From August 7 - 21, 1999, five US citizens and I participated in a Witness For Peace delegation to Guatemala. Three members of the WFP International Team joined us in Guatemala City. The nine of us spent two weeks talking to a number of people, organizations, and village leaders. We focused our attention on the Peten, a region in the north of Guatemala between the Mexican states of Chiapas and the Yucatan and the country of Belize. We were specifically interested in the problem of oil exploration and development in a part of the Peten called the Mayan Biosphere Reserve.

The Mayan Biosphere reserve is an area of some 2.1 million hectares and represents 20% of Guatemala's territory (USAID). It is covered by a huge expanse of tropical forest and rain forest. It also contains a unique area of inland wetlands know as the Biotopo Laguna del Tigre, internationally recognized under the RAMSAR Convention (a wetlands agreement). The Mayan Biosphere connects three other biological sensitive sites, one in Belize and two in Mexico. As a link between these major national parks, it provides a passageway for the continued thriving of mega-fauna such as the jaguar, whose existence probably depends on the Mayan Biosphere. The Mayan Biosphere also is home to some of the best remains of the Mayan Civilization including the world famous Tikal (a UN World Heritage Site) and other sites as extensive but still relatively unexplored.

The Guatemalan government is poised to approve concessions which would open most of the Mayan Biosphere to exploration for an oil company know as Basic Resources. A U.S. company, Union Pacific Resources, is the major owner of Basic Resources. Prior to the area being declared a biological reserve, a small oil field in the Northwest portion of the Peten had been developed by Texaco and subsequently sold to Basic Resources. The ultimate consequence of this development is evident to any visitor. The damage to the ecosystem comes from three distinct sources. The first is the destruction of the forest that results from the development of an oil field. Roads are cut, lines are cut for seismic exploration and areas in and around oil wells are cleared. The second source of damage comes from the production of oil. Oil needs to be transported either by truck or pipeline and spills are inevitable. These spills can be highly destructive particularly of fragile wetlands since oil floats on the water. This is a problem in the Peten because where the water is not on the surface, the water table is only a few feet below the surface. The third source of damage is the result of campesinos' searching for land to grow corn. Accessible land can be found along the roads cut by the oil companies. As a result, deforestation occurs along these roads.

Certainly, the "expansion of the agricultural frontier" accounts for a majority of the deforestation. Poor campesinos are almost always the ones who do the clearing, although more wealthy ranchers are not far behind. Because this is the case, those sympathetic to oil development deflect the blame for deforestation onto poor campesinos, even though they express sympathy for the poor farmers who simply want to feed their families (interview). They further claim that oil workers help prevent forest destruction because they spot forest fires before they get too large (interview). As evidence the Ministry of Energy and Mines produced maps indicating less forest destruction from the forest fires of 1998 around oil fields then in some other areas. However, this leap to cause and effect is somewhat of a stretch. It is far more likely that fire-fighting equipment could reach fires where there are roads and where economic interests are at risk (i.e. oil fields). This argument also begs the question of how campesinos gained access to the land in the first place.

Damage to the environment is not the only cost relating to oil development. The two major costs, which our delegation investigated, are the destruction of local communities and the destruction to democracy. Both of these are complicated and not totally apparent but in the mind of our delegation very real.

There are a number of communities in the Mayan Biosphere, some but not all of them predated the establishment of the reserve. These communities can be roughly divided into two groups, those that are primarily agricultural, and those that are attempting to exist sustainably with the forest. It should be noted that neither of these classifications is pure in that all communities practice some agriculture and all communities used products from the forest without its destruction. The case of the sustainable communities is the most clear so we will start there.

Several communities were established within the Peten by Wrigley Gum for the purpose of collecting chiclet, the gum from a tree, which grows in the rain forest. Chiclet was used in the production of chewing gum. It has since been substituted in chewing gum by a synthetic. As a result, these communities have had to look for other markets for forest products. When they were company towns, their only access to the outside world was via air. However, since Wrigley pulled out, all of these communities have road access. These communities now have two major products, xote and hardwood. Xote is a small palm frond used in floral arrangements because it is both attractive and holds up well over time. It grows well in the shaded moist environment of the forest understory and is therefore not very amenable to domestication.

Recently some of these communities have also been encouraged (if not forced according to a leading Guatemalan environmentalist (interview)) to take on forest concessions. As a part of these concessions, the communities have formed cooperatives in which they share in the work and proceeds of wood that they harvest and sell. These communities are given the attention and help from a number of agencies both governmental and non-governmental who are interested in sustainable development. The two major governmental agencies involved are CONAP, the Guatemalan agency in charge of the Biosphere and USAID who is a primary funder of CONAP. Two of the major NGO's are CATI, a tropical forest research institute committed to sustainable forest development, and Conservation International. All of these agencies are helping these communities with their forestry concessions.

