Lawyers Say Barrick Thwarts Access to Justice for Victims of Violence (what about women)

Thursday, November 27, 2014

(Ottawa) New evidence is emerging that Barrick Gold’s dealings with victims of violence by mine security and police at mine sites in Papua New Guinea and in Tanzania is primarily designed to protect the company from legal action, rather than to provide fair remedy for women who have been raped and men who have been hurt or killed by mine security.

Lawyers who represent victims of violence at the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and at the North Mara mine in Tanzania are speaking out.

On Friday, U.S.-based EarthRights International released documents that reveal how the compensation process Barrick has put in place at the Porgera mine to deal with victims of rape by the company’s mine’s security trades inadequate benefit packages for a promise never to sue Barrick. Documents reveal that women who reject the packages or ask for other forms of remedy are being turned away by the program.

“Some of the women felt they had no choice but to accept the benefits offered,” said Marco Simons, Legal Director of EarthRights International (ERI), which represented dozens of women in the process. “One of our clients told us how she was brutally beaten, cut with a knife and raped by more than 10 Barrick guards, left unable to have children, and then abandoned by her husband and ostracized by her community. She was angered by what the Remedial Framework offered. But she felt she could not reject the benefits because she needed medical treatment; her injuries still made it painful for her to walk.”

“Some of our clients did, however, refuse the benefits,” added Simons. “As far as we know, the only women who refused to sign Barrick’s legal waiver were those represented by ERI – in other words, those who thought they might have other options.”

In a visit to Ottawa on November 6, 2014, Shanta Martin, a partner at UK-based law firm Leigh Day, spoke out about the firm’s Tanzanian clients who are pursuing claims against African Barrick Gold (now called Acacia Mining) and its Tanzanian subsidiary in the High Court of England and Wales for deaths and injuries they claim were a result of the excessive use of force by mine security and police, including the frequent use of live ammunition. 

In its press release Martin said, “Impoverished people from remote rural villages who sue multinational companies often face incredible obstacles to having their claims heard by an independent arbiter,” said 

Martin. “Our clients naturally expect companies that say they are transparent and supportive of human rights to live up to those claims.” 

As in Papua New Guinea, Barrick’s North Mara mine in Tanzania has implemented a compensation process to deal with victims of excessive violence by mine security. And as in PNG, victims of violence have to sign away their right to sue the company in return for compensation, however inadequate. MiningWatch Canada and UK-based Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) conducted a human rights assessment at the North Mara mine in July and August and found that the mine’s compensation program is not transparent, not independent of the company, that the compensation being offered is neither appropriate nor reflective of the deaths and serious harm that victims have suffered, and that it is not what the victims themselves said they need to overcome the harm. 

MiningWatch and RAID also found that clients of Leigh Day were being targeted by North Mara mine personnel to persuade them to drop their law suit in return for this inadequate compensation. 

In its release, Leigh Day confirmed that many of their clients stated they had been specifically targeted to forgo their legal claims and sign up to the mine’s grievance mechanism.

“The PNG and Tanzanian cases clearly demonstrate an abuse of so-called project level grievance mechanisms to ensure legal immunity for Barrick at a high cost to the victims of violence,” says Catherine Coumans of MiningWatch Canada. “It is questionable whether company-led project-level  grievance mechanisms should even be dealing with criminal acts by mine security, but if they do they should absolutely not result in legal waivers that create barriers to access to judicial remedy.”

Both the Government of Canada and the Mining Association of Canada are currently drafting guidance for the use of project-level non-judicial grievance mechanisms. The issue is also front and centre at the upcoming UN Forum on Business and Human Rights in Geneva in December.

TAWOMA holds workshop prior the Annual General Meeting

T

 

 

 

 

 

The guest of honor,the deputy mineral commissioner officiating the meeting

Women miners from across Tanzania Participated in the workshop prior the Annual general meeting

Meeting participants

The guest of honor watching women miners works. Here, he is watching how the mineral cutting machine works. he promised to support women miners to buy an advanced machine so that it boosts their livelihood

Copper Mining: A woman miner showing the samples of copper rocks which she mines. She poses the challenge of lack copper processing plant in Tanzania which forces them to sell it raw at very low price

Shamsa,  a woman miner showing how the mineral cutting machine works

Guest of honor watching the women miners works

Mrs Eunice Negele, a current chaiperson of TAWOMA inviting the guest of honor to officiate the meeting

Women in Mining Tanzania: Pili (Mjomba Hussein) An example of women S...

Women in Mining Tanzania: Pili (Mjomba Hussein) A typical example of women S...: Pili, popularly known as "Mjomba Hussein" (Uncle Hussein) is a Tanzanite Miner in Mererani, Northern Tanzania. Pili is in her mid...

