Tag Archives: mining

Letter from Ecuador – where defending nature and community is a crime Updated for 2026





I have been an activist in Intag’s anti-mining struggle for two long decades. But it is impossible to understand my activism, without knowing where I live and what is at risk.

Knowing that I’ve lived in Ecuador’s Intag region since 1978 and that my home is surrounded by primary and secondary cloud forests of incredible biodiversity, clean rivers, waterfalls and stunningly beautiful vistas, will help.

Intag is also populated with some of the nicest people I have come across, all living in small, tight-knit agricultural communities. Until the mining companies came looking for copper, the area was peaceful with very low crime rates.

It is in this setting that I’ve raised my children, learned how to farm sustainably, and deepened my love for nature. In other words, this is a place I love and care for deeply.

This is the reason why I, and others like me, have fought so hard and for so many years to oppose the open-pit copper mine threatening us.

The recurring nightmare

It is December 13, 2013, and the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, lashes out against me in a nationally televised address in which he falsely accuses me of destabilizing his government.

He makes accusations related to a manual I co-authored to help communities understand what they face when large-scale mining companies come knocking at their door. The manual includes steps communities can take to minimize or avoid the impacts of mining.

 At the end of his speech, Correa asks his countrymen to “react” to this threat. Feeling threatened, I went into hiding for a few weeks.

90 days earlier, Correa gave a televised speech in which he named and broadcast photographs of me and several other activists who oppose the proposed open-pit copper mine that Intag has been fighting for the last two decades. He implied that a few foreigners (I am Cuban by birth and a US citizen) were impeding Ecuador’s development.

The December threats against me by Mr Correa attracted the attention of Amnesty International, prompting them to issue an International Action Alert to safeguard me.

But this was not the first time I had to go into hiding for my activism.

Flash​back to 2006

Now it is dawn, October 17 2006, and 19 heavily armed police are breaking into my home. A minute before, I received a warning phone call from a neighbour and was able to melt into the nearby forest and avoid arrest. Had it not been for the phone call, I would not be alive today to write this*1.

After intimidating my teenage son and a neighbour, the police ransacked my room looking for evidence meant to land me in jail. The police found nothing, though they did steal cash and a few valuables. Ironically, it’s been the only time I’ve been robbed in almost four decades of living in Intag.

Before the police left, a lone officer entered my home and ‘found’ a gun and a packet with something that looked like drugs. The planted evidence gave rise to another arrest warrant for illegal possession of a firearm: a serious crime carrying a minimum eight year jail term. Now I had two arrest warrants, and in order to avoid arrest, I went into hiding over a month.

Seven months after the raid I received an email from an insider at the mining company who told me that the ultimate goal of the police raid was to jail me and then have someone kill me there.

Two years later, the courts ruled that the lawsuit that kick-started the incident was malicious; filed by an American woman paid by the mining company. The alleged crime had been to steal her camera and money and instruct people to beat her up.

This incident was purported to have taken place in a public anti-mining demonstration in Ecuador’s capital amidst hundreds of protesters from Intag, with a squad of police looking on. Neither the District Attorney nor the judge involved in the case asked for a police report before ordering the arrest and search warrants.

A coordinated plan to neutralize opposition to mining

The raid, it turned out, was part of a plan to neutralize opposition to a copper mining concession in Intag. The plan was drawn up by Honor and Laurel, an international security firm. Two weeks after raiding my home, they sent in 50 paramilitaries with attack dogs, machetes and tear gas to try to access the mining concession.

The communities turned them back then, as they did again on December 2006 when even more paramilitaries came to the Junín community, this time armed with pepper spray, shotguns and .38 caliber guns. The confrontation was filmed and forms part of documentaries: ‘Under Rich Earth’, When Clouds Clear’ and ‘In the Open Sky – Rights Undermined‘.

Though I am one of those most targeted by the mining companies, I am not alone. Another case is that of Javier Ramírez, a campesino anti-mining leader from the Junín community who was recently released from jail after serving ten months for a crime he did not commit. Almost a year later, his brother Victor Hugo is still in hiding accused of the same crime.

