually income), and on the right is their ranking on human development indicators.  That rightward slope means people aren’t getting the health, education, and opportunity that they deserve.  Most resource-rich countries under-perform in every indicator. (Tanzania and Ghana are notable.)

One of the most interesting bits of the report is a forensic analysis that shows that inequality is growing in resource-rich countries, or at least in those the report analyzed.  The data is hard to come by, but seems to show that not only is the economic growth and revenue from oil and mining boom not being shared, but the elite are capturing (stealing?) ever more of the money over time. This means less poverty reduction than there should be, and in some cases more poverty than there was.

More than that, revenues that rightfully belong to the people of these countries are diverted through poor governance, thereby robbing the majority of citizens from the chance to improve their lives via social services and government investment intended to diversify economies. By not widening opportunities away from dependence on extractives and creating more jobs, inequality is not addressed.

Gawain Kripke and Maiko Zulu in Cape Town last week.

The paper is important, and not only if you’re interested in extractive industries.  The analysis provides useful insights and ways to look at the issues that will interest anyone who cares about development and poverty.  The paper is studiously optimistic about the role extractive resources can play in benefiting development and poverty reduction.

Meanwhile, the truth of the inequality of growth is becoming more evident to the public in these countries.  As Maiko Zulu observes above, there is a disconnect between the public interest and those of the plutocrats and oligarchs who are running the countries.

“We can’t speak of economic growth when people are dying of poverty.”

Will disconnect eventually lead to discontent?  That’s a risky proposition that could lead anywhere…

To read the Equity in Extractives report, click here.

A few weeks ago, a few House Republicans introduced H.R. 1613, the innocuous sounding “Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement Act”. A little over four pages long, H.R. 1613 is primarily designed to provide Congressional approval to a US-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement (TBA) signed by both governments over a year ago.

Oxfam has no problem with the approval of the US-Mexico TBA which simply lays out the rules for how hydrocarbons reserves in the Gulf of Mexico that straddle our maritime borders would be developed.

We do have a big problem with an irrelevant provision inserted into the bill designed to weaken the payment disclosure requirements in Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, also known as the Cardin-Lugar provision. That law provides for the annual disclosure of payments made by oil, gas and mining companies to host governments around the world – final rules were issued by the SEC in August last year. H.R. 1613 would exempt any covered company from reporting payments from in accordance with any transboundary hydrocarbons agreement anywhere in the world.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) – backed by companies such as Exxon, Shell, Chevron and BP – is suing the SEC in federal court and is now hoping that its Congressional allies can help weaken this landmark law. Oxfam is intervening to defend the rule. Meanwhile, the European Union has reached agreement to put in place similar reporting requirements.

I spoke this week with Neil Brown who was, until very recently, a top Senate Republican aide working on energy issues for Senator Lugar, who was the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His response: “this exemption is unnecessary and inclusion would only forestall quick approval of this important agreement.”

He should know. As both the co-author of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority staff report for Senator Lugar on “Oil, Mexico and the Transboundary Agreement” as well as someone intimately familiar with the “Cardin-Lugar” provision in  Dodd-Frank, Mr. Brown would know if the reporting requirements in Dodd-Frank Section 1504 present any issue in approving the US-Mexico TBA. The short answer – they don’t. The minority staff report envisions reporting under Section 1504 and says that under Section 1504 covered companies “would already have to disclose payments” to the SEC if “they invest in Mexico”.

The US-Mexico TBA requires that certain information be kept confidential unless disclosure is required by law. The TBA text demonstrates that the US and Mexico have already made the correct policy judgment that the specific confidentiality provisions of the TBA should be subordinated to each country’s commitment to openness and subject to each country’s disclosure requirements. Nothing in the TBA would require the exemption provided by H.R. 1613.

Tellingly, the Senate Energy Committee has introduced a bi-partisan bill, S. 812, sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to approve the US-Mexico TBA, and it contains no Section 1504 exemption provision. If Congress is truly interested in approving this agreement and providing the “rules of the road” for joint development of oil and gas reserves straddling the US-Mexico maritime boundary, then it should adopt the clean Senate bill without the reporting exemption.

Former Senator Jeff Bingaman, past Senate Energy Committee chairman, told Reuters that the exemption proposed by the House “complicates things significantly” for passage of the bill. Referring to the Section 1504 exemption language, he said, “They’ve added in some things that are going to make it difficult to pass in that form.”

