FYI. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- The following press release comes from the Bretton Woods Reform Organization calling for specific actions as a result of Omai's massive cyanide spill into the major river in Guyana. Please note that Omai's investment is guaranteed and partially insured by the World Bank through its Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. Please post this release far and wide. Bretton Woods Reform Organization (BWRO) (A Global Coalition for IMF/World Bank Accountability to Peoples of the South) 9 Third Ave., Subryanville, Georgetown, Guyana, Phone/FAX: 592 2 61420 PRESS RELEASE: August 28, 1995 BWRO Guyana demands accountability to the people of Guyana & financial compensation from Canadian multinational for poisonous cyanide discharge The Bretton Woods Reform Organization Guyana would like to express its shock and profound outrage at the reckless endangerment posed to the people of Guyana by the Omai Gold Mining Limited industrial discharge which ranks among the world's worst cyanide spills. Just four months ago we had warned the government in environmental recommendations of the alternative structural adjustment program to immediately ban the use of cyanide in mining. At that time BWRO stated as follows: "BWRO urges the Government of Guyana to immediately ban the use of cyanide in precious mental mining and the dumping of poisonous tailings in Guyana based upon the experience of other Third World countries such as Papua New Guinea and immense environmental and human risks including: * Chemical composition of tailings which are extremely damaging to human skin and the respiratory, circulatory, and nervous systems of human beings * Risks of airborne cyanide acid rain * Contamination of major rivers feeding into the national water supply * Unauthorized spills and discharges of cyanide laced water * Potential dumping of millions of tons of waste rock and other toxins resulting from waste products generated by cyanide processing and the potential for major industrial accidents." We would like to reiterate our call for the immediate ban on use of cyanide in mining in the strongest terms. No future of existing mining investment should be allowed to use cyanide in its mining operations and gold recovery process. BWRO believes that the actions of Omai and Canadian parent companies with part ownership in Omai (Cambior 65% and Golden Star 30%) demonstrate a pattern of contemptuous disregard for the Guyanese people and corporate misconduct. Omai's earlier ultimatum to government that it be allowed to discharge cyanide effluent directly into the nation's most important national river with major population centers downstream would never have been accepted in Canada and should never have been proposed for Guyana. We would also like to note as follows: * Just three months ago, in May, during Omai's "accidental cyanide spill", eyewitnesses reported seeing Omai guards retrieving dead fish from the river and burying them at night. No specimens of dead fish were preserved for environmental examination and the government was not informed of the spill until 6 days after the fact. If the May spill had occurred in the United States or Canada, Omai would have been fined at least US $500,000 and would have been forced to hold an environmental bond of US $10-15 million. * In April of this year Golden Star Resources Limited reportedly violated the Kurukaburu area without any of the required approvals or authorization of either the government or the local Amerindian community and began prospecting for diamonds. Regarding Omai, BWRO Guyana demands: 1) Omai finance a long term clean-up operation using the best available technology and expertise, 2) Omai be held liable for damages by the government of Guyana for violations of its contract with government and Guyana laws. Provisions of the contract directly violated will include clauses relating to stipulations that Omai should not unduly disturb or interfere with the indigenous population in the mining area and the requirement that the company comply with provisions of the Amerindian Act. Environmental protection requirements have also been massively violated. Furthermore, the violation of Guyana laws relating to the unauthorized discharge of toxic and poisonous substances into Guyana waters. 3) Financial compensation be paid for poisoning major waterways of Guyana and endangering the Amerindian, riverain, and people along the Essequibo Bartica and beyond as the cyanide poisoned water spreads to the Mazaruni and Potaro . .. . Specific future potential effects on the people of Guyana which will have to be costed and quantified as compensation from Omai's corporate malpractice in discharging over 120 million gallons of cyanide contaminated effluent include: * Human damages including skin diseases, vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of consciousness, convulsions, and mental disorders. * Death of eco-tourism in contaminated areas and its prospects for generating income, revenue, employment for Guyana's future economic development * Death of aquatic and animal life destroying the food supply of communities downstream (fish, cattle, and hogs) * Poisoning of Amerindian communities' principal source