Since 2012 Ecuador’s state-owned mining company, Enami, along with Codelco, the world’s largest copper producer, have been trying hard to continue where Bishimetals and the Canadian company Copper Mesa failed.

 For three years the companies have pretty much been following the script used by most mining and petroleum multinationals for steamrolling opposition. Offer everything to everyone: high paying jobs to key people; offer to improve basic infrastructure (like roads), and so forth. When that fails, the tactics get nastier.

Thus, just as the Canadians sent in their armed security firm in 2006, the Ecuadorian government sent in a 300-strong elite police force to intimidate the hell out of the communities.

Similarly to the timing of the raid on my home and the sending of the security to the communities, the police assault took place a few weeks after the arrest Javier Ramírez, who was president of the Junín community at the time.

Why do I oppose the mining?

To understand the struggle you need to know what is at stake. The cloud forests of Intag are adjacent to one of the world’s most biologically important protected area, the Cotacachi Cayapas Ecological Reserve, coming ahead of the Yasuní National Park in terms of irreplaceability.

Cloud forests make up less than 2.5% of the world’s tropical forest. Nonetheless these fragile ecosystems are centres of endemism and biodiversity and play an important role in conserving watersheds and maintaining the natural flow of rivers.

Based on a preliminary study undertaken for a small open-pit copper mine, the proposed mine threatens the whole Intag region with profound environmental and social upheaval.

The study for the small mine predicted, in their own words: “massive deforestation” which would lead to a process of “desertification”, contamination of rivers and streams with lead, arsenic and other heavy metals.

Subsequent impacts to primary forests would further endanger species already facing extinction; including jaguars, spectacled bears and brown-faced spider monkeys.

The study went onto say that the mine would impact the Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve, the only protected area of any significant size in Western Ecuador, and one of the planet’s most biologically important.

It also predicted some grim social impacts, including increased crime and the relocation of four communities. Junín, Javier Ramírez’s community, would be the first one to be wiped off the map. The year after these impacts were published, many times more copper was found in the region.

If the copper mining is allowed to go ahead, given the exceptional steep terrain of the mining site, the composition of the mining deposit, combined with the area’s high rainfall, the presence dozens of pristine rivers and streams as well as abundant underground aquifers and primary forests sheltering endangered mammals and other species, and the seismic risks, this would be one of the world’s most environmentally devastating mining projects. The threat could not be clearer nor grimmer.

Why bother?

I am often asked how I can keep opposing copper mining after so many years and so much harassment. The thought of Intag’s beauty, biological and cultural diversity vanishing, to be replaced by yet another open-pit mine haemorrhaging heavy metals is what sustains me.

In spite of the death threats, the incessant stress, the economic hardships, the witnessing of so much injustice and apathy, the short-sightedness of politicians, and being vilified by the highest elected official of a nation, I think it’s worth it.

I find the question of how I can keep opposing the mine baffling. I find it baffling because it is impossible for me to grasp that anyone who feels part of, and loves his community, and values the incredible cloud forests of Intag, would do anything else but defend it against such a clear and imminent threat.

The alternative is to pack up and leave. And I’m not about to do that.

 


 

Event: Carlos Zorrilla will be giving a talk about his work on 15th April for the Anglo Ecuadorian Society at the Institute of Latin American Studies, London. To book a place, please contact mpatlea@gmail.com.

Carlos Zorrilla is co-founder and Executive Director of DECOIN (Defensa y Conservación Ecológica de Intag).

Translated by Sarah Fraser (Rainforest Concern).

DECOIN’s work takes place within the cloud forests of northwest Ecuador, which form part of the most biodiverse of the world’s 36 Biological Hotspots. He is the author of several papers on development, large-scale mining and its impacts on communities and the environment and was principal author of the guide ‘Protecting your Communities Against Large Scale Mining and Other Extractive Industries’. DECOIN works in partnership with Rainforest Concern on cloud forest conservation projects in Ecuador.