The Mexican Congress ratified the TBA a year ago, and the Obama administration – and the oil industry – would like to see it approved. The Obama administration, though, has made clear that implementation of Section 1504 is a priority.

In a letter to Oxfam, Sec. of State Kerry said, “The Department of State and Administration strongly support transparency in the extractives sectors, as outlined in Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank, and the new rule issued by the SEC. The new SEC standard directly advances our foreign policy interest in increasing transparency and reducing corruption, particularly in the oil, gas and mineral sectors.”

My guess is that the oil industry lobby wants this TBA approved far more than it wants this unnecessary Section 1504 exemption. Surya Gunasekara, a tax and trade counsel with the American Petroleum Institute told me that there is “no doubt” that API cares more about Gulf of Mexico access than the proposed Section 1504 exemption.

Emily Greenspan is an extractive industries policy and advocacy advisor with Oxfam America.

Recent statements from the Peruvian government do not bode well for implementation of Peru’s new Indigenous Peoples Consultation Law (Consultation Law). The landmark law, passed in 2011 and now being implemented, requires the Peruvian government to consult indigenous peoples affected directly by development policies and projects such as oil drilling, mining, roads and forestry. Consultations must aim to achieve agreement or consent. If implemented effectively, the law could help reduce the number of violent conflicts that frequently emerge in the country’s oil and mining industries.

However, last week Peru’s Vice Minister of Culture Ivan Lanegra—responsible for overseeing implementation of Peru’s Consultation Law—resigned in protest following Executive branch declarations that highland (or campesina) communities do not qualify as indigenous peoples. At the same time, the Peruvian government announced that it will proceed with 14 mining projects located in the Peruvian highlands without prior consultation with neighboring communities.

The Peruvian government should recognize publicly that many highland communities meet national and international criteria for identifying indigenous peoples, and should immediately begin prior consultation processes in accordance with the law. At the same time, the less progressive companies currently fighting the law in Peru should recognize that if they do not comply with law they will be at a competitive disadvantage in the end.

Worrisome signals from the government

Photo: Jessica Erickson / Oxfam America

In a speech on April 28, President Humala stated that, “Basically there are no native communities…in the sierra [highlands], the majority are agrarian communities resulting from agrarian reform. For the most part native communities are found in the jungle, those called ‘no contactados’ [uncontacted communities living in voluntary isolation]”. This worrisome statement fails to recognize that communities living in voluntary isolation represent only a small percentage of indigenous communities inhabiting forested areas in Peru, and directly contradicts the Consultation Law which states that highland or Andean communities may be considered indigenous peoples as long as they meet certain objective criteria specified in the law. Peru also has a law protecting indigenous knowledge of biological resources which states that highland communities may be considered indigenous peoples.

Peru’s Cabinet (Consejo de Ministros) claims that by moving ahead with 14 mining projects without prior consultation with communities they are attempting to “unfetter” these projects from bureaucratic requirements. However, the government’s approach is shortsighted. If it chooses to proceed with projects impacting indigenous peoples without consultation it would violate not only its own laws, but also international human rights law.

Human rights and business case for community consent

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples James Anaya stated in a public speech in Lima on April 25:

In my work as special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples for the United Nations, the majority of the problems that reach my attention reflect a lack of adequate consultation with indigenous peoples, in particular on decisions related to development or natural resource extraction projects on their territories…Various treaties, in addition to [International Labor Organization] Convention 169, support the consultation standard…Consultation and its link to the principle of free, prior and informed consent are central elements for a new model of relationships and development.

In fact, if Peru proceeds with mining projects without consulting indigenous communities, the government will risk being taken to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has interpreted Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) to apply to development projects with significant impacts and has, in several instances, ruled that states failed to meet their FPIC obligations.

In addition, while the government may hope to woo mining companies by bypassing consultation processes, ultimately this approach will be to the detriment of mining companies’ bottom lines as well given the high economic cost of social conflict in the extractive industries. A 2011 study by researchers from Harvard Kennedy School and the University of Queensland found that a world-class mining project (capital expenditure between US$3-5 billion) stands to lose approximately US$20 million per week in lost productivity as a result of delayed production from social conflict. In Peru, mining giant Newmont reported that it lost approximately $2 million per day in the first few days alone after local protests paralyzed its Conga mining project.

