Mining Reform in Mexico: Will It Protect Nature and Indigenous People?

Mining Reform in Mexico: Will It Protect Nature and Indigenous People?

Editor’s Note; It is important to understand the difference between a reform and a revolution in any political movement. A reform aims to tweak some aspects of the system to make it more equitable, fair and just. A revolution, on the other hand, changes the overall structure of the system. DGR, as a radical environmental and a radical feminist organization, believes that reforms are not enough in a system that is inherently rooted in oppression and injustice. We believe that a revolution is necessary to remove that deep rooted structural violence. However, we also understand that a revolution requires political organizing at a much larger scale. While we are working on building that political movement, the natural world is being destroyed. Till then, something needs to be done to protect the pieces of natural world that we have left, no matter how small. That is where reforms contribute. We understand the perseverance and diligence it takes to bring about any reform and appreciate those who are working on it. Below is the story of such a movement. Though originally designed to be much more protective of nature and indigenous people, the mining laws in Mexico were modified to be much less than that by the time they were passed. The US is still ruled by the Mining Law of 1872.


By Maxwell Radwin/Mongabay

  • Reforms to Mexico’s mining law limit harmful practices by extractive industries and improve protections for the environment and Indigenous peoples. But they’re also a far cry from the change activists had been hoping for.
  • Under the new reform, Indigenous communities will receive 5% of a mining operation’s profits. The maximum lifespan of mining concessions is also reduced from 100 years to 80.
  • Concessions will no longer be granted in areas with water shortages or in protected areas. Currently, there are 1,671 mining concessions in 70 protected areas in Mexico, spreading across 1.5 million hectares (3.7 million acres) of preserved land.

MEXICO CITY — A major reform approved by congress last week is supposed to limit harmful practices by the mining industry and improve protections for the environment and Indigenous peoples. But some parts of the reform faced strong resistance from pro-business interests, resulting in a watered-down version that some environmentalists said doesn’t go far enough.

The reform, originally introduced by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador at the end of March, was designed to make it harder for private companies to obtain mining concessions without accounting for impacts on surrounding ecosystems and local communities.

It establishes free and prior consent as a requirement for mining concessions, meaning that companies must meet with residents to discuss the impacts of their projects before receiving permits. It also requires companies to restore the land once a mine closes.

But some of the most impactful components of the proposal were negotiated down. Payment to Indigenous communities living near mining operations was originally supposed to be 10% of mining profits but lawmakers reduced it to 5%.

There was also debate about the length of mining concessions, which the previous version of the law set at up to 100 years. Although the original reform proposal wanted to limit it to just 30 years, effectively preventing the companies from shaping entire regions for the long term, lawmakers ultimately settled on 80 years.

“These topics were suppressed or modified without justification and under pressure from the business interests that are responsible for social and environmental devastation,” Colectiva Cambiémosla Ya and Alliance for Free Determination and Autonomy, two mining activist groups, said in a statement ahead of the senate vote.

Deputy Ignacio Mier Velazco, from the state of Puebla — who explained that the reforms were changed to avoid risking investment and economic development — said he was confident the version that was passed would still improve oversight of the industry. Many activists in the region agreed, telling Mongabay the reforms were a victory that allowed for some positive change and a way forward for the continued fight against mining.

Mexico’s mining industry has experienced rapid growth since 1992, when the original mining law was passed. The country has become a top exporter of silver, zinc and other important minerals. In the 1980s, less than 1% of Mexican territory was under a mining concession. Now, it’s a little more than 8%, according to the president’s reform proposal.

The private sector made a push to stall the vote when the initiative was introduced last month, accusing the president’s party, Morena, of fast-tracking the process before the end of legislative sessions in April. The Confederation of Industrial Chambers of Mexico (Concamin) and Association of Mining Engineers, Metallurgists and Geologists of Mexico (AIMMGM) called for additional dialogue with lawmakers. Credit rating agency Moody’s argued that limitations on the length of concessions could hinder growth in the sector. Officials in Canada expressed concern about whether the reforms would impact investments and Mexico’s commitment to international trade agreements. A senate commission that needed to approve the proposal even declared a recess in order to delay voting just days before the end of the legislative session. But the proposal was eventually approved on the final day with a vote of 66 in favor and zero against because the opposition wasn’t present to vote.

Other major changes

Under the original mining law, companies could easily buy up land because extractives activities were listed as having a higher economic benefit than sectors like agriculture and tourism. Now, mining companies no longer have preferential treatment and will have to compete with those industries through a public bidding process.