Rainforest Concern is a UK Registered Charity, established to protect threatened natural forest habitats and the biodiversity they contain, together with the indigenous people who depend on them for survival. In its 21 year the charity has legally protected over 1.4 million hectares of threatened forest habitats, always engaging the local communities to protect their interests, and working closely with local conservation NGOs. Rainforest Concern has worked with 21 partner organisations in 12 countries: Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Romania, Costa Rica, Panama, India, Sri Lanka, Uganda and Suriname.

 

 




391586

Brazil – 10% of national parks and indigenous lands face mining threat Updated for 2026





All eyes are on Brazil following the re-election of Dilma Rousseff as president after an eventful campaign in which the strongly pro-environment candidate Marina Silva was squarely defeated.

Now, the country’s green credentials are seriously at risk. In a new report in the journal Science, researchers from Brazil and the UK (including myself) highlight the danger of new plans to allow mining and dams in protected areas and indigenous lands.

Congressional debates to approve or reject proposed legislation will decide if Brazil will retain its hard-won status as what The Economist calls “the world leader in reducing environmental degradation”.

The new government is at a crossroads: either maintain the integrity and long-term future of its globally significant ecosystems – or favour industrial interests by allowing 10% of even strictly protected areas to be mined.

While the proposals include mitigation measures (protecting land elsewhere) these are unrealistic and also inadequate because they fail to account for the indirect impacts of mines.

Developing mines and hydropower dams in protected areas would represent a reversal for Brazilian law-makers and a body blow to environmental agencies, credited with drastically reducing Amazonian deforestation over the past decade.

The gruesome twosomedamming and mining

Mega-projects have mega-impacts and in the Amazon, mining and damming go hand in hand. Mining is energy intensive and is one of the underlying reasons for Brazil developing dozens of large hydropower plants in Amazonia.

Hydroelectric dams can harm both society and the environment. For example, I was alarmed to see how severe flooding in Rondônia state this year led to economic paralysis and the spread of water-borne diseases in towns and countryside along the Madeira River.

The flooding of the Madeira in both Brazil and upriver in Bolivia was suspected to have been caused by the recently completed Jirau hydropower dam. Under current plans, very few protected areas will remain free from the influence of hydroelectric dams.

Mining projects such as the enormous Carajás iron ore mine in eastern Amazonia (see photo), powered by construction of the controversial Tucuruí dam in the 1970s, are only the tip of the iceberg. Mineral extraction in Brazil is poised to expand into what were previously considered no-go areas for industrial development.

Protected lands are a essential safeguard

Our research found that in the Amazon alone 34,117km2 of strictly protected areas and 281,443km2 of indigenous lands are in areas of registered mining interest. Forget football fields, this is an area larger than the whole of the UK.

The direct impacts of mines and dams are eclipsed by the indirect effects, as thousands of workers follow mega-development projects into protected areas. Rapid population growth in service towns causes urban areas, roads and farmland to expand into surrounding forests.

By 2000, Brazil had created the world’s largest protected area network, covering an enormous 2.2m km2 – an area the size of Greenland.

These parks have been highly effective. For example, by reducing deforestation rates to only 10-15% of those in surrounding areas, Brazil’s protected areas contribute to mitigating future climate change.

The beneficiaries of climate mitigation range from farmers in the south of Brazil who depend on Amazonia for their rainfall, to the poorest people in developing countries who stand to bear the brunt of global warming, sea-level rise and extreme climatic events.

Brazil’s protected areas go far beyond just saving the forests themselves and support traditional peoples, including rubber-tappers and Brazil-nut harvesters.

In addition, indigenous lands provide a safe space to maintain the traditions and cultures of the country’s 305 indigenous ethnic groups, including 69 uncontacted groups.

Brazil gets richer, but protected areas remain under-funded and under-staffed

Get-rich-quick mining is not a new threat to Brazil’s unique ecosystems. I have witnessed the decade-long struggle of a strictly protected area, the Jari Ecological Station in Pará, to remove illegal gold-mining from within its borders.

However, it is harrowing to now see 71% of the park (an area larger than Greater London) being under official consideration for mining operations. Even if ‘only’ 10% of the park is used for mining, indirect effects will change it for ever.

