2007-06. Sipakapa’s Legacy: Consultation in Concepción Tutuapa

Department of San Marcos, Guatemala
June 18, 2007
Issue: Mining / Indigenous and Community Rights

Text: Saqrik
Photography, Translation and Captions: MiMundo.org

Peoples’ right to be consulted about industrial mega-projects is legally established by international agreements, built into national legislation and constitutions, and thrown about in the discourse of resource extraction companies the world over.

But when consultation takes place in a way that empowers communities, those same organizations and companies that purport to promote “consultation” too often react by charging that such processes are unconstitutional, manipulative and undemocratic.

The Consulta that took place on June 18, 2005 in Sipakapa, San Marcos, Guatemala offers an excellent example by which to understand such a process.

There is much material evidence, including a study by the World Bank’s own Compliance Advisory Ombudsman, showing that Glamis Gold (hereinafter Goldcorp) failed to consult in a meaningful way with the people of Sipakapa and San Miguel Ixtahuacán before bringing in the heavy equipment and beginning the set-up of the Marlin mine, Guatemala’s first major mining project since the signing of the Peace Accords in 1996.

The people of Sipakapa responded to the lack of consultation by organizing their own Consulta, a well-organized and transparent vote by which local residents could express their consent or non-consent with the mining project threatening to expand into their territory.

The Consulta was held with permission of the municipal authorities in Sipakapa, and designed to abide by the provisions of the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, which Guatemala ratified on June 5, 1996.

Upon getting wind of the Consulta, representatives acting on behalf of Goldcorp filed a suit of unconstitutionality against the process with a lower court in San Marcos, and a second suit of unconstitutionality with the Constitutional Court, Guatemala’s highest legal body.

The suits were filed before the Consulta took place, even though in their literature, the company claimed that they had carried out their own consultation, and that the communities were supportive of their mining project.

If one is to believe Goldcorp’s statements professing community support for mining, it becomes difficult to understand their motivations for taking preemptive legal action to discredit a community driven process set up to ask people to vote “Yes” or “No” to mining activity in their territory.

In May, 2007, nearly two years after the suit was filed by Goldcorp, the Constitutional Court ruled on the legality and bindingness of the Consulta in Sipakapa. Their conclusion: the Consulta process is legal, but non-binding.

Investigative reports after the ruling indicated that “the sentence of the [Constitutional Court] could have been influenced by political, economic or even commercial interests.” (1)

The intolerable “No”

For Goldcorp, the problem of the Consulta has to do with one thing: people gave the “wrong” answer.

Eleven out of the 13 communities in Sipakapa voted unanimously against mining activities in their territory on June 18th, 2005. Since that time, the people of Sipakapa have remained vigilant, and mining activity has not expanded any further into their territory.

Regardless of the recent decision of the Constitutional Court, the mandate of the Consulta is clear.

Since the Consulta in Sipakapa, approximately 15 other municipalities in Guatemala whose territory has been concessioned for mining exploration have held similar Consultas. In every case, mining exploration, exploitation and expansion has been roundly rejected.

The ongoing struggle of the 14,000 mainly Mayan-Sipakapense people who live in Sipakapa has taken on global importance, not only for other communities attempting to salvage control of their territories, but also for the mining industry itself.

According to an article by David J. DesLauriers written for Resource Investor in 2005, just days before the Consulta was to take place, “Glamis’ success at PR on [the Marlin mine] is crucial. This is a must-win situation, and the reality is that the industry needs a coordinated response. The ramifications will be felt not just by the company, but by mining globally.” (2)

The “must-win” logic of the mining industry is backed up with expensive public relations campaigns, vast networks of connections to high-level officials, financial resources from banks and international finance institutions, and privileged access to the media.

The intolerable “no” voiced by the communities is what it reads. It is a rejection of mining activity by the people most likely to be directly affected by the potential consequences of the mining project itself. A rejection of “development” imposed from above.

More importantly, the intolerable “no” -to which the global mining industry has no retort- is a powerful, legal and democratic affirmation of life, earth, and community control.

Concepción Tutuapa. San Marcos, Guatemala.
February 11-12, 2007

A number of delegations from throughout Guatemala traveled to the municipality of Concepción Tutuapa in order to attend the mining plebiscite which took place on February 12th, 2007. Some came to observe, others to support the process, while some took the time to learn the steps so as to organize a similar community consultation back home. Since the June 2005 plebiscite in Sipakapa, San Marcos, dozens of communities throughout Guatemala have reproduced the process in an attempt to save their territories, lifestyle and general wellbeing not only from the mining industry, but other mega-projects involving hydro-electric plants, mega-ports, ill-planned roadways, or the oil industry.

CEIBA, a Guatemalan Non-Government Organization (NGO) focused on sustainable development, organized a delegation which included a wide range of activists and local government officials. Among those present were representatives from the municipal governments of: Ixcán, San Juan Cotzal (Quiché); Colotenango, San Juan Atitlán, Concepción Huista (Huehuetenango); Sololá, The Indigenous Municipality of Sololá (Sololá); as well as members of the Fundación Maya and CEIBA. Here pictured, delegation members eat breakfast the morning of the 11th in Colotenango, Huehuetenango, before heading off to Concepción Tutuapa.

