Deal #809

Location #1

Spatial accuracy level
Coordinates
Location
Choco, Colombia

Latitude
7.0451
Longitude
-76.6619
Target country
Colombia
Contract area
Comment on location
The polygons represent all the land under concession held by La Muriel Mining Company under this deal. It must be stated that not all the land is defined for cobber extraction, but some concessions are still under exploration schemes. Additionally, some contracts have already been suspended due to the intersection of the area with indigenous and collective afrocolombian territories.

Land area

Intended size (in ha)
16000
Size under contract (leased or purchased area, in ha)
[2004-12-28] 12000
Size in operation (production, in ha)
[2009, current] 4003
Comment on land area
The concession is located in a territory named Rio Murindo (and a forestal reserve), which belongs legally to indigenous communities from the Embera people. The Resguardo Uradá Jiguamiandó is one of the most important of the country. According to the Catastro minero (http://www.cmc.gov.co:8080/CmcFrontEnd/consulta/detalleExpedienteTitulo.cmc) only the contracts H6196 and H6197 are under execution.

Intention of investment

Intention of the investment
Mining
Comment on intention of investment
Copper, Gold, Molybdenum

Nature of the deal

Nature of the deal
Exploitation permit / license / concession (for mineral resources)

Negotiation status

Negotiation status
[2005] Concluded (Contract signed)
Comment on negotiation status
see comments in cell AU

Implementation status

Implementation status
[2009] In operation (production)
Comment on implementation status
The production was suspended in 2010 because the claims of indigenous community and NGO.

Contract #1

Contract number
FJF-081
Contract date
2004-12-28
Duration of the agreement (in years)
29
Comment on contract
Effective contract, currently suspended. Size: 2000 has

Contract #2

Contract number
FJF-082
Contract date
2004-12-28
Duration of the agreement (in years)
29
Comment on contract
Effective contract, but not under execution. Size: 2000 has

Contract #3

Contract number
FJF-085
Contract date
2005-01-28
Duration of the agreement (in years)
29
Comment on contract
Effective contract, but not under execution. Size: 1500 has

Contract #4

Contract number
FJF-086
Contract date
2005-01-28
Duration of the agreement (in years)
29
Comment on contract
Effective contract, but not under execution. Size: 1500 has

Contract #5

Contract number
FAE-081
Contract date
2004-12-28
Duration of the agreement (in years)
29
Comment on contract
Effective contract, but not under execution. Size: 1002 has

Contract #6

Contract number
H6196
Contract date
2005-02-04
Duration of the agreement (in years)
29
Comment on contract
Effective contract under explotation. Size: 2003 has

Contract #7

Contract number
H6197
Contract date
2005-02-04
Duration of the agreement (in years)
29
Comment on contract
Effective contract under explotation. Size: 2000has

Operating company

Comment on investment chain
The MMC is located in Denver, Colorado. It is owned by the Julliand family, who owns other mining companies and are present in various countries (like the Goldplata Ressources and its subsidiary the Goldplata Colombia). Since 2005, the MMC formed a jointventure with the giant world mining company Rio Tinto. The MMC seems to have used typical colonial tacticals toestablish itself in the indigenous reserve (as distriubting goods and money, co-opting leaders, making sign documents, etc.). According to the Agencia Nacional Minera, the contracts H6196 an H6197 are managed by La Muriel Mining Company and Rio Tinto Colombia

 

Network of parent companies and tertiary investors/lenders. Please right-click the nodes to get more details.

Legend
  • Is parent company of
  • Is tertiary investor/lender of
  • Left-click to reveal related parent companies and tertiary investors/lenders.
  • Right-click on investors to get more information.
  • Left-click to hide related parent companies and tertiary investors/lenders.

Data source #1

Data source type
Media report
File
Date
2010-01-01
Comment on data source
"Colombia: comunidades indígenas Embera defienden su vida de proyecto minero", by Guadalupe Rodríguez from Salva la Selva , march 2010

Data source #2

Data source type
Personal information
Includes in-country-verified information
Yes

Data source #3

Data source type
Media report
File

Data source #4

Data source type
Media report
File

Data source #5

Data source type
Media report
File

Data source #6

Data source type
Media report
File

Data source #7

Data source type
Media report
File

Data source #8

Data source type
Research Paper / Policy Report
File

Data source #9

Data source type
Government sources
Date
2014-11-12

Data source #10

Data source type
Government sources
Publication title
Sentencia Corte Suprema sobre Muriel Mining Company
Date
2009-05-27

Data source #11

Data source type
Government sources
Publication title
Auto 053/12
Date
2012-03-12