Relevant federal departments need adequate resources to ensure government decisions are made democratically and with reliable impact assessments. Chronic under-staffing in Brazil’s protected areas means that many lack basic information on baseline environmental conditions and diversity of plants and animals.

Buffer areas designed to protect parks from external threats are put at risk, and a lack of staffing and data puts ICMBio (the agency responsible for protecting parks) in a weak position from which to assess the potential impacts of dams or mining on the integrity of a park.

Brazil’s population is growing and increasingly wealthy, which means higher demands for energy and food. Some difficult decisions will have to be made.

However, environmental impact assessments and mitigation measures (in some cases impossible to achieve and in most cases not implemented anyway) surrounding proposed mega-projects have fallen short of international best practice and largely ignore indirect impacts.

I hope that Brazil reasserts its status as a leader of green development and does not legislate against her national treasures.

 


 

Luke Parry is Lecturer in Ecosystem Services, Lancaster Environment Centre at Lancaster University. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




386536

Latin American progressives and environmental duplicity Updated for 2026





What governments must do, now more than ever, is decisively leave resources in the ground, reject mining projects, resist the short-termist temptation of a fossil fuel fix.

Over the past 16 years, Latin America has undergone what has been termed a ‘pink tide‘. Since 1998, a wave of electoral victories has swept an unprecedented number of leftist governments to power across the region, from Sánchez Cerén in El Salvador to Bachelet in Chile.

For many, this shift has signalled an unravelling of neoliberal hegemony, and its replacement by emboldened new models of development, characterised by redistributive, progressive, anti-imperialist, and environmentalist politics.

Some of these perceptions are broadly accurate, but there has certainly been a gulf between the rhetoric of Latin American governments and their practical record.

Nowhere is this deficiency more blatant than in the environmental sphere. Latin American states, despite leading the charge at international climate summits, have rather different credentials at home

The overwhelming temptation of high resource prices

A key explanation for this asymmetry lies with the fact that the leftist surge coincided with an unprecedented commodity boom. Deftly managed, the boom brought historic windfall savings for governments, as they increased taxes on private oil firms and agribusiness, and nationalized particular industries.

Accordingly, public spending has increased significantly, allowing for heightened investment in healthcare, education, housing, culture, and social security.

While there have been important social gains, a starkly problematic result of this process is that leaders such as Correa, Maduro or Morales have deepened a model which depends on funding welfare and purchasing political legitimacy through extractive earnings.

Extractive industries make up over half of exports in Ecuador, where 44% of the government’s revenue stems from oil sales. In Peru, 70% of exports come from extractive industries, whereas in Bolivia, mining and fossil fuels account for 83% of traded goods.

This dependency shows no sign of abating, propelled by the shale revolution enveloping the region, which holds some of the world’s largest shale oil and gas reserves.

Aware of this endowment, most of Latin America’s governments, from Chile to Venezuela to Mexico, have either been assiduously exploring their territories for shale deposits, or have begun the process of extraction.

Amid widespread protests and public concerns, they defiantly wave away any apprehensions about downstream social and environmental consequences. Miguel Galuccio, CEO of the Argentine state energy firm YPF, assured everyone that any suggestion of environment impacts from the country’s shale fields was a “myth”.

With nearly 30% of international mining investment flowing into Latin America, dozens of open-cut mining projects are also under way. Even in Uruguay, the renowned progressive coalition lead by José Mujica opened the path to large-scale mining last year.

Obstacles to resistance

Despite vociferous resistance from indigenous communities and affected groups, effective opposition to these developments is encumbered by a number of obstacles.

Firstly, there is a dearth of political parties capable of disrupting what sociologist Maristella Svampa describes as the “commodity consensus”, an almost unanimous endorsement of extractivism across the partisan spectrum. This consensus is further bolstered by the proximity of petrochemical companies to governments.

Neither is there an entirely safe space for those willing to express dissent. Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental defenders. A Global Witness report noted that the rate of environmentalist killings has “dramatically increased … Three times as many people were killed in 2012 than 10 years before.”