In recent years, several oil and mining companies have adopted public policies in favor of securing community approval prior to moving projects forward. We recently released a report showing that 13 of 28 oil and mining companies reviewed have made public commitments to FPIC (five with explicit commitments and an additional eight with indirect or qualified commitments). Companies are beginning to get the message – those that fail to consult communities early and adequately risk facing delays and huge costs down the road.

Implications for the Latin America region

Currently, several other countries in Latin America are considering developing consultation laws similar to Peru’s Consultation Law. Peru has emerged as a leader in the region on community consultation issues, but stands to lose that position if the law is not implemented adequately. A rollback of the law could have serious repercussions for many indigenous communities affected by oil and mining projects throughout Latin America.

“You cannot link the extraction of minerals and community development—not at all,” says Augustine Niber.

Augustine Niber, Executive Director of the Centre for Public Interest Law in Accra, Ghana. Photo: Jennifer Lentfer / Oxfam America

Earlier this month, Oxfam America’s Extractive Industries campaign had the privilege of hosting Niber in Washington, DC to participate in a series of events, including an Oxfam-sponsored panel on land, natural resources, and food justice during Ecumenical Advocacy Days and the launch of an Oxfam report measuring the effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions that features a case study in Ghana.  Here in the Oxfam offices in DC, amidst all his other activities, I had the opportunity to sit down with Augustine Niber and learn more about him, his work, and the issues communities affected by mining face in Ghana.

Founded in 1999, CEPIL is a non-profit public interest and human rights NGO and one of CEPIL’s key initiatives, the Mining Communities Human Rights and Legal Support Program, has provided free legal services, including court room representation, to communities negatively impacted by mining companies in Ghana. CEPIL also provides legal literacy training and human rights education to these communities to enable them to demand their rights.

“For state institutions in Ghana, the driving force has always been to promote mining activity,” says Niber, “but that type of development paradigm has not succeeded.”

So what does bring about development for communities affected by mining?

Below are three lessons I took away from hearing more about Augustine’s experience as a lawyer and an advocate, pertinent even beyond the mining sector:

1. Good governance and transparency are key.

Ghana is often referred to as the beacon of democracy in Africa. Niber shared that this has fostered a shift in the space for debate on extractive issues, and the role of civil society in this debate.

“The democratic environment we have enjoyed for twenty years now is a factor. Before, if you spoke about mining, you were seen as anti-development. Government has come to realize that civil society organizations working on extractive industries issues are not anti-development or mining, but development partners.”

Civil society participation and pressure have played an important role in pushing forward legislation promoting transparency of extractive resources revenues, particularly regarding oil extraction, which is relatively new to Ghana.

“As civil society organizations, we are working to ensure that the nature of violations for community rights in solid mineral extraction do not happen in oil extraction. Oil revenues should not be misused the way mining revenues have been used.”

Indeed, Ghanaian civil society was deeply involved in moving the passage of the Petroleum Revenue Bill in 2011, requiring petroleum revenue receipts and expenditures to be made public. The bill also called for the creation of a Public Interest and Accountability Committee to independently monitor and regulate the sector.

But Niber cautions that transparency is only the first step to accountability.

“Transparency is an important policy initiative, but it is not just about the policies in Ghana. It is about implementation of the policies.”

2. Community consultation and consent are key.

“Communities are not benefiting [from the industry]. [They] are not part of the decision making process. There have been human rights violations where community members have lost farmland.”

Artisinal miners working in the tailings impoundment of AngloGold Ashanti’s Obuasi Mine in Obuasi, Ghana. Many artisinal miners in Ghana are farmers that have been displaced by large scale mining. Photo: Keith Slack / Oxfam America

The extraction of natural resources can only contribute to development if a community’s fundamental rights are respected, Niber explained. The lack of consultation and consent often leads to the displacement of communities without just compensation. Niber also explained that some community members take part in “galamsey”, or artisanal mining, which can be a very dangerous undertaking.

“These community members are often harassed by state and private security employed by mining companies. Communities become disgruntled and protest. Some people have gotten shot.”

In addition, mining companies often fall short in their promise of jobs for the communities in which they operate. This can also create tension and unrest between the communities and the extractive companies. This is why Niber says companies and governments should be required to obtain the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of communities affected by oil and mining activity.

3. Taking the long view is key.

Achieving true, long-term social justice cannot be done overnight, something Niber knows all too well. Providing legal assistance and court representation for individuals and communities negatively affected by mining is a lengthy process, and a case can easily last a few years before a decision is reached.

