There’s no place for clean water under ‘free trade’

Yet another standoff between clean drinking water and mining profits has taken shape in Colombia, where two corporations insist their right to pollute trumps human health and the environment. As is customary in these cases, it is clean water that is the underdog here.

Two million people are dependent on water from a high-altitude wetlands, which is also a refuge for endangered species, that a Canadian mining company, Eco Oro Minerals Corporation, wants to use for a gold mine. The wetlands, the Santurbán páramo in the Andes, has been declared off-limits for mining by Colombia’s highest court due to the area’s environmental sensitivity. Eco Oro is suing the Colombian government because of this under the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

The dispute will likely be heard by a secret tribunal that is an arm of the World Bank, even though the World Bank has provided investment capital for Eco Oro to develop the mine.

The Colombian Andes (photo by Luisalberto p)

The Colombian Andes (photo by Luisalberto p)

Eco Oro has not said how much money it intends to ask for, but another mining company, the U.S.-based Tobie Mining and Energy Inc., has separately sued Colombia for US$16.5 billion because the government refused to allow it to establish a gold mine in a national park. To put that $16.5 billion in perspective, the total represents more than 20 percent of Colombia’s budget.

To the north, El Salvador is still awaiting the decision of another secret tribunal in a case heard in September 2014. An Australian mining company, OceanaGold, sued El Salvador for $301 million because it was denied a permit to create a gold mine that would have poisoned the country’s biggest source of water.

Under “free trade” agreements (which have little to do with trade and much to do with enhancing corporate power), governments agree to the mandatory use of “investor-state dispute mechanisms.” What that bland-sounding phrase means is that any “investor” can sue a signatory government to overturn any law or regulation it does not like because the law or regulation “confiscates” its expected profits, with no limitations on who or what constitutes an “investment.” These cases are not heard in regular judicial systems, but rather in secret tribunals with no oversight, no public notice and no appeals. The judges who sit on these tribunals are corporate lawyers whose regular practice is representing corporations in these types of disputes.

Environmentalists rally for sensitive wetlands

In the latest Colombian case, that of Eco Oro Minerals, the company sued one month after the Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled that a government plan to permit mining in some portions of the country’s sensitive high-altitude wetlands is unconstitutional. Eco Oro’s original plan was for an open-pit mine, which was denied by the environmental ministry thanks to an organized campaign by environmentalists. Denied a permit, Eco Oro then began plans for an underground mine, and received $16.8 million in financing from the World Bank to fund a new study. The environmental ministry subsequently declared the area a protected region, rendering illegal any mine. The final chance to open a mine was ended when the Constitutional Court ruled in February 2016.

The mining company has declared Colombia “in breach” of its obligations and notified Bogotá of its intention to sue if a negotiated settlement can’t be reached. Eco Oro issued a public statement that said, in part:

“The dispute has arisen out of the Government’s measures and omissions, which have directly impacted the rights granted to Eco Oro to explore and exploit its Angostura Project. The measures and omissions that have affected Eco Oro include (without limitation) the Government’s unreasonable delay in clarifying the limits of the Santurbán Páramo and whether it overlapped with the Angostura Project and its persistent failure to provide clarity as to Eco Oro’s right to continue developing its mining project in light of further undefined requirements and later as a consequence of the Constitutional Court’s decision of February 8, 2016, which has broadened the prohibition of mining activities in páramo areas.”

To use more direct language, the company declares it should be allowed to destroy environments for unlimited profit-making. Colombia’s high-altitude wetlands provide 70 percent of the country’s fresh water, so protecting them is hardly unreasonable. But “free trade” agreements elevate corporations to the level of a national government (or, arguably, above national governments because only corporations have the right to sue) and elevate private profits above all other human concerns.

Giving with one hand, taking with the other

A commentary in Naked Capitalism notes the irony of the World Bank funding destructive projects at the same time Western governments are encouraging environmental measures to mitigate global warming. The commentator, Don Quijones, writes:

“[W]hile vast sums of Western taxpayer funds are pouring into Colombia to encourage it to protect its environment, Western corporations — with full backing from the World Bank — are doing all they can to prevent the government from safe-guarding its environment, including the water supply its people depend on.”

Earlier this month, the World Bank declared it would make a “fundamental shift” by now diverting money to projects that will ameliorate global warming, and claiming that all its future investments would take climate change into account. Disbelief would be justified here, considering the World Bank’s record of financing massive projects that pollute and contribute greatly to global warming, and that the bank, in 2012, issued a report sounding an alarm against global warming to no noticeable effect.

But that World Bank report was a feat of monumental hypocrisy, and not simply because it called for shifting of money toward “green capitalism” initiatives — in other words, the same runaway train that has brought the world to the brink of catastrophic global warming is supposed to now magically save the world. The World Bank has provided billions of dollars to finance new coal plants around the world in the recent years and repeatedly has provided capital to make possible dams and energy projects that have displaced large numbers of people and disrupted ecosystems.

Mining company says national park is ‘fraudulent’

The other case filed against Colombia, by the U.S. mining company Tobie Mining and Energy, claims that the country’s government has “expropriated” its investment and that the creating a national park is “fraudulent.” Tobie claims that the Colombian government (then headed by hard-right authoritarian Álvaro Uribe, whom the company extravagantly praises on its web site) granted approval for its proposed mine in 2008, but before a final agreement could be reached, a national park was created, blocking the mine.