The three depressing stereotypes women in mining face!

Women in Mining communities face gender stereotypes, the packaging comes in different forms, whether as a joke, serious statements, practices towards them and so on. It does not matter how it is packaged, but stereotype is a stereotype, a worse form of gender based violence, acknowledged and accepted by communities. Here are the three very depressing and annoying kind of stereotypes that whether known as violence against women and violation of their basic human rights, they are degrading and dehumanize women work and living in mining areas in a way that not everybody can see how it affect them now.

1. You are a Woman, you can not Work Underground!

Yes, mining is a tough job! It requires muscles and strength. And yes, working underground can be dangerous and intimidating. But lets get the facts straight here! What makes the job done!... The hands! And what is the difference between men and Women..., the biological make ups, women having the women parts and men having the men parts, and their biological functions. It does not require the men parts to do mining and women parts not... which i mean to say, biological make up of women or men do not have anything whatsoever with activities they do, apart from the biological functions of their bodies - Reproduction.

Women should be left to decide what part of the mining activities they would like to undertake. Whether going underground, or doing administrative jobs or providing services, should be entirely free of their choices and will. This kind of statement is a patriarchal lie, created to scare women off the mining chain and benefit few.

2. Women Should Never go near Gold Mining Pits while on their Menstruation Period, because Gold Will Disappear.

What? Seriously? How in hell Women menstruation get in Gold geomorphology?  It raises not only eye brows but the whole face! A lot of questions on this as this patriarchal lie is designed to exclude women from understanding the quantity and value of the minerals mined from the land. This statement/belief is designed to deepen the patriarchal lies that women should be ashamed of their bodies and their state of healthy monthly period is a bad luck. 

Miners can be superstitious, using vodoo and Juju in their activities as they lack geological information and support from state to undertake professional mining. As a result, women bear the burden of try and error in ASM communities.

3. Women living and Working in Mining areas are Prostitutes.

The involvement of women in mining is mostly driven by poverty and mining is seem as a means of survival. In most cases, women in these areas are single and independent mothers, who came to mining areas as a result of either bad divorce, separation, early marriages or abandonment by their partners although, some of them are there as a matter of choice and mining is a means of economic activity which puts food on the table and children to school and roof over their head.. The first are the result of  patriarchy system which devalue women on the basis of what they do.

I knowledge that there are sex commercial workers in the mining communities. But before pointing fingers, lets see the reason why they are there( Forget about the simple answers like, its their attitude, they are greed etc). Think about the system, the families they are coming from, economic set up on this country, exclusion from economic opportunities, etc. 

You should also know that and sometime, sex work  comes as a form of resistance to injustices.

Share any other kind of stereotypes you know

Leaked Statoil addendum demonstrates how confidentiality intensifies controversy: Statement by Civil Society Organizations

Following the recent significant discovery of natural gas in Tanzania, the country has emerged as a potential large gas producer in East Africa, generating substantial interest from citizens, civil society and politicians regarding the prospects for the resource to propel the nation’s economic development. The government, to its credit, has embarked on a series of processes to develop policy and legal frameworks that will help govern the exploration, production, transportation and distribution of natural gas. There have been many grievances, however, that not much has been done to enhance transparency in thefiscal policies and contractual terms in extractives industry at large.

A recently leaked addendum to a Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) between Statoil, a Norwegian National Oil company and the government, and the outbreak of public enrage that ensued, underline the need for a systematic disclosure of all extractives contracts in Tanzania.

We, the undersigned Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) have been following the debate and reactions by different actors about the subject with keen interest.  Consequently, on the 15^th day of August, 2014 deliberated virtually on various analyses with the aim of providing our insights as civil society organisations and position on the controversy surrounding the leaked Statoil addendum with national interests at the fore.

UNDERSTAND that extraction of resources involves complex decisions, tradeoffs and long-term commitments. These decisions will be more credible and less subject to abuse if citizens understand the economic rationale behind them. The bottom-line though, is that, fiscalpolicies and contractual terms should ensure that the country gets full benefit from the resource, subject to attracting the investment necessary to realize the desired benefits. The Government and investors are generally better served if there are clear rules applicable to all investors in similar circumstances. Transparency and uniform rules help ensure that operators know that treatment is non-discriminatory, reduce opportunities for corruption and may reduce demands from individual investors for special treatment.

UNDERSCORE the right to social accountability in that citizens have a fundamental right to obtain explanations and justifications from duty-bearers entrusted with the responsibility for managing their natural resources.  Conversely, duty-bearers have a duty to provide justifications regarding the decisions they make on the exploitation of these resources.