“There are delays. Companies and their lawyers know how to frustrate the cases through the legal process and court system. It is possible to cause litigation fatigue with vulnerable communities.”

Though attaining results can take a long time, the payoff can be great and well worth the effort and wait. Such is the case with Niber’s most memorable case at CEPIL. “It was against the [Ghanaian] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a defunct company that operated and left. The Minerals Commission, [responsible for the regulation and management of the mineral resources of Ghana], and the government were held jointly responsible for the destruction that took place.”

The effects of this case went well beyond mining. “CEPIL instituted the case in our name and the court ruled in our favor. The case has become a precedent that other civil society organizations are now using, and it has expanded the frontier of jurisprudence of Ghanaian courts.”

(Bonus lesson!) 4. Bringing global pressure is key.

Niber said that global pressure is important to his work, and encouraged us that here in the US, we can play a part. We can push our policy makers in DC to encourage African governments to agree to a common mining code in ECOWAS, push to protect the 1504 transparency provision, and pressure API to drop the lawsuit against it.

Oxfam has been supporting CEPIL since 2006. To learn more about their work, see: www.cepil.org.gh

By Keith Slack, Global Program Manager, Extractive Industries. This post originally appeared on the blog of the US Institute of Peace’s International Network for Economics and Conflict.

“Si a la vida, no a la mina” (Yes to life, no to the mine) is a rallying cry heard across many parts of rural Latin America these days. Mining, as well as oil and gas extraction, has exploded across the region in the last decade, driven by high prices for gold and industrial metals like copper that are needed primarily to feed the Chinese economy. This boom has also been experienced in Africa and Asia, where governments have sought to exploit their resource endowments to drive development. Fragile states like Sudan, Burma and Afghanistan have also begun to develop their mining sectors. The expanding mining sector has contributed to strong economic growth in some countries but has also generated social conflicts in rural areas that must be urgently addressed.

Area near Tintaya Copper Mine (Espinar), Cusco, Peru. Photo: Chris Hufstader / Oxfam America

The heart of the issue is that mining activity has come into direct competition with another predominant means of economic development in rural areas: small-scale agriculture. Tensions over control of land and, most importantly, water have led to community protests and violent conflict. Reconciling these two important development drivers has become a critical governance issue, particularly in the most fragile states where the conflicts between the two can often be seen most starkly.

In theory, both mining and agriculture can provide pathways out of poverty. The World Bank and development-focused academic researchers have emphasized the critical role of agriculture in promoting rural development. (Three-quarters of the world’s poor live in rural areas.) Agriculture provides direct benefits to those who engage in it. Farmers receive payments for crops they produce, which they can then use to invest in future production and to pay for their families’ basic needs. Mining can also play a role in promoting development, although more indirectly, by generating revenues for governments. Governments can use taxes and royalties paid by mining companies for infrastructure investments and other productive purposes. Mining companies also pay for community development programs, build schools and roads, and make other investments.

Unfortunately, the compatibility of these two development paths, which tend to take place in the same rural areas, is at best questionable. Mining generates significant “externalities,” e.g. water pollution, that can have a direct impact on agricultural production. These negative impacts can be permanent and render previously fertile agricultural land unusable. Mining also requires large amounts of land that could otherwise be used for agricultural production. This sets up a direct competition with small-scale agriculture for control and use of land. In some countries such as Ghana, farmers displaced by mining projects turn to small-scale mining as a replacement livelihood. This can perpetuate a cycle of poverty and conflict in which these farmers-turned-miners are forcibly evicted and beaten by police for coming onto land claimed by large-scale mining projects.

Mining companies argue that mining and agriculture are not necessarily incompatible. But there are few examples of where this has been the case, particularly in developing countries, where oversight of the mining industry is often very weak. Finding ways to reconcile these two economic activities is urgently needed to reduce conflicts and ensure that mining’s benefits contribute to long-term sustainable development in rural economies.

Communities relocated to make way for gold mines in Ghana struggle with loss of agricultural land, unemployment, and environmental damage. Photo: Neil Brander / Oxfam America

Governments and companies should take specific steps now to address this situation. First, the environmental impact assessment process for mining projects needs to be significantly strengthened and made more independent. At present, governments rely on information provided by companies, which is most often not reviewed by an independent third-party. Companies thus have an incentive to downplay potential impacts of their operations on land and water in agricultural areas. In countries such as Peru, local agricultural communities’ lack of confidence in these environmental reviews contributes to anxieties about the impacts of mining, which in turn contributes to conflict. Additionally, mining is increasingly done in “clusters,” meaning several mines operate in the same geographic area in order to take advantage of shared infrastructure and processing facilities. The cumulative impacts on land and water of several mines operating in the same area have not been thoroughly examined. The use of what are known as “strategic” environmental impact assessments, which take into account these cumulative impacts, would be an important step to increasing communities’ confidence.