Tobie demands $16.5 billion or to be allowed to go ahead with its gold mine, but does not explain how it calculates what it claims to be the “fair value” of the mining concession. The entire value of all gold exported from Colombia in 2014 (latest figures available) was $1.4 billion, according to the World Bank — considerably less than the value of coffee exported. The value of Eco Oro’s disallowed mine is also subject to question, as a Canadian Parliament report on trade estimates the value of Colombian “energy and other” products imported to Canada to be C$280 million.

The World Bank secret tribunal that will hear Eco Oro’s suit against Colombia (formally known as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, or ICSID) has a long history of one-sided, pro-corporate rulings. The latest of these, on April 4, was a decision that Venezuela must pay the Canadian mining company Crystallex International US$1.4 billion for denying a permit on environmental grounds. The area Crystallex wanted to mine is one of only four pristine forests in Venezuela and home to several Indigenous peoples.

Among other decisions handed down, Canada was forced to reverse its ban of the gasoline additive MMT and pay compensation to a U.S. chemical company; Mexico was forced to grant a permit to a U.S. metal company that wanted to site an environmentally dangerous waste dump and pay compensation; and Canada was required to reverse a transport ban on PCBs that had conformed to environmental treaties. In this last case, for good measure, the secret tribunal ruled that, when formulating an environmental rule, a government “is obliged to adopt the alternative that is most consistent with open trade.”

That last ruling provides the essence of “free trade” agreements — the accumulation of corporate power to override all democratic controls over health, safety, environmental or labor safeguards. And as awful as these decisions are, worse is what would await us should the Trans-Pacific or Transatlantic partnerships go through as those agreements promise even more draconian rules than the ones already in place.

Advertisements

12 comments on “There’s no place for clean water under ‘free trade’

  1. If it’s free trade, it should be free 😛

  2. euclides de oliveira pinto neto says:

    É bom distribuir estas atitudes das empresas multinacionais, para aqueles países que assinam os “tratados”. Os países signatários, principalmente os pequenos (que aderem sem conhecer devidamente o conteúdo), perdem toda a autonomia jurídica, ficando sujeitos às sanções determinadas por uma “corte” de advogados das empresas reclamantes, quando atos praticados pelos países menores possam diminuir os lucros previstos… só país idiota ou com seus dirigentes mancomunados às multinacionais será capaz de assinar um tratado que lhe impeça de exercer sua autonomia juridica soberana…

    • It certainly is dumb for the leaders of small countries to be in cahoots with multi-national capital. They are doing services for their local comprador class when they aren’t directly compardors themselves, with no regard to their people’s well-being or their country’s longer-term health. Yet another example of their mimicking of the global North’s capitalist ideology.

  3. As in the movie Groundhog Day, we wake each morning to the same impasse- jobs, growth, development versus Life. It’s exhausting and yet it seems “environmentalists” and “trade policy” liberals never seem to tire of fighting the symptoms while ignoring the disease. And as the contradictions mount, oil ministers meet in Doha to fix the price of continued ecocide.

    • That’s the “dead end” of liberalism — believing what they readily acknowledge to be a flawed system can be perfected and made nice. It can’t. I would like to think humanity does not have to wait until collapse is upon us to move to a different, more rational and sustainable system — this is what underlies this blog — but we are far from that right now. Nonetheless, the large upswing in favorability to socialism among young people is encouraging. They have the most to lose, of course.

  4. Joel Meyers says:

    The lead-contamination of Flint, MI’s water supply, and the permanent lifetime damage visited upon hundreds of thousands there, will force people to continue destroying their livers, kidneys and neuro-brain systems, or drink bottled water. The lead-contamination problem is probably much more widespread than just Flint, and has already been discovered in Newark, NJ, and the school system in NYC. It is similar to the epidemic feeblemindedness of Rome during its empire, when vessels, cups and dishes were made of lead. The Romans probably did not know what the effect of the lead would be, or have monitoring systems to notice the effect. We, the USA, supposedly know better, but poisoning the water supply was a “tactic” in the genocide against native peoples. Even without lead, what are the deeper effects of chlorinated and fluoridated tap water? And what are the effects of bottling water in plastic which common sense, and the taste of bottled water, indicates that the plastic leaches into the water. We need a working-class based government which puts human life first, instead of profits-ueber-alles (profits above all else), and not hell-bent on enfeebling the potentially rebellious population, and reducing human longevity to save on Social Security, Medicare being paid to what the ruling class look at as useless eaters, borrowing that Nazi-mentality phrase.

  5. Joel Meyers says:

    Oh, and one more thing: Have you heard anything about such problems from any of the Presidential hopelesses now monopolizing all news coverage, except for a few in-and-out campaign visits taking advantage of the unimaginable suffering as an opportunity to posture “concern”?

    • The water supply in many U.S. cities is not necessarily safe, and is often expensive because water systems are privatized and thus have become sources of corporate profit rather than a utility providing a human necessity. Remember that the chairman of Nestlé stated that water should be just another “market commodity” priced by “free markets.” In other words, water is not a human right even though we can’t survive without it. Although not ordinarily put so bluntly, such attitudes are not uncommon in corporate board rooms, and thus the problems of lead in water systems occur, among other issues.

      Bottled water also depletes water sources, and contributes to environmental destruction and global warming through the increased use and waste of the plastics used to bottle it, the transportation of that water and the immense addition to the waste stream they represent. But it’s profitable for the bottled-water company, and that’s all that matters in capitalism because the costs are externalized.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s