On the way to Concepción Tutuapa, the delegation’s members witnessed for themselves the infamous Marlin Mine and the effects it has had on the local landscape. The Marlin Project is managed locally by Montana Exploradora S.A., a full subsidiary of Canadian-based Goldcorp which has its headquarters in Vancouver.

The family of President Oscar Berger, “the Berger Widmann, are not only the current presidential family, but seek to catapult themselves into the eight spot within the corporate investment family groups in the country, the GANA [current party which holds executive powers] is one of the principal instruments [in achieving this goal]… As a family, the Berger Widmann hold economic interests in the Guatemalan Nickel Company (CGN), Montana Exploradora S.A. and Petrolatina Corporation.” (3)

“The members of the Municipal Committee for the Environment, Local Community Mayors and members of the Development Committees system within Concepción Tutuapa, have become aware of the interest by international corporations to develop mining activities in certain areas within our municipality. In addition, the Ministry of Energy and Mines of Guatemala has already conceded several licenses without consulting us first, contrary to Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO)… Hence, we have formally petitioned the Municipal Government, as stated in the Municipal Code, to help us assert our rights of self-determination as a Mayan Nation by conducting a Community Plebiscite involving every citizen of the Municipality so that we can determine the direction of mining activities in our territories.” (4)

The night before the plebiscite takes place, a small food stall displays its posture towards the Consulta. The sign reads: “Concepción Tutuapa = Life. Mining = Death. Participate in the Consultation! Vote NO to Mining.”

Tuijoj Hamlet (Population: 200)

Landscape of Tuijoj on the 12th of February, 2007; The day of the plebiscite. On the background stand the Cuchumatanes, Central America’s highest mountain range.

A resident of Tuijoj awaits the beginning of the voting process.

The key moment of the whole process finally takes place: “Raise your hands those who oppose metal mining activities in our town!” Following tradition in Concepción Tutuapa, mostly inhabited by Mayans of the Mam ethnic group, the voting occurs by counting the raised hands.

After counting the hands in favor and those against, all voters must be registered so as to legalize the process.

The issue involved is an explosive one as can be perceived by the statements of Don Apolonio, a local resident: “If large machinery or people enter our communities to begin mining activities, they will be lynched and burned. If foreigners come, they will be lynched and burned. We will make a war when they come. It will be a war in defense of our children!”

“No, No and No, we shall not sell our territory… Tuijoj opposes mining exploitation.” The village voted unanimously against all mining activities.

The slightly larger community of Huispache lays on a hilltop a few kilometers from Tuijoj.

Most of the community’s adult population gathered in the town hall to carry on the consultation process.

Maria Adelina Paz, resident of Huispache, declared: “We want the [federal] government to listen and respect the decisions taken by Mayan communities. Unification breeds strength.”

Manos Gonzales, member of the Association for Peasant Integral Development of Concepción Tutuapa, declared: “In San Miguel Ixtahuacan [the municipality where most of the Marlin Mine sits] there is massive emigration towards the United States, Mexico, towards the coastal regions. The jobs which the mining company originally offered were a lie. In addition, the levels of alcoholism, prostitution and gang activity have all increased [since the mine arrived] – they are foreign ideas, social changes. And there still remain very high levels of poverty and illiteracy.”

Just like the inhabitants of Tuijoj, residents of Huispache firmly rejected metal mining activities in their territory.

“Today, a community plebiscite was carried out in all 64 communities of the municipality. Through this process, we as the population debated, reflected, and concluded that MINING ACTIVITIES DO NOT BENEFIT US IN ANY WAY. On the contrary, it condemns us to the total and irreplaceable loss of our natural heritage. As a result we have reached a consensus to reject the mining licenses granted by the Ministry of Energy and Mines to international corporations.” (5)

Edgar Garcia, member of the Project for Development in Santiago (PRODESSA), concluds: “The populations of San Miguel Ixtahuacan and Sipacapa were deceived. We don’t want that experience to repeat itself here. We want to rescue our environment, not lose it… We ask for the support of the international community. The people of Guatemala begin to uprise. We have been resisting for 500 years. Now we want to make proposals. To the international corporations, we ask you to let us decide regarding our own natural resources.”

Versión en español aquí.
In Japanese: 日本語で。

1 Weatherborn, J. “Consultas populares pierden terreno ante la CC”. Inforpress. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from: www.albedrio.org/htm/articulos/jw-002.htm
2 DesLauriers, D. “Guatemalan Gold Mine Opponents Try to Tarnish Glamis in Debate”. Resource Investor. Retrieved June 20, 2007 from:
www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=10518.
3 Solís, Fernando. “Caracterización de las elecciones generales 2007”. El Observador Electoral. Segunda época, No.1, p. 15. Guatemala, April 2007.
4 Communiqué released by the Committee for the Environment, Municipality of Concepción Tutuapa, San Marcos; February 13th, 2007.
5 Ibid