CONCERNED about inadequate information provided to the public leading to destructive and dangerous state of confusion regarding natural gas and extractive industry contracts in general.  A number of concerns surround the leaked Addendum to existing PSA between the government and Statoil poses a number of concerns:

The shallow reaction from the government and non-reaction at all from Statoil leaves ample room for speculation and suspicions. The government reaction issued through a press release by TPDC broadly purports that the terms of the said PSA are fair to the country quoting 61% government take. The statement further accuses the media for not being informed while making a grossly misleading statement that without Statoil signing PSA in 2007, the 50.5 trillion cubic feet could have not discovered, hence attributing all discoveries to Statoil! This further raises a question whether the deviation is a bonus to Statoil for that? The statement provides no information about the underlying economic rationale and assumptions applied to justify neither deviation from Model Addendum to PSA nor the actual terms of the signed PSA.

The conspicuous silence by Statoil on the matter that threatens not only its corporate reputation and integrity but also that of the home country (Norway) as champion of transparency in extractive industry.

The continued erosion of public confidence of the way extractive sector is managed drawing devastating experience from mining sector. If the public is to have confidence that the government agreement with Statoil was sound based on the information they had when signing the addendum, all relevant information should be disclosed. Continuing secrecy on this matter that is now firmly being debated in public exacerbates citizens’ mistrust of those entrusted with management of the resource.  A recent analysis by The Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI) indicates that it may be premature to ascertain whether or not Tanzania obtained a good deal from the 2012 Statoil addendum given that the original Statoil PSA of 2007 and other information that informed the government’s calculations are still not publicly available.

The manner in which the addendum to the Statoil PSA was brought forth to initiate this public discourse( by leaking) undermines the integrity of government as it invites a lot of suspicion and may encourage certain quarters to surmise that the intention was to expose possible corruption in the said deal. The leak compels all stakeholders: industry, government and civil society to begin a serious conversation about the continuing secrecy of extractive industry contracts despite the obvious benefits of disclosure.

To prevent an important public issue being debated on partial, leaked information, stakeholders should begin to have an honest discussion about the legitimacy of many resistances to open contracts by government and extractive companies. 

Is it worth noting the fact that contract disclosure is already mandatory for some companies (e.g. Swala through stock exchange rules) and will be mandatory for all PSAs and MDAs entered into after 2014 if the next government upholds the commitment to do so in the current Open Government Partnership Action Plan. Why should some companies be obliged to disclose while others are not?

Civil society, parliamentarians and citizens have been calling for the parliamentary approval of extractive contracts after the drafting and negotiation by the government. Ratification of the Statoil PSA, addendum and other such agreements by parliament would have ensured that representatives of citizens had ample time to discuss the merits of the contracts before they came to effect and was another way of bringing the agreements to the public domain. It also protects industry from expropriation.  Government may be apprehensive about the Statoil PSA being made public in that it may confirm to the public that the addendum to the Statoil PSA is in fact a ‘bad deal’, arousing calls for renegotiation. This may not necessarily be permanently harmful to either the government or the company. Due to changing economic situations, it is common for extractives contracts to be renegotiated regardless of their disclosure or leak. With the social license in mind, renegotiation can enhance the durability of contracts in the long term.
·         The public discourse surrounding the addendum to the Statoil PSA reveals varied extractive contract literacy strengths and needs. Misapprehension of contents of contracts hinders efforts to promote transparency.

In light of the above, we CALL UPON the Government to:

• Make public the signed (original) Statoil PSA of 2007 for public scrutiny
• Make public all the signed (original) 25  PSAs and the new ones to be signed for fair treatment of all actors in the industry.
• Introduce parliamentary ratification of extractive contracts after negotiation and signature by the minister.
• Civil Society, media and government should place high priority in ensuring the capacity of their stakeholders to engage in the extractives debate is enhanced.

Further, we CALL UPON:

• STATOIL to explain to the public the compelling reasons (if any) for the deviation from Model PSA
• All Oil, Gas and Mining companies operating in Tanzania and the government to review all confidentiality provisions in the existing extractive resource contracts for the public interest and should refrain from endorsing such provisions in any new contract.

RECOMMEND the following to address the broader issue of extractives management:

• Enact a Freedom of Information Act.
• Establish a contracts database.
• Extractives companies should review their confidentiality policies.

  Signed:
1. Interfaith Standing Committee on Economic Justice and the Integrity of Creation
2. HakiMadini
3. Policy Forum
4. Oil and Natural Gas Environment Alliance (ONGEA)

Source  http://www.policyforum-tz.org/leaked-statoil-addendum-demonstrates-how-confidentiality-intensifies-controversy