The following is a letter written to the World Bank on the investment of the IFC in Glamis' Guatemal

The following is a letter written to the World Bank on the investment of the IFC in Glamis' Guatemalan gold project. It specifically draws attention to the reported undermining of the prior, informed consent of the local communities involved with Glamis Gold.

Letter to the World Bank (UK Executive Director) from Indigenous Peoples Links on the IFC investment in Glamis Gold

20th January 2005

Dear Mr. Scholar,

I am writing with regard to the recent events involving Glamis Gold in Guatemala. As you are aware the International Finance Corporation's has agree to lend $45 million to Glamis to develop the Marlin mine in San Marcos Department, despite written opposition to the mine project by organizations representing local Maya indigenous people, among others. We view the granting of this loan in the context of an intended increase in IFC investment in mining, apparently in direct contravention of the recommendations of the Bank's own Extractive Industries Review.

In May 2004, Guatemalan organizations called on the World Bank Group to delay approval of the Marlin Mine in order to allow time for a number of outstanding issues to be resolved. The Guatemalan groups argued that more consultation was necessary and that large segments of the local population did not support the project. Rather than following this advice, or assertaining its validity, the World Bank Group approved the project on schedule in June 2004. The Bank Group argued that "the project enjoys the significant support of the local indigenous communities" and that consultations with the local population had been adequate.

In response to the World Bank Group's Extractive Industries Review, the Bank Group stated that it would only support mining projects that enjoyed the "broad community support" from affected populations (as well as having clear poverty alleviating impacts). Yet in this case the local communities continue to raise concerns that they have not been properly consulted. It is our understanding that when some of the people, who are on lists provided by the company to the IFC of those supposedly consulted, were interviewed by civil society representatives they did not believe they had been consulted. They conceded that maybe they had been informed about mining in general, or mine related tree farm projects, etc, but had not entered into any kind of good faith informative or meaningful consultation.

We understand that the company are claiming, and the IFC concurring, that the process was a free and fair 'consultation', and that it complied with ILO Convention 169. From all the information we have this process seems rather to be nothing more than 'engineered consent', which ignores the reality and the real sense of the spirit, or acceptable practice of, free, prior and informed consent as preceived by indigenous organisations. Neither does it confirm with the spirit of ILO Convention 169, where consultation is not a one time vote yes or no, but rather a permanent process of engagement in an open and informative manner throughout the life of the project.

As you will also be aware this issue surrounding acceptance or rejection of the mine has recently become more contentious owing to the tragic death of at least one protestor, and the injuring of ten more (six at present still in hospital, one in grave condition), in a conflict over equipment for the mine passing through Los Encuentros, Sololá. Despite claims by the Guatemalan authorities witnesses attest that the wounds were caused by shots fired by the police and army.

It is our understanding that the IFC will shortly be sending a delegation to Guatemala City to investigate the above incident. Given this we respectfully request that the IFC:-

1) visit the communities at Marlin for themselves - including those that have declared their opposition to the project as well as those that supposedly support it;
2) coordinate their visit with the organisations and communities directly and not use the Ministry of Energy and Mines as their sole liaison;
3) meet with the Catholic Bishop of San Marcos and his staff regarding this project and
4) verify or audit the claimed results of the "consultation" that was performed by the company.

Finally we would request the IFC to explain why, given that they were informed of the conflict a month before the clash between campesinos and the government forces, they did not visit the project to investigate. Such an intervention may have helped prevent the violence and loss of life that has followed.

Sadly given recent events, as well as aforementioned claims of 'engineered consent', this project will now inevitably be a future flashpoint for conflict and hostility. We feel the IFC therefore should reconsider its commitment and withdraw promised funds to a project now so directly associated with violence and lacking full community acceptance, which the Bank now claims is the essential minimum for its involvement in an extractive project.

We trust that the decisions of the IFC will be guided above all by the interests and wishes of the affected populations and will therefore seek to avert any future conflict or bloodshed.