French Guiana’s miners lash out at Sarkozy

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

The following is an open letter to French President Nicolas Sarkozy from Carol Ostorero, president of the Federation of French Guiana Mine Operators. French Guiana is an Overseas Department of France.

The Federation of French Guiana Mine Operators has been left aghast by the laconic “No” of the President of France (with respect to its recent rejection of Iamgold’s proposed Camp Caiman gold mine in French Guiana). The federation expresses doubts and concerns stemming from this action.

First, there has been a complete lack of respect by the French government towards Iamgold subsidiary CBJ Caiman Co. and the whole mining industry. CBJ is a multinational company that began evaluating a gold deposit in French Guiana in 1995 at the invitation of the French government.

Thirteen years and a hundred million euros of investment later, CBJ Caiman was simply dismissed without any warning by official press release. The French President used his discretionary authority to say “No” to the Iamgold project despite many favour-able technical opinions given by various government agencies.

This decision’s impact on the mining industry is huge in several respects:

1. The French President has just flung a lethal blow to the mining industry in French Guiana. From now on, all the permitting regulations and procedures for opening a mine will only have symbolic value, as it is the President of France, and only he, who decides if a company will operate or not. Who will be courageous (crazy?) enough today to invest in such conditions?

2. Mining operators will take notice that their investments in French Guiana do not have any governmental guarantee. Anyone can lose a project at any stage of development by a simple decision of the French President. With this decision, French Guiana joins countries in Africa, Asia and South America where it is risky to do business because there is no government backing.

3. During his trip to French Guiana, Sarkozy promoted self-development for the overseas department and denounced the subversive effects of systematic subsidies. The mining sector was led to believe there would be strong support for developing mines, and that the Camp Caiman project was going to be a showcase of European mining.

The recent negative decision and current policy totally contradict that speech: there will be the loss of 300 direct jobs and the disappearance of 85% of the legal mining operations (administration agencies do not issue permits any longer), and it is questionable whether the remaining companies can survive.

4. Protecting environmental biodiversity was the reason given to justify the rejection of the Camp Caiman project. In reality, this decision renders French Guiana’s forest vulnerable to clandestine mining operators who do not follow any environmental regulations and cause systematic and widespread environmental damage. The state will not be able to prevent this due to a lack of funding for enforcement.

Given the choice between legal, state-controlled mining or clandestine mining, the state has chosen the latter. Law abiding companies, with firm commitments towards environmental protection and site remediation, will be replaced by clandestine miners whom the state cannot control.

The disappearance of our industry leaves our territory and mining resources at the mercy of illegal miners; the last legal miners are now operating in an occupied country where clandestine workers set the rules.

There is no rule of law! The impact of illegal miners on the environment

is well known and documented by the state. However, the state does not seem to differentiate between legal and illegal miners, thus ignoring the environmental problems it should manage.

The original mining operations were set up to help sustain economic development in French Guiana with the long-term objective of making it economically independent. The current policy ensures that French Guiana will have to remain under subsidies and will never have the capacity to sustain other development. Only enterprises related to the French Guiana Space Centre are allowed. All other industrial operations are being subsidized, making them dependent. Is this really what France wants for French Guiana?

The French taxpayers should be aware of this policy, as they are the ones who will pay for possible financial reparations to Iamgold and its employees.

Imagine what would happen if Canada’s prime minister decided to use his discretionary authority to dismiss Areva or Total (French companies established in Canada) overnight!

In conclusion, Mr. President, we solicit you to review your position in light of the above information.

Carol Ostorero, President Federation of French Guiana Mine Operators Cayenne, French Guiana