Improved planning on how land will be used is another crucial step that governments should take. Mining concessions are often awarded without consideration for impacts on agricultural production. Later this year Oxfam America will publish research that shows graphically how mining and oil concessions have expanded dramatically in recent years in agriculturally productive areas of Peru and Ghana. Zoning land for particular uses, e.g. mining or agriculture, would help reduce conflict by establishing clear rules for how land will be used. Greater dialogue between the mining and agricultural sectors would be helpful. In Peru recently, the mining and agriculture ministries have signed a cooperation agreement. This is potentially a positive, although overdue, step.

Reconciling mining with agriculture in developing countries, particularly in the most fragile states, won’t be easy. It may ultimately require the admission that the two simply are incompatible over the long-term in particular areas. What is clear is that these discussions are urgently needed now so that conflict and violence produced by the juxtaposition of these two sectors diminishes and that countries can benefit from both their above-and below-the-ground resources.

Emily Greenspan is an extractive industries policy and advocacy advisor with Oxfam America.

Oxfam America’s Extractive Industries Team today released new research:

Human Rights and Social Conflict in the Oil, Gas, and Mining Industries: Policy recommendations for national human rights institutions.

Let me try to break down what the paper is all about.

Godfried Ofori, of the Concerned Citizens Association of Prestea, stands in front of a mine pit and waste dump area near Golden Star Resources mine in southwest Ghana. Photo: Jane Hahn / Oxfam America

What do we mean by social conflict?

More than 500 protesters took to the streets in Prestea in the western region of Ghana in 2005 to demonstrate against Bogoso Gold Mines (a subsidiary of Golden Star Resources), resulting in injuries to seven protesters. Tensions grew as a result of alleged water pollution and damage to homes from mining explosives and eventually led to project suspension.

Social conflicts and controversies surrounding large-scale oil and mining projects often stem from concerns around potential or actual environmental impacts and land acquisition disputes, and sometimes erupt into violence. Past Oxfam blogs have highlighted examples of this in countries where we work like Peru and Ghana.

Oxfam America’s recommendations for companies and government agencies charged with managing the oil and mining industries primarily aim to increase community participation in decision making around projects, and ultimately at preventing social conflicts. National human rights institutions (NHRIs) represented one interesting policy avenue that we had yet to address.

What do we mean by a national human rights institution?

State-sponsored NHRIs–tasked with protecting and promoting human rights– have grown in popularity in recent decades. To date, the UN International Coordinating Committee on NHRIs has accredited 99 of these institutions globally. The closest equivalent agency in the US would likely be the US Commission on Civil Rights, which is tasked with informing national civil rights policy and studying alleged deprivations of voting rights and discrimination.

While NHRIs take on a diversity of forms and functions, they will often provide human rights education, hear human rights complaints, mediate complaint resolution, and/or enforce remedies. Some of these institutions are charged with a narrow mandate to protect the human rights of particular groups (e.g., minorities or persons with disabilities) or to protect particular rights (e.g., anti-discrimination), while others have a broad mandate to protect and promote all human rights for all persons. Some NHRIs, like Ghana’s, have a formal mandate to investigate complaints about human rights abuses by private entities, including businesses, while others do not.

In the context of the extractive industries, NHRIs may be called on to address a wide range of human rights abuses. These could include, for example, impacts on the right to property such as by forced displacement or damage to crops or houses, or violence directed at local communities by police or security forces.

How can NHRIs better address social conflicts related to extractive industries?

The new Oxfam research launched in Washington, DC today presents a framework for evaluating NHRIs’ impact on promoting and protecting human rights in the context of the extractive industries, and how this framework can be applied in individual country contexts. The research identifies five categories of determinants for NHRI effectiveness: independence, power, promotion, empowerment, and remediation. These were based on a growing body of literature on effectiveness factors for NHRIs, and then prioritized based on the unique features of oil and mining projects, e.g. their long-term, large-scale nature and their tendency to impact remote and marginalized communities.