Companies are also held more accountable for pollution and land use changes. They will receive warnings and suspensions for environmental damage, during which time they’ll be required to correct the issue or else risk having their concessions cancelled altogether. This includes ensuring the safety of workers on-site.

“Communities continue to live in poverty despite being in areas that are very rich in gold, silver and other precious minerals,” said Beatriz Olivera, the general director of Engenera, an environmental and social advocacy NGO. “What we are going to see now is that companies can’t continue operating so irresponsibly on the part of employees.”

The reform bans exploration and extraction in areas with proven water shortages, underwater and in protected areas.

Currently, there are 1,671 mining concessions in 70 protected areas in Mexico, with an overlapping area of around 1.5 million hectares (3.7 million acres), according to the Ministry of Economy. Fourteen of those mining concessions overlap with protected area core zones.

Eleven mine sites labeled as “highly contaminated” by the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources were located within protected areas in 2019, the most recent year that the data is available.

Over half of the core zone in the Sierra de Manantlán Biosphere Reserve, or around 22,000 hectares (54,000 acres), overlaps with five mining concessions. The Zicuirán Infiernillo Biosphere Reserve has 12 mining concessions covering over 12,000 hectares (29,600 acres) of its core zone.

“It’s a big, big advance,” said Manuel Llano, Director of Carto Crítica, an NGO for environmental and social rights. “The prohibition of mining in protected areas will change what has been happening up until now, which was that land and water were being concessioned and operated on without concern.”

 

Photo by Dominik Vanyi on Unsplash

Fallen 200: Land Defenders Murdered in 2021

Fallen 200: Land Defenders Murdered in 2021

Editor’s note: Land defenders, especially indigenous land defenders, are at risk across the world, more so in some places than others. In their fight to protect their communities and their land, they directly confront structures of power, challenging the powerful’s sense of entitlement. In order to maintain the status quo, the powerful employ any means necessary to silence the resistors. In some places, this may take the form of political and legal attack, in others, this may lead to murder. Either way, the objective of such repression is not merely to silence one voice, but to set an example, to shut down those hundreds of voices which may have been raised in resistance. This strategy has been used through history.

Even so, resistance lives on. Where the repression becomes strong, defenders find new ways to adapt to their political situation and to continue fighting the powerful. Statistics say that one land defender is killed every two days. While it is necessary to hold the states accountable for these unlawful killings, it is also important for defenders to take measures to protect themselves. This may include being familiar with the laws of one’s region, or to learn self-defense, or whatever is appropriate for one’s situation. Following rules of security culture may help in increasing security for defenders.


“I could tell you that, around the world, three people are killed every week while trying to protect their land, their environment, from extractive forces. I could tell you that this has been going on for decades, with the numbers killed in recent years hitting over 200 each year. And I could tell you, as this report does, that a further 200 defenders were murdered in the last year alone. But these numbers are not made real until you hear some of the names of those who died.” – Dr. Vandana Shiva

“This story was originally published by Grist. You can subscribe to its weekly newsletter here.”

By Joseph Lee/Grist

In Brazil, two Yanomami children drowned after getting sucked into a dredging machine used by illegal gold miners. A 14 year old Pataxó child was shot in the head during a conflict over land in the northeastern Bahia state. A Guarani Kaiowá person was killed by military police during a clash over a farm the Guarani had reclaimed from settlers. “There has been an increase in the amount of conflict – socio and environmental conflict – in our lands,” said Dinamam Tuxá, of the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), Brazil’s largest coalition of Indigenous groups. ”It’s destroying communities and it’s destroying our forests.”

Between 2011 and 2021, at least 342 land defenders were killed in Brazil – more than any other country – and roughly a third of those murdered were Indigenous or Afro-descendant. That’s according to a new report by Global Witness, an international human rights group, that documents over 1,700 killings of land and environment defenders globally during the same time period. The report says that on average, a land defender is killed every other day, but suggests that those numbers are likely an undercount and paints a grim picture of violence directed at communities fighting resource extraction, land grabs, and climate change.

“We will continue to protest, we will continue to show up.” -Dinamam Tuxá, APIB

“All over the world, Indigenous peoples, environmental activists, and other land and environmental defenders risk their lives for the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss,” reads the report. “They play a crucial role as a first line of defense against ecological collapse, yet are under attack themselves facing violence, criminalisation and harassment perpetuated by repressive governments and companies prioritizing profit over human and environmental harm.”

