|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
No Agreement Reached After Three Days of Meetings Between Barrick Gold and Communities in the Dominican Republic
Guest blog by María Alejandra Torres García
In the Dominican Republic, Barrick Gold, a mining company, is proposing building a second dam to contain mine waste, which would mean six communities would have to relocate. These communities are already affected by polluted water and damaged crops. For months, the six communities at risk of resettlement for Pueblo Viejo’s proposed second tailings dam have been protesting the number of families that would be resettled and the compensation for their crops.
On November 16, 2024, Juana Barceló, the President of Barrick Gold Pueblo Viejo, invited a leader of the Communities Resettlement Commission, which represents the communities, to the last negotiation meeting from November 25th to the 27th. After three long days, no agreement on residence or compensation was reached. The Communities Resettlement Commission and Barrick Gold confirm that the meetings did not yield a solution. But they recount different stories.
On November 27th, a Commission leader circulated voice memo updates widely on WhatsApp and invited community members to a town hall to share a more detailed report of the negotiations. He explained that the compensation offers from Barrick Gold and the government were inadequate. He claimed that the company and government only offered 1,800 Dominican pesos (about $30 USD) per cacao tree, 80 Dominican pesos (about $1.30 USD) per pineapple tree, 4000 Dominican pesos (about $66 USD) per coconut palm tree, and 4,000 Dominican pesos per lime tree. According to community members, the minimum market price for a cacao tree should be around 4,000 Dominican pesos. The leader emphasized that most community members rely on growing cacao as their livelihood, adding, “Crops are our gold.” It was, therefore, impossible to reach an agreement.
The community leader claimed that the Commission acted in good faith and even lowered the community’s proposed prices for the communities during the negotiations, but Barrick went significantly lower. He shared there were foreigners in the meeting with decision-making power who could not speak Spanish.
On December 1st, the Commission gathered with impacted communities to discuss the negotiation meetings. There were over 50 people in attendance. Videos of the town hall were widely distributed on WhatsApp. One Commission leader shared that Graham Shuttleworth, Barrick Gold’s Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, was at the negotiations with an interpreter.
Responding to the compensation proposal, an impassioned community member proclaimed, “We’re not selling; we didn’t go looking for Barrick Gold. Barrick Gold came because it wants what’s ours.” Another community member expressed concerns over Barrick’s role in their dirty water and the evacuation of rich lands.
Many community members are outraged at what they believe to be falsehoods in Barrick’s position, memorialized in another Barceló letter dated November 29th and a press release dated November 30th. They question how the company could have engaged in good faith with them to resolve their concerns about compensation and the number of families that should be resettled, when Barrick began bringing heavy equipment––accompanied by soldiers––near their homes before any resettlement negotiation was reached.
This time Juana Barceló’s letter addresses all communities. Barceló characterizes the Commission’s compensation demands as “exorbitant,” “unjustified,” “unjust,” “unreasonable,” and not based on market price with “unjustified and hyperinflated tariffs.”
This letter, unlike the previous one, does not copy the Minister of Energy and Mines, and yet explains that “per the IFC Performance Standards, when a collective agreement cannot be reached, we will consider relying on the Constitution, the Law and the Dominican Tribunals to determine the just market price and land acquisitions.” The first group of homes to be relocated is expected by the end of the year, provided the roads are no longer blocked.
Barrick Gold’s subsequent press release repeats much of Barceló’s letter’s but includes two assertions that Barceló omits. The press release claims that Commission members intimidated landowners who reached an agreement with Pueblo Viejo. And: “Despite numerous engagements, collective agreement with the group. [sic] Pueblo Viejo, in line with the IFC Performance Standards Article 13, is advancing options with the Government of Dominican Republic to pursue involuntary resettlement through national legislation.”
In both forms of communication, Barrick broadly references the 2012 International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability, otherwise known as the IFC Performance Standards. Barrick fails to specify to which standards exactly it supposedly adheres, nor is “Article 13” easily identifiable. This vagueness seems antithetical to a company committed to a “fair resettlement process” by “working closely and transparently with those community members who will need to be resettled.” Perhaps it refers to the short paragraph labeled 13 (one of many) under Standard 5 on Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement, which reads: “In cases where affected persons reject compensation offers that meet the requirements of this Performance Standard and, as a result, expropriation or other legal procedures are initiated, the client will explore opportunities to collaborate with the responsible government agency, and, if permitted by the agency, play an active role in resettlement planning, implementation, and monitoring (see paragraphs 30–32).”
If so, then it is worth noting the objectives under Standard 5, which include:
- To avoid, and when avoidance is not possible, minimize displacement by exploring alternative project designs.
- To avoid forced eviction.
- To anticipate and avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimize adverse
social and economic impacts from land acquisition or restrictions on land use by (i) providing compensation for loss of assets at replacement cost and (ii) ensuring that resettlement activities are implemented with appropriate disclosure of information, consultation, and the informed participation of those affected. - To improve,or restore, the livelihoods and standards of living of displaced persons.
- To improve living conditions among physically displaced persons through the provision of adequate housing with security of tenure at resettlement sites.
Communities deserve to have the full scope of their rights realized, and resettlement negotiations must take this into account. Community members will be marching once again to Barrick’s office on December 10th in protest.