An open pit mine in the town of Prestea, Ghana, where Oxfam parter organization, WACAM, has been supporting the Concerned Citizens Association of Prestea in its efforts to negotiate with a mining company around issues related to air and water pollution, and the proposed expansion of mining operations. Photo: Jeff Deutsch / Oxfam America

The research includes a case study on Ghana’s NHRI, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ). Based on a literature review and interviews with civil society leaders, mining industry representatives, and CHRAJ officials in Ghana, researchers applied their new framework with CHRAJ to come up with recommendations to strengthen its effectiveness in the mining and emerging oil sectors. Results indicate that CHRAJ should develop a systematic and targeted strategy for communicating with communities affected by oil, gas, and mining operations. Information provided by CHRAJ should ideally provide community members with a clear understanding of their rights, how extractive projects may violate them, and how to seek remedy if these rights are violated.

Why should NHRIs engage more with communities?

While the new framework for evaluating NHRI effectiveness will generate different results based on differing country contexts, the finding in the Ghanaian context that community engagement should be a key priority for NHRIs will likely resonate in many of the countries that experience human rights abuses and conflict around mining and oil projects. Often the complex impacts of extractive projects are difficult for community members to anticipate or respond to, particularly when they involve politically-charged issues such as resettlement or technical issues such as water pollution from mine runoff. When NHRIs engage with more informed and active communities, they will find their education and enforcement mandates much easier to fulfill.

If more NHRIs begin to effectively and proactively engage with project-affected communities in preventing human rights abuses and conflict, not only local communities and host governments will benefit. The global community will also benefit from the subsequent increase in stability around the extraction of the oil and mineral resources on which we all rely.

Emily Greenspan is an extractive industries policy and advocacy advisor with Oxfam America.

Promised Land is now in theaters and I couldn’t wait to see it given my day job at Oxfam. Matt Damon and John Krasinski star. The movie depicts a small rural town in Pennsylvania as an international gas company comes in, promising to make millionaires of the struggling local farmers off of the shale deposits under their lands. Some eagerly jump to sign leases with the company while others worry about potential environmental impacts on their lands and waters.

The film really struck a chord with me because it highlights some of the seemingly insurmountable challenges that rural communities, in the US or elsewhere, face when deciding whether to make a deal with big oil. In Promised Land, the local high school teacher has a PhD from MIT, past experience as a Boeing engineer, and the time to do some internet sleuthing on the potential benefits and impacts of fracking. Many communities faced with the prospect of becoming oil boom towns, however, are not so lucky.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHQt1NAkhIo[/youtube]Citizens in developing countries face even more daunting information asymmetry challenges when oil and mining companies come to town. Often governments sign oil deals with companies directly and choose to keep the terms of these agreements and the amount of revenues generated by projects secret from their citizens. Logistical challenges like high illiteracy levels and limited internet access compound the situation, making it very difficult for communities to engage in negotiations with project sponsors on an equal footing.

In Peru, for example, the multi-billion dollar Peru LNG pipeline project crosses through two of Peru’s poorest regions, Ayacucho and Huancavelica. Communities in these two regions faced serious challenges when engaging in consultation processes with the company, given that approximately one-third of women in the regions are illiterate and only around 10% of the population uses internet services.

Also, almost all governments in the world have legal regimes that provide for government ownership of oil, gas, and mineral deposits. This means that oil companies can bypass making deals with landowners and negotiate directly with government. Communities that oppose development projects on their lands risk being displaced. The beleaguered town in Promised Land faces a number of disadvantages as they attempt to negotiate with a multinational company willing to bribe and cajole its way to community approval. The town must contend with a local leader with dubious ethics and competes with the high school basketball team for meeting space. However, ultimately they at least have the right to decide whether or not to sign a lease with the company.

Weighing potential costs and benefits around high-risk extractive industry projects is a challenging endeavor for any community. However, a few key measures to promote transparency and community engagement can go a long way:

― Governments should disclose the oil and mining contracts that they sign with companies. This will increase government accountability to their citizens by creating positive incentives for good deals and closing off possible avenues of corruption. Over the long term, contract disclosure will also contribute to a more stable investment climate since better deals are less likely to be overturned by future governments.

― Governments should disclose the revenues they receive from oil and mining companies, and companies should disclose the revenues that they pay to governments. Landmark section 1504 (“Cardin-Lugar”) of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act goes a long way towards promoting good governance of the extractive industries by requiring companies registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission to disclose their payments to governments. Beyond this, the more companies and governments that adopt revenue disclosure policies the better, both for citizens and for responsible companies which would benefit from a level playing field.