After Brazil, the Philippines and Colombia recorded the most killings: 270 and 322, respectively. Together all three countries make up more than half of the attacks recorded in the global report.

In the Philippines, Indigenous and local environmental activists have been fighting huge infrastructure projects like the Kaliwa Dam and the Oceana Gold Mine, both of which Indigenous leaders say threaten their land and the environment. According to Global Witness, over 40% of the defenders killed in the Philippines were Indigenous peoples.

“It’s clear that the government has not taken this crisis seriously,” said Jon Bonifacio, national coordinator at Palikasan People’s Network for the Environment. “This statistic has not been recognized in any way by the Philippine government, despite the crucial role environmental defenders play in the fight against climate change.”

According to Global Witness, those statistics are uncertain due to a lack of free press and other independent monitoring systems around the world and other types of violence are also not counted in the report. “We know that beyond killings, many defenders and communities also experience attempts to silence them, with tactics like death threats, surveillance, sexual violence, or criminalization – and that these kinds of attacks are even less well reported,” Global Witness said.

An April report from the nonprofit Business and Human Rights Resource Centre documented some of those other tactics, tracking 3,800 attacks, including killings, beatings, and death threats, against land defenders since January 2015. But even those numbers aren’t the complete picture. “We know the problem is much more severe than these figures indicate,” Christen Dobson, senior program manager for the BHRRC and an author of the report said at the time.

The Global Witness report’s authors say governments should enforce laws that already protect land defenders, pass new laws if necessary, and hold companies to international human rights standards. Global Witness also says companies should respect international human rights like free, prior, and informed consent, implement zero-tolerance policies for attacks on land defenders, and adopt a rights-based approach to combating climate change. The report specifically calls on the European Union to strengthen its proposed corporate sustainability due diligence law by adding a climate framework and more accountability measures for financial institutions.

While international advocacy offers some hope for Indigenous leaders on the front lines, those leaders also know that they have to keep fighting to protect their land, lives, and environment. In Brazil, resistance to Indigenous land demarcation and advocacy for resource extraction in the Amazon pushed by President Jair Bolsonaro, has led to record deforestation in the Amazon since he took office in 2019. Dinamam Tuxá and other Indigenous leaders in Brazil are hopeful that the upcoming presidential election may lead to change, but remain skeptical. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the former president and current leading candidate, has promised better treatment for Indigenous peoples in Brazil but Tuxá says that Indigenous peoples cannot rest all their hopes on politicians.

“President Lula would not solve the problems of Indigenous peoples,” Tuxá said. “Regardless of who gets elected we will continue to protest, we will continue to show up.”


Names of environmentalists murdered in 2021, by country

By Elisabeth Schneiter / Facebook

“Joannah Stutchbury loved trees, practiced permaculture, was an environmentalist, and bravely advocated for the environment, with a fiery and unwavering passion.” And she was wonderfully crazy and full of life and joy to be alive. She was shot dead on her way home in the outskirts of Nairobi, Kenya, in July 2021. “

Argentina

  1. Elías Garay

Bolivia

  1. Lino Peña Vaca

Brazil

  1. Aldenir dos Santos Macedo
  2. Alex Barros Santos da Silva
  3. Amaral José Stoco Rodrigues
  4. Amarildo Aparecido Rodrigues
  5. Ângelo Venicius Henrique Mozer
  6. Antônio Gonçalves Diniz
  7. Eliseu Pedroso
  8. F.S.S.
  9. Fernando dos Santos Araújo
  10. Getúlio Coutinho dos Santos
  11. Isac Tembé
  12. Jerlei
  13. João de Deus Moreira Rodrigues
  14. José do Carmo Corrêa Júnior
  15. José Francisco de Souza Araújo
  16. José Vane Guajajara
  17. Kevin Fernando Holanda de Souza
  18. Marcelo Chaves Ferreira
  19. Maria da Luz Benício de Sousa
  20. Maria José Rodrigues
  21. Rafael Gasparini Tedesco
  22. Reginaldo Alves Barros
  23. Roberto Muniz Campista
  24. Roberto Pereira da Silva Pandolfe
  25. Sidinei Floriano Da Silva
  26. Wagner Romão da Silva