Data source #12

Data source type
Government sources

Recognitions status of community land tenure

Recognition status of community land tenure
Indigenous Peoples traditional or customary rights recognized by government
Community traditional or customary rights recognized by government

Consultation of local community

Community consultation
Limited consultation
Comment on consultation of local community
The local communities assert that the company did not do a proper or even legal consultation. They argue that the people that signed the documents for the previous consultation required under Colombian legislation did not even live in the area of influence of the project. Additionally, they argue that they were pressed under different mechanisms to sign those documents. It seems that the company has tried to bribe some members of the company to sigh the mining permits. http://www.biodiversidadla.org/Documentos/Colombia_comunidades_indigenas_Embera_defienden_su_vida_de_proyecto_minero https://cdn.dejusticia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/fi_name_recurso_534.pdf

How did the community react?

Community reaction
Rejection

Presence of land conflicts

Presence of land conflicts
Yes
Comment on presence of land conflicts
In 2009 there was a militarization of the area by the national army. A few months after the judgment by the Constitutional Court, there was a bombing the by the air force, resulting in some injured people and the murder of a baby.

Displacement of people

Displacement of people
Yes
Comment on displacement of people
o The Colombian Constitutional Court of Justice has signaled the embera communities in constant danger of displacement due to those mining mega projects in their areas.

Negative impacts for local communities

Negative impacts for local communities
Environmental degradation
Displacement
Violence

Promised or received compensation

Promised compensation (e.g. for damages or resettlements)
The company promised the improvement of road infrastructure and reforestation in the area of influence. https://www.business-humanrights.org//sites/default/files/reports-and-materials/Sentencia-Corte-Suprema-Colombia-sobre-Muriel-Mining-27-mayo-2009.pdf

Promised benefits for local communities

Promised benefits for local communities
Roads
Other
Comment on promised benefits for local communities
Reforestation

Presence of organizations and actions taken (e.g. farmer organizations, NGOs, etc.)

Presence of organizations and actions taken (e.g. farmer organizations, NGOs, etc.)
Christian Aid

Former land owner (not by constitution)

Former land owner
Community

Former land use

Former land use
Smallholder agriculture
Forestry
Conservation
Other

Former land cover

Former land cover
Cropland
Forest land

Detailed crop, animal and mineral information

Resources area
Copper, Molybdenum, Gold

Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT)

Application of Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT)
No
Comment on VGGT
It seems that the company bribed some members of the community (some were not even members of the community) to obtain the permits for the extraction of the minerals. The community is in danger of displacement and suffered from a bombing by the air force in 2009.

Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investments (PRAI)

Application of Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investments (PRAI)
No
Comment on PRAI
It seems that the company bribed some members of the community (some were not even members of the community) to obtain the permits for the extraction of the minerals. The community is in danger of displacement and suffered from a bombing by the air force in 2009.

Overall comment

Overall comment
Import of error check - Coordinator's overview comment: Issue with size. Review all comments. Import of error check - Reviewer's overview comment: The issue is about the size and the actual state of the concession. It seems that the majority oil concession are in indigenous territories (which are generally the most biodiverse and preserved regions). As indigenous people often oppose themselves to exploitation and extractive industrial projects, they are often the victims of private and state violence because this project are considered as strategic and they generate a lot of money. As in the case 805 with U'Wa people, the Embera's right to be consulted and to refuse the exploitation of his territory was denied. As in the case of the U'Wa, judicial instances took decisions in favor of the entreprise against indigenous inhabitants. As in the case of the U'Wa and other similar, the oil company's implantation is protected by the national army. In the case of the Embera, this "protection" seems to have gone forward: on 30.01.2010, the Alto Guayabal community was bombarded by the army. The same had occured in 2000, and provoked the displacement of the community, who returned in 2008. The displacement of local populations permits to expand extractive activities easily. In Juanary 2009, the columbian Constitutional Court declared Embera people as threatened by displacement and desintegration because of armed conflict, the same as other 34 indigenous peoples.

June 18, 2019, 1:07 p.m.

overwritten

This version

Compare with previous version

May 14, 2018, 9:55 p.m.

overwritten

Show this version

Compare with previous version

April 4, 2016, 6:55 a.m.

overwritten

Show this version

Compare with previous version

March 30, 2016, 1:41 a.m.

overwritten

Show this version

Compare with previous version

March 27, 2013, 6:17 p.m.

overwritten

Show this version

Compare with previous version

Feb. 15, 2013, 5 p.m.

active

Show this version

First version

There are no comments to this deal yet.

Add a comment

(mandatory)
(mandatory)
(mandatory)

I've read and agree to the Data Policy.