― Finally, governments and companies should commit to obtaining the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of local communities before implementing oil and mining projects on their lands. Consultations with local communities should be inclusive and adequately informed, and if communities decide against a development project, their decision should be respected.

These measures will not solve all of the challenges associated with oil development for communities around the world, nor the ones portrayed by Hollywood. However, they will create a framework that helps to ensure that local communities affected by oil projects are more informed about these projects, and have control over decisions that govern their lands, their health, and their livelihoods.

A guest post by Keith Slack, Global Program Manager, Extractive Industries

Mining industry big-wigs will gather in South Africa next week for Mining Indaba, billed as the “world’s largest mining investment conference.”  As has become de rigeur in recent years at this kind of event, there will be some discussion of social and environmental “sustainability” issues.  The final day of the event is in fact devoted to this and boasts an impressive-sounding set of panels featuring mining company CEOs, World Bank executives, government officials, and a smattering of NGOs.  This is consistent with a recent spate of mining sector sustainability initiatives including, among several others, the International Council on Mining and Metals’ Resource Endowment series, which looked at how mining can contribute more to economic development.

While this attention to sustainability is in general positive, it hasn’t driven the fundamental change in industry practice that is urgently needed.  US-based Newmont Mining’s history in Peru is one example.  Following a series of problems in Peru and elsewhere in the mid-2000s, the company commissioned a report that produced recommendations on improving its relationships with local communities.  The company’s implementation of these recommendations has been spotty at best.  Last year it was forced to postpone its massive Mina Conga project in the face of community opposition.  In December the company released another damning external review that described a “state of fear” among communities living near the mine.  Clearly the learning from past reviews hasn’t sunk in with company management.

To address this situation and the critical sustainability challenges facing the mining sector, we offer a few recommendations for the mining execs gathered in in Cape Town to consider as they schmooze, golf, and down some of those delicious South African red wines.  (Goats do Roam is my personal favorite.)

Dominic Nyame, a member of the Concerned Citizens Association of Prestea, an organization in southwest Ghana negotiating with a mining company around issues related to air and water pollution, and the proposed expansion of mining operations. Photo: Jeff Deutsch / Oxfam America

First, mining companies need to start fully respecting community consent.  While industry rhetoric on this point has improved significantly in recent years (which Oxfam has highlighted in a recent report), good examples of implementation are still lacking. Industry types often make the practice out to be more difficult than it really is and worries about communities vetoing a project are overblown.  Newmont’s problems at Mina Conga in Peru exist not because communities there are inherently anti-mining.  Rather they stem from the company’s bungled handling of community relations (by its own admission) during the early days of its presence in the community.  Getting these relationships right from the beginning and actively addressing to community concerns are critical to avoiding these problems.

Ensuring respect for the rights of women in the communities where companies operate is also critical for ensuring sustainability.  Women are often the guardians of communities’ long-term interests.  They suffer most directly from the negative impacts of mining, via the domestic violence and alcoholism to which mining often contributes.  Mining companies must carry out more rigorous and independent gender impact assessments.

Transparency has become somewhat of a cliché in discussions of sustainability in the extractive industries, but it’s an area, like women’s rights, where much work still remains to be done.  Mining companies should fully disclose all payments they make to governments – down to the project level where their impacts are felt.  To its credit, the mining industry hasn’t joined the American Petroleum Institute’s odious lawsuit seeking to block a new US law requiring these disclosures.  This is positive and should be coupled with all companies publicly embracing the law and disclosing this information beginning this year.

The thirsty folks gathered in South Africa will know that there is no sustainability issue more critical to the mining industry than protecting water resources.  South Africa itself is awash in acid mine drainage, or sulfuric acid that leaches out of mine sites and destroys ground and surface water.  This problem is a ticking time bomb in developing countries and it is incredibly expensive to fix once it starts.  Once it does, the acid needs to be treated forever.  Mining companies have the technology now to know when mining in particular ore bodies is likely to cause this problem.  They also know they shouldn’t mine there.

Finally, if mining companies want to contribute more to sustainable development, they should accept the fact that that may mean reduced profits for themselves.  Mining companies are masters at negotiating deals that enable them to avoid paying significant amounts of taxes.  In contract negotiations, industry lawyers routinely take under-trained and under-resourced government officials to the cleaners.  Yes, companies should be able to make profits, but they shouldn’t do so by exploiting unfair advantages.