Chile

  1. Jordan Liempi Machacan

Colombia

  1. Ángel Miro Cartagena
  2. Argenis Yatacué
  3. Aura Esther García Peñalver
  4. Cristian Torres Cifuentes
  5. Danilo Torres
  6. Dilio Bailarín
  7. Edwin Antonio Indaburo
  8. Efrén España
  9. Fermiliano Meneses Hoyos
  10. Fredy Pestana Herrera
  11. Gonzalo Cardona Molina
  12. Ilia Pilcué Yule
  13. Jaime Enrique Basilio Basilio
  14. Jair Adán Roldán Morales
  15. Jhon Alberto Pascal
  16. Jhon Edward Martinez
  17. John Albeiro Paí Pascal
  18. José Riascos
  19. José Santos López
  20. Juana Panesso Dumasá
  21. Luis Alfonso Narváez Escobar
  22. Marcelino Yatacué Ipia
  23. Marcos Fidel Camayo Guetio
  24. Nazaria Calambás Tunubalá
  25. Noel Corsini Zúñiga
  26. Rafael Domicó Carupia
  27. Remberto Arrieta Bohórquez
  28. Rogelio López Figueroa
  29. Sandra Liliana Peña Chocué
  30. Víctor Orlando Mosquera
  31. Wilson de Jesús López
  32. Yarley Margarito Salas
  33. Yordan Eduardo Guetio

Democratic Republic of Congo

  1. Alexis Kamate Mundunaenda
  2. Emery Bizimana Karabaranga
  3. Eric Kibanja Bashekere
  4. Etienne Mutazimiza Kanyaruchinya
  5. Innocent Paluku Budoyi
  6. Prince Nzabonimpa Ntamakiriro
  7. Reagan Maneno Kataghalirwa
  8. Surumwe Burhani Abdou

Ecuador

  1. Andrés Durazno
  2. Nange Yeti
  3. Víctor Enrique Guaillas Gutama

Gabon

  1. Jean François Ndong Abaume

Guatemala

  1. Alberto Tec Caal
  2. Emilio Aguilar Jiménez
  3. Ramón Jiménez
  4. Regilson Choc Cac

Honduras

  1. Celenia Bonilla
  2. David Fernando Padilla
  3. Juan Carlos Cerros Escalante
  4. Juan Manuel Moncada
  5. Martín Abad Pandy
  6. Nelson García
  7. Óscar Javier Pérez
  8. Víctor Martínez

India

  1. Kawasi Waga
  2. Daljeet Singh
  3. Gurvinder Singh
  4. Lavepreet Singh
  5. Maynal Haque
  6. Nakshatra Singh
  7. Saddam Husaain
  8. Sheikh Farid
  9. Stan Swamy
  10. T Shridhar
  11. Uika Pandu
  12. Ursa Bhima
  13. Venkatesh S
  14. Vipin Agarwal

Kenya

  1. Joannah Stutchbury

Mexico

  1. Alejandro García Zagal
  2. Artemio Arballo Canizalez
  3. Benjamín Pórtela Peralta
  4. Braulio Pérez Sol
  5. Carlos Marqués Oyorzábal
  6. David Díaz Valdez
  7. Donato Bautista Avendaño
  8. Fabián Sombra Miranda
  9. Fabián Valencia Romero
  10. Federico de Jesús Gutiérrez
  11. Fidel Heras Cruz
  12. Flor de Jesús Hernández
  13. Gerardo Mendoza Reyes
  14. Gustavo Acosta Hurtado
  15. Heladio Molina Zavala
  16. Irma Galindo Barrios
  17. Isaías Elacio Palma
  18. Isidoro Hernández
  19. Jacinto Hernández Quiroz
  20. Jaime Jiménez Ruiz
  21. Jesús Solórzano Díaz
  22. Jordán Terjiño Luna
  23. José Ascensión Carrillo Vázquez
  24. José de Jesús Robledo Cruz
  25. José de Jesús Sánchez García
  26. José Santos Isaac Chávez
  27. Juan Justino Galaviz Cruz
  28. Lea Juárez Valenzuela
  29. Leobardo Hernández Regino
  30. Leocadio Galaviz Cruz
  31. Luis Urbano Domínguez Mendoza
  32. Manuel Cartas Pérez
  33. Manuel Hidalgo Vázquez
  34. Marcelino Álvarez González
  35. Marco Antonio Arcos Fuentes
  36. Marco Antonio Jiménez de la Torre
  37. Marcos Quiroz Riaño
  38. María de Jesús Gómez Vega
  39. Martín Hurtado Flores
  40. Mayolo Quiroz Barrios
  41. Miguel Bautista Avendaño
  42. Narciso López Vasquez
  43. Noé Robles Cruz
  44. Oliverio Martínez Merino
  45. Pedro Lunez Pérez
  46. Ramiro Rodríguez Santiz
  47. Ramiro Ventura Apolonio
  48. Raymundo Robles Riaño
  49. Rodrigo Morales Vázquez
  50. Rolando Pérez González
  51. Simón Pedro Pérez López
  52. Tomás Rojo Valencia
  53. Vicente Suástegui Muñoz
  54. Víctor Manuel Vázquez de la Torre

