In January 2021, international and Colombian organizations filed several formal complaints about Cerrejon mine with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD first issued voluntary guidelines for responsible business conduct by multinational enterprises nearly half a century ago.
The complainants listed Ireland's state-owned Electricity Supply Board, which has in the past bought Cerrejon coal; the Dublin-based Coal Marketing Company, which sells it; and the mine's owners, Glencore, BHP and Anglo American. The aim was to force the Irish companies to suspend their relationship with Cerrejon, and for the three owners to recognise their liability and provide redress.
The complainants also noted the mine-owning companies' announcement that they would sell their shares. "There needs to be an assessment of business conduct," the complainants wrote, "as well as the environmental and social liabilities left by these companies prior to their departure from the country, to avoid compounding corporate impunity."
In response, Cerrejon published a statement where it said it was "committed to operating in adherence to Colombian legislation and judicial rulings as well as the appropriate international guidelines governing human and environmental rights."
In January, Ireland's Electricity Supply Board told the Financial Times that it was unaware of any complaint being filed under OECD guidelines.
"ESB confirms that it purchased coal from the Cerrejon mine in the past. In the period 2015-2018 ESB purchased just over two per cent of the coal mine's output. ESB purchased no coal from Cerrejon in 2019 or 2020," read the statement.
Peru: protest and police crackdowns
One of Glencore's most important projects in Peru is the Antapaccay mine in Espinar province, in the southern highlands region of Cusco. In 2018, Antapaccay produced over 200,000 tonnes of copper, nearly 45,000 kilograms of silver and more than 4.1 million grams of fine gold.
Mining activity in Espinar began more than three decades ago and over time, there has been increasing conflict over alleged water, air and soil contamination. In December 2019, a court in Espinar ruled on the heavy metal contamination of the area and the effect it was having on the local population. It was recognition, albeit delayed, of years of struggle by rural communities and campaign groups to focus attention on their demands. But the state's apathy and the mining companies' indifference has led to several tense stand-offs, with notable conflicts in 2012 and 2020.
In 2012, police and protesters clashed over Peru's Las Bambas copper mine, leaving four people dead, several injured and many others under arrest. An investigation by the National Human Rights Coalition of Peru found that the country's police was secretly collaborating with mining companies to protect their economic interests and prosecute those who led protests against the status quo.
Conflict has continued in Espinar, most recently in July 2020, at the height of the pandemic. Over a two-month period, people demanded financial help, in addition to the usual requests pertaining to their health and the environment. A single one-off payment of 1,000 Soles (roughly $265) should be given to every adult in the area, they said, from the 3% of the company's profits that are meant to go to the province, under the terms of the so-called "framework agreement". But Glencore refused, leading to protests that were eventually suppressed by the police. Peru's police violated human rights and engaged in ill-treatment and torture of the protestors, according to a report by the National Human Rights Coaltion of Peru.
Glencore has plans for expansion in Espinar through its new Coroccohuayco project, for which the communities have been demanding consultation in accordance with international standards. It could, on past form, be the trigger for another 25 years of conflict.
And then there is Cerro de Pasco, several hundred kilometers to the north-west of Espinar and sometimes known as Peru's mining capital. The Peruvian media outlet Ojo Publico has written about high levels of lead in the blood of local children and health problems such as anemia, learning difficulties, headaches, nosebleeds, or even leukaemia.
Bolivia: a million-dollar lawsuit
Glencore's operations in Bolivia are managed by two mining companies, Sinchi Wayra and Illapa. Together they control tin, zinc, silver and lead mining in the Oruro and Potosi departments.
In November 2020, Public Eye released a report describing the dangerous way in which zinc, lead and silver is extracted from the Porco mine in Potosi. Some of this is sold to Sociedad Minera Illapa, a Glencore subsidiary. There have been allegations that children and teenagers are employed in Porco, though Glencore has denied it.
The setup has also been criticised for freeing Glencore of its labour and environmental responsibilities, which are outsourced to local subsidiaries. Accidents are very common, and according to a local doctor, over the past four years, an average of 20 mineworkers were killed each year, including some minors.
The mine may also be polluting rivers in the area and affecting agricultural activities and the health of the local population, according to studies by the municipality of Porco. Laboratory samples from the river confirm excessive amounts of zinc, iron and manganese in the water, which can cause damage to vital organs as well as cognitive problems for those who drink it.
Accidents are very common at the Porco mine, with reports of 20 fatalities each year, including some minors.
In March this year, Glencore seemed to want to sell or explore partnerships for several assets in South America, including Sinchi Wayra and Illapa.
Glencore is also embroiled in a legal dispute in Bolivia over the government's nationalisation of three of its four assets in the country. In 2007, the Bolivian government of president Evo Morales nationalized Glencore's Vinto tin smelter.
In 2012, it revoked Glencore's license and handed the Colquiri zinc and lead mine to state mining company Comibol. In the same year it also seized Glencore's antimony operation.
Glencore is demanding $675m in compensation and some reports suggest the figure could have risen to nearly $800m, or roughly a quarter of Bolivia's 2021 health budget.
The pandemic has delayed the case, something that more than 650 organizations around the world have said is right and proper, especially while fighting the "COVID-19 crisis", in order that states could focus their capacity on pandemic response.
Climate change: a just transition?
Glencore has already said it wants to limit coal extraction and reduce its carbon emissions in response to the climate crisis.
What's more, its outgoing CEO, Ivan Glasenberg, has said the demand for copper will multiply by 2050, as will that for zinc, nickel and cobalt - metals that are all needed for the transition to cleaner and renewable energy sources.
Glencore already produces these metals in significant quantities. A responsible transition would mean respecting the environment and the rights of local communities. It would also mean questioning the economic model of hyper-production and over-consumption, and how it links into the ecological crisis. Anything less would mean that the proposed transition is nothing more than a good business deal.
For years activists have documented Glencore's impact on the ground, but it has not been enough. One way to force companies like Glencore to behave responsibly is to introduce nationally and internationally legally binding instruments such as the Swiss Responsible Business Initiative, and the UN Binding Treaty on Transnational Business and Human Rights.
The UN: waiting for agreement
This is the seventh year of negotiations for the UN Binding Treaty on Transnational Business and Human Rights. Raffaele Morgantini, an activist with CETIM and the UN's Global Campaign to Dismantle Corporate Power, says in an interview that the main challenge lies in enabling the treaty to do what it is meant to.
He adds that what is currently on the negotiating table is "a draft treaty whose content fits the proposals and interests of the lobbies of transnationals and their political allies". Consequently, it risks becoming "toothless".
One of the fundamental issues, says Morgantini, is that "the current draft treaty does not provide for direct obligations on transnationals, but only obligations on states". This is a problem because companies can often be richer and more powerful than states themselves. If there is a lack of political will or sufficient technical capacity to regulate transnationals, they can escape the jurisdiction of states or simply evade all accountability by commercial blackmail and so on.
"We have to establish direct obligations on transnationals to respect human rights," says Morgantini. "And if they do not, it is necessary to have binding legal mechanisms to bring them to trial and sanction them."
The Global Campaign proposes the creation of an international court where states and civil society organizations can file complaints against transnationals about human rights violations. "We need to strike a balance between the need to go fast, because affected communities need that treaty," says Morgantini, while making sure that its content "can really help communities."