Ultimately, making progress on these issues will depend on the degree to which mining companies incorporate community consent, the rights of women, transparency, and protection of water resources into their business models.  Creating incentives for performance on these issues will be critical.  Investors can play a role by only buying shares of companies with independently-verified performance metrics on sustainability, including demonstrable progress on the issues listed above.  Companies themselves can link compensation and career advancement to performance on sustainability.

It’s time for sustainability to become a central part of mining industry standards in Africa and elsewhere, rather than a sideshow.

Ghanaians go to the polls for presidential and parliamentary elections this Friday and political observers and polls both indicate an extremely tight contest between the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP).

These two main parties have profound differences when it comes to managing the oil sector and spending revenues. In an African nation that stands out by having five democratic elections in a row, including two peaceful transfers of power between parties, this election also stands out as the first where control of oil revenues is an important political “prize”.

Ghana’s “world class” Jubilee field started producing oil in late 2010 with great fanfare—so far, though, production results have been disappointing and revenues have been well under the $1 billion a year predicted. Ghana’s oil boom comes with big challenges to Ghana’s democratic development and in many countries oil has fueled increased conflict, corruption, and authoritarianism.

Ghana has made progress putting a transparent system for managing oil revenues in place.

The Western Corridor Gas Infrastructure Development Project.Atuabo, Ghana. Anna Fawcus / Oxfam America.

The passage of 2011’s Petroleum Revenue Management Act mandated the establishment of the Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC) which is tasked with monitoring compliance with the revenue law. All payments are disclosed by the government on a quarterly basis and the current government has taken the notable and step of disclosing many of Ghana’s petroleum agreements—a rare step in the African oil context.

Much of this progress is directly attributable to a vibrant civil society sector—including the Civil Society Platform on Oil and Gas—that has demanded policies and taken government, parliament, companies and donors to task when they haven’t delivered. The legal framework is still incomplete. A Petroleum Exploration and Production Act, Ghana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Act, and implementing regulations for the newly created Petroleum Commission and PIAC are still in limbo. In addition, contract disclosure is currently at the whim of the present government and not required by law.

Creating a transparent system is one thing, holding government to account quite another. It is heartening to see that when the PIAC issued its first report earlier this year noting that some payments were misdirected or not reported the government and state oil company—the GNPC—were forced to respond.  Yet, the government has not provided the new accountability and regulatory institutions—the PIAC and Petroleum Commission—with the bare minimum of resources to be able to function.

How do the two main parties differ on the approach to managing Ghana’s oil boom?

First, the NDC has focused on investing oil revenues in infrastructure while the NPP believes that the country should go to the private capital markets for big ticket infrastructure items such as roads. Instead, it has campaigned on a platform of “free” secondary education for all Ghanaians with a focus on building human capital. (Both parties are likely overpromising based on the expected levels of oil revenues.)

Second, they differ on the role of the state in relation to oil production. The NDC believes that government revenues should be used to build up and capitalize the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) so it can eventually become an operator of oil fields and not just a passive partner. The NPP, meanwhile, would see GNPC as a joint venture partner, raising money on capital markets rather than relying on government subvention.

Third, before losing power, the NPP had favored working with Trinidad and Tobago to develop Ghana’s gas potential. The NDC has gone with a Chinese contractor, Sinopec, and is in the process of constructing gas processing infrastructure. It is unclear whether this strategy would change if the NPP gained power and whether they would re-evaluate the Sinopec contract, which has been the subject of controversy regarding whether the government was getting value for money. Yet, both parties are keen to use gas reserves to fuel a local petrochemical industry.

Ghana’s next government must focus on completing the job of constructing a transparent and accountable system for managing the oil and gas sector. Contract disclosure, competitive and transparent licensing, and disclosure of beneficial owners of oil and gas blocks should become mandatory. New institutions such as the PIAC and Petroleum Commission must have the resources, implementing regulations and political space to do their job. The Ghana Revenue Authority must have the expertise and staff to be able to properly monitor and collect oil revenues. Ghana’s budget preparation and execution system must be strengthened; including by bringing more transparency to the process (Ghana scores poorly on the Open Budget Survey). Finally, the government should respect the rights of local communities who are and will suffer the onshore and offshore impacts of Ghana’s oil boom.