Nicaragua

  1. Albert Jairo Hernández Palacio
  2. Armando Pérez Medina
  3. Armando Suarez Matamoros
  4. Bonifacio Dixon Francis
  5. Borlan Gutiérrez Empra
  6. Dolvin Acosta
  7. J.L.P. or J.R.B
  8. Jaoska Jarquín Gutiérrez
  9. Kedelin Jarquín Gutiérrez
  10. Martiniano Julián Macario Samuel
  11. Morgan Pantin
  12. Ody James Waldan Salgado
  13. Romel Simon Kely
  14. Sixto Gutiérrez Empra
  15. Víctor Manuel Matamoros Morales
  16. Peru Estela Casanto Mauricio
  17. Herasmo García Grau
  18. Lucio Pascual Yumanga
  19. Luis Tapia Meza
  20. Mario Marco López Huanca
  21. Santiago Meléndez Dávila
  22. Yenes Ríos Bonsano

Philippines

  1. Abner Esto
  2. Ana Marie Lemita-Evangelista
  3. Angel Rivas
  4. Antonio “Cano” Arellano
  5. Ariel Evangelista
  6. Edward Esto
  7. Emanuel Asuncion
  8. John Heredia
  9. Joseph Canlas
  10. Juan Macababbad
  11. Julie Catamin
  12. Lenie Rivas
  13. Mark Lee Bacasno
  14. Melvin Dasigao
  15. Puroy Dela Cruz
  16. Randy Dela Cruz
  17. Romeo Loyola Torres
  18. Steve Abua
  19. Willy Rodriguez

Venezuela

  1. Carmen Lusdary Rondón
  2. Miguel Antonio Rivas Morales
  3. Nelson Martín Pérez Rodríguez
  4. Wilmer José Castro

NOUS SOMMES 78 000

Pétition:

https://www.declarationuniverselledesdroitsdelarbre.org/…

Prenez connaissance de notre proposition de Convention Internationale des Droits de l’arbre:

https://www.declarationuniverselledesdroitsdelarbre.org/…

Soutenir la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Arbre #DUDA :

https://www.declarationuniverselledesdroitsdelarbre.org/…
#Duda

#ConventionInternationaledesDroitsdelArbre


Want to learn more? This report by Global Witness discusses the issue elaborately outlining the situation in different countries, including with stories of the defenders who have been killed.

Featured Image Brazilian land defenders memorial by Nelson Almeida/AFP via Getty Images on Grist

207 Environmentalists Were Murdered in 2021

207 Environmentalists Were Murdered in 2021

Editor’s note: This article is a call for courage in the face of adversity, apathy, and violence. Two hundred and seven environmentalists were murdered last year—at least. Each fallen land defender is a hero. To save the planet, we must be willing to take risks and make sacrifices.

States, corporations, and vigilantes use violence because it is brutally effective. Our best defense against murder and other intimidation techniques including detention, torture, surveillance, harassment, and infiltration is solidarity, organization, and strategy.

Deep Green Resistance activists are active in many of the most dangerous parts of the world, where environmentalists are murdered regularly. This is why we advocate for security culture and teach techniques regarding privacy, anonymity, personal safety, and self-defense. As land defenders, we must be prepared. This work is dangerous, and by being prepared, we enable action.


by / Mongabay

¡Sí a La Vida, No a La Mina! Yes to Life, No to the Mine!

¡Sí a La Vida, No a La Mina! Yes to Life, No to the Mine!

A gold mine project in Veracruz that has run into local opposition  envisions a low CAPEX, simple heap-leach open pit mining operation targeting approximately 100,000 ounces of gold production annually. Gold reserves at the project are estimated at 575,000 ounces which assures high pollution and destruction of the land in order to yield as much of the precious metal.


By Alejandro Beltran Cordero / Weave News

A new gold mine in Veracruz, Mexico, will be the first one in the world to be opened only two miles away from a nuclear reactor and from many pipelines – all in the middle of a densely populated, touristic area that is also the most important migratory route in North America. These are some of the main reasons why local activists are strongly opposing the project.