of food and water and resultant increase in malnutrition from lack of protein * Death of major rivers * Death of biodiversity (rare bird species, animal and plant life which is a source of medicines and technological scientific breakthrough) * Poisonous sediment/sludge destroying soil and threatening farmers and farms along the Essequibo, Bartica, and beyond * Cyanide flooding posing a direct danger to human beings * Elimination of fishermen's livelihoods and harm to industry including shrimp * Decline in international export orders for fish from Guyana * Termination of fish as one of the cheapest forms of protein in the Guyanese diet\ * Water for cooking, bathing, washing * The potential shut-down or decline of coastal businesses and tourism resorts * Food contamination potentially including cattle, pigs, fish, and chicken who either directly drink cyanide contaminated water from rivers or are given same water to drink. * Significant risk of cyanide exposure to Omai workers * Reimbursement of costs to government of emergency water distribution to residents of contaminated areas * The potential choking of rice stalks and silting of agricultural land from cyanide water used for irrigation, destroying crop and rice production. (In the Philippines mine tailings discharges with water containing slime silted and destroyed 120,000 hectares of prime agricultural land in Northern Luzon with damages to roughly US $52.5 million.) This latest environmental crisis is evidence that transnational contracts must not be kept secret from the people. BWRO Guyana therefore also demands that the Omai contract be published immediately and be released as a public document. BWRO Guyana believes that the Guyanese people should note with great interest that in Papua New Guinea in 1994 villagers there sued the Australian Mining multinational BHP for US $2.8 billion. This class action lawsuit was in response to the destruction of a 200 KM river from waste products of copper mining at the OK Tedi Mine which poisoned the water supply, killed fish, crocodiles, turtles, and resulted in people contracting skin diseases and severe malnutrition from lack of fish and fresh meat. BWRO is also contacting transnational mining experts at Harvard University, the Canadian Latin America Working Group, Canadian environment/development NGOs, our European partners and the Council on International & Public Affairs which has played a leading role in defending the rights of victims of the Bhopal disaster in India so that the people will have independent legal and mining expertise available in relations to their rights and the legal obligations of Omai. Intense pressures from the IMF and World Bank to maximize exploitation of Guyana's mineral assets and generate foreign exchange to service Guyana's immense debt, equaling over US $2900 for every man, woman, and child in Guyana, allowed Omai to a) obtain large-scale mining rights on extremely poor financial contract terms, and b) without any substantive environmental controls or monitoring capability by the government. BWRO further notes with interest that Omai's investment is guaranteed and partially insured by the World Bank through its Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). BWRO Guyana recommends that no new large-scale mining investment application be accepted in Guyana without satisfying the following conditions: a) Majority parliamentary approval b) Mining applicant agrees to pay for costs of an independent engineering/environmental scientist team chosen by a national committee representing NGO and government officials c) A draft of the proposed contract be published and circulated for public comment and input by national organizations d) An environmental bond whose amount will be determined by an independent environmental cost evaluation e) An international team of at least three transnational mining contract experts are retained by government to ensure the most advantageous tax and financial contract terms to the government and people of Guyana. f) All Amerindian and other local communities within the proposed mining rights area or potentially affected by its operations be consulted on the full scope and effects of proposed operations and involved in decision making/approval process. In order to address environmental dangers and costs associated with small to medium scale mining, BWRO Guyana reiterates its call, as part of the alternative structural adjustment program, for the government to report formally in a public document by December 1995 on presentation of alternatives to use of mercury and missile dredging and the promulgation of mining standards. Mercury is an extremely toxic metal which is not biodegradable and which accumulates in the food chain causing neurological problems and birth defects. "Missile dredging", outlawed in many countries, has caused major silting of the rivers, reduced fishing returns as far as 60 kilometers downstream of mining areas, and eliminated significant sources of food for many riverain communities. The presentation of economically viable and environmentally superior mercury and missile dredging alternatives should be followed up by an action plan to institute the recommended mining alternatives within the following 6 months.