Local opposition to ecologically destructive projects is often met by violent repression from state or private security forces. Recently, twenty-three Paraguayan farmers opposing the expansion of the industrial soya industry were injured after their protest was quelled by police.

Institutionalised environmentalist groups are regularly derided by public officials as extremist or traitorous, and are occasionally suppressed, exemplified by the forced closures of Acción Ecológica and the Pachamama Foundation in Ecuador.

With limited grievance mechanisms available for groups to voice their distress over project impacts, disputes are commonplace. According to the Environmental Justice Atlas, five Latin American states rank among the top ten most environmentally conflictive countries in the world.

Hydrocarbons – how can we afford not to develop them?

There is also a significant ideological impediment. Latin American leaders recurrently rationalize the exploitation of hydrocarbons as a developmental necessity, claiming they are merely obeying pragmatism.

When the Ecuadorian government abandoned its ground-breaking Yasuni-ITT Initiative, which encouraged the international community to compensate the country for refraining to exploit oil reserves in Yasuni National Park, President Rafael Correa justified the decision by arguing that

“We do not have another alternative, we need this money to end poverty.”

An analogous attitude is articulated by his Argentine counterpart Cristina Fernández, who has often declared her belief in a “contemporary and rational” form of environmentalism, based on an equilibrium between jobs and sustainability.

She clarified this position by arguing that while “it is noble to defend flora and fauna, it’s more important to take care of the human species so it has work, water, sewers … “

Yet the suggested dilemma between environmental protection and development is demonstrably false, ignoring a rich tradition of thinking about ecological development and sustainable economics.

Further, their arguments (and those of most Latin American leaders) depend on what we might call the ‘extractive illusion’, the belief that the intensive exploitation of natural riches will translate into societal wealth.

But much of the fortune accrued through extractivism leaves the country, and questions surround whether re-priming the economy is the best strategy for long-term prosperity. Extractivism after all, leaves countries heavily reliant on global commodity swings and dwindling resource pools.

Domestically, it locks them into a predatory model, one which depends on laying waste to nature and communities in the midst of ‘sacrifice zones‘.

Pushing back the extractive frontier

The blunt reality is that climate change and ecological stewardship have always been ancillary issues for Latin American governments.

For all the rhetorical embrace of sustainable economics and constitutional changes made to enshrine greater respect for nature, environmentalism remains little more than a discursive device, an instrument to carry favour with certain domestic consistencies and score points on the international scene.

Driven by a ‘compensation logic‘ which maintains that economic wealth is worth the damage wrought, they have pushed the extractive frontier further back than ever before.

Many of the aforementioned governments shirk their responsibility by making reference to international inequities, inveighing against the emissions impunity enjoyed by developed nations for centuries.

It is a truism that developing countries have borne and will bear the brunt of the toxic impacts of the industrial economy, despite contributing the least to the problem.

Government must leave resources in the ground!

But to publically advocate for the repayment of a climate debt is no longer enough; what governments must do, now more than ever, is decisively leave resources in the ground, reject mining projects, resist the short-termist temptation of a fossil fuel fix.

This need not be seen as restrictive. The global ecological crisis furnishes Latin American governments with a real opportunity to brandish their progressive credentials, to forge a unique, relevant model that enhances social justice whilst remaining in touch with the carrying capacity of our planet.

The region is uniquely posed to do this. According to the Inter-American Development Bank, Latin America boasts a renewable energy potential which could cover its projected electricity needs 22 times over.

Populated by a vibrant civil society and indigenous communities with multigenerational ecological knowledge, there is no shortage of actors who can help enact meaningful change.

There is also no more urgent time to act. As the ‘pink tide’ recedes and institutional politics return to the middle, environmental issues may begin to lose even their rhetorical relevance.

This can only be foreseeably challenged by broad and determined popular movements, ones which bolster those struggles already taking place, and hold administrations to account for their effusive pledges.

The possible penalties for inaction, both globally and in Latin America, are unimaginable.

 


 

Daniel Macmillen is a writer and activist. He tweets at @bywordlight.

This article was originally published by Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

Creative Commons License

 

 




378581