A History of Colonial Extraction

Mexico has a long mining history. Before the conquest, gold and silver were sought mainly to make jewelry and offerings. Tin, lead, and copper were also mined in the state of Michoacán after the Purembes (Tarascans) found a way to extract and work it. All these minerals were used to make certain tools, utensils and weapons.

But the history of extractivist mining in Mexico begins with the Spanish invasion. Most of the mineral resources were exported to Spain, and it is stated in the General Archive of the Indies (an important Spanish colonial archive housed in Seville, Spain) that 185,000 kilos of gold and 16,000,000 kilos of silver arrived in Spain from America between 1503 and 1660 alone.

“La Paila” and Other New Projects

Despite the efforts of the Spanish crown, however, Mexico still retains vast mineral wealth, and there are currently 21 mining projects about to start up.  The project that concerns us was once known as “Caballo Blanco” and now as “La Paila,” which is the name of the hill where the project is to be located. This would be an open-pit gold mine on the hill of “La Paila” in the municipality of Alto Lucero, Veracruz.

The mining company is a subsidiary of the Canadian Candelaria Mining Corp., which reports that it has 12 concessions on 19,815 hectares of land (roughly 76.5 square miles) for the main project. The company has also identified four “high priority targets” for further exploration in the surrounding area: Bandera Norte, Bandera Sur, Las Cuevas, and Highway North. If permits for these additional projects are approved, it would significantly increase the footprint of Candelaria’s activity in Veracruz.

Impact of Extraction

To operate just one of these projects, thousands of liters of water are required for the leachate lagoon. These are the waste products of the process. They remain in the tanks and contain cyanide, sulfuric acid, mercury and other solvents that will be used to obtain 0.03 grams of gold for each ton of soil. Gold is associated with quartz rocks that must be ground, placed in large mounds, and washed with water mixed with cyanide. This represents a great risk for the populations living downstream from the mine. In addition, the water used for these projects is extracted from the nearby aquifers, leaving the local populations without water.

To extract the rock, large tajos (quarries) are opened that will remain there permanently. Such a process gives no thought to the layer of soil and vegetation that have to be destroyed in order to open these large holes in the earth, leaving a lunar landscape in which life would be impossible.

According to research presented in 2015 in La Jornada Ecoloógica, the following is necessary in order to obtain one ounce of gold, or what is contained in a “US Golden Eagle”:

  • extraction of 150 tons of rock
  • 40 kilos of explosives (enough to demolish a five-story building)
  • processing of 25 to 50 tons of earth leached with cyanide solution
  • release into the environment of three kilos of cyanide salts (enough to kill 60 thousand people)
  • consumption of 100,000 to 150,000 liters of fresh water (enough to provide services to an average family for one year)
  • consumption of 1300kws of electrical energy (enough for an average family for a month)
  • consumption of 450 liters of fossil fuels to maintain water supplies and move mine equipment
  • emission of 650 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere along with other greenhouse gases such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide

The researchers also report that this type of project offers only 15 person-hours of income to the region, or “the salary of one person working for two days” (La Jornada Ecoloógica 200, August-September 2015).

Meanwhile, over a 20-year period, a gold mine uses 500 thousand tons of explosives, or roughly 40 percent of the explosives used in World War II. And in this case, those explosives would be used at a distance of only three kilometers from the Laguna Verde nuclear plant and two kilometers from five gas pipelines that pass through the region.

Ecological and Cultural Destruction

The area around the “La Paila” project is also an important migratory corridor known as “el rio de rapaces” (“the river of raptors”). It is the migratory route of hundreds of raptor species that travel between Canada and Central America, as well as a large number of hummingbirds and butterflies. In addition, there are 51 endemic and endangered species that live in this area year round.

There is also a community of 1231 cycads, which have an estimated age of between 2,000 and 3,000 years and are the oldest living vegetation in Mexico.  These kinds of large-scale mining projects also have disastrous repercussions for the historical heritage of the region. In this case, the archaeological heritage of Quiahuixtlan and its surroundings would be destroyed.

And all this without even mentioning the 87 communities that would be directly affected by the project through the destruction of agriculture, livestock and fishing in the region.

We would be left without land, without water, without vegetation, without animals, and without spirit.

That’s why we say:  YES TO LIFE, NO TO THE MINE!


This article was produced in its original form with essential assistance from Talking Wings Collective. First published on Dec 4, 2020 in Weave News. You can find the original article here: https://www.weavenews.org/stories/2020/12/4/si-a-la-vida-no-a-la-mina