For being given these forestry concessions these communities have had to agree to certain conditions. They have agreed to limit, in perpetuity, membership in their cooperatives and to prevent incursion of others into their concessions. They have also agreed to follow "sustainable" forestry practices. There is some question as to whether the practices are truly sustainable (interview). There is also the danger that someone will be able to domesticate xote production in which case the market will disappear. However, at present even during the early stages of the development of their cooperatives, these communities are relatively well off with medical clinics and schools. However, this well being is threatened by oil development. The forestry concessions significantly intersect the proposed oil concessions over which the communities exert little if any control.

In the process of granting oil concessions, the Ministry of Energy and Mines was obligated to receive input from local communities. In accordance with that mandate, the Ministry called a meeting in March of 1999. Originally this meeting was scheduled at a relatively neutral and accessible site. The Ministry began a campaign both through intimidation and bribery to get the communities to approve of their plans to offer the oil concessions. The army began preparations to place an army base in one of the communities, ostensibly to control illegal immigration to Mexico. However the community argued persuasively that not only could they not accommodate an army base with their limited supply of fresh water, but that such a base could not serve its stated purpose since the community was many kilometers from the border. The Ministry then tried to accomplish what intimidation could not accomplish by offering what the communities considered "bribes." Solar panels and energy efficient stoves were offered free to community members. Ostensibly these goodies were donations from the Spanish government. However, it turned out that they really were from the ministry. Because they were considered "bribes" at least one community refused to use these items.

When the Ministry of Energy and Mines realized that community members were not responding to their campaign, they insisted that the "public" meeting be held on a military base. When the meeting was held only the community leaders were allowed onto the base. However, Basic Resources was allowed to bring onto the base an entire busload of "supporters." Fortunately, this tactic backfired because community leaders recognized the "supporters". These "supporters" testified to news reporters that they were at the meeting because Basic Resources had paid them. Even though the meeting received wide attention in the Guatemalan press and the tactics of the Ministry were exposed, the Ministry announced the next day that they had approved granting of the concessions. It is widely expected that the current Guatemala president will sign the concessions after the upcoming elections when he is a lame duck president (interviews).

The members of the communities believe that many problems come with oil development. They are very familiar with communities currently close to oil development and many of the members have worked for the oil companies in the past. They realize that the only jobs for locals are for unskilled and temporary laborers. They realize that oil development in the past has not brought about community development. Even La Libertad, the community adjacent to the only refinery in Guatemala can not afford to staff its hospital (interview). Given that laborers hired by the oil company are temporary and mobile, the labor force is often young and male (interviews and observation). As a result, towns close to the development are plagued with the usual problems associated with frontiers, prostitution, disease, alcohol abuse and crime. Community members are also convinced that oil exploration will make it difficult for them to keep others from colonizing their areas of responsibility. Others are convinced that the oil industry will damage "their" forests directly and through pollution (interviews). All of these fears are certainly justified from past experience regardless of the defenses made by the oil companies and their apologists.

As we have seen, the communities that have forestry concessions have the support of a large number of agencies and are relatively well off in comparisons to those communities that are primarily relying on agriculture to sustain their existence. These communities are the result of colonization along the roads cut by the oil companies. They have not benefited from oil development and are currently at odds with about everyone, environmental organizations, governmental organizations and the oil industry. They were intensely grateful to our delegation for listening to them with a sympathetic ear. They represent a prime example of the impact of large-scale institutional injustice from national and international sources.

There is much material describing structural and other causes of the plight suffered by rural agricultural communities within third world nations. The communities we visited suffer all of these ills plus some additional ones given their proximity to oil development and the fact that they exist within an internationally recognized environmentally sensitive reserve. The most important problem is their poverty. They are where they are because they have no other place to go. The members of these communities are at the present able to grow sufficient corn on the land they have cleared to feed their families. In a country with very high unemployment rates and where the prevailing minimum wage can not sustain an individual let alone a family, agriculture is an only option. The problems are exacerbated in a country where most of the arable land is owned by a few individuals who use it to grow export products that do not to feed the people of Guatemala but instead profit US companies.

Many of the men in these communities first came to the area through jobs with the oil companies. As a result of their employment, they understandably brought their families to live near their work. When their jobs were terminated, they resorted to agriculture. Since their houses were within a "national park" CONAP pressured the oil company not to hire workers from these communities because that would only "encourage" them to stay. The result, of course, is that these families are forced even more to rely on agriculture for sustenance. Furthermore, these families are not given the security of owning their land when elsewhere in Guatemala "improving" the land through clearing and farming it constitutes homesteading rights. In trying to encourage their departure, CONAP has discouraged governmental services from being given to these communities in the form of teachers and medical services. Other than using a "stick" approach, CONAP with the help of USAID has only made feeble attempts at providing "carrots." They have offered land outside the park area, but land without roads, water, schools, clinics or sufficient resources to build simple shelters.

In addition, we heard testimony that CONAP officials had illegally given title (sold the land) within the Biosphere to wealthy individuals. Even a well-placed individual said, "he could not deny" that such "sales" had taken place (interview). CONAP's resultant credibility among these communities could not be lower, outright hatred would be a more accurate description of their feelings. These feelings were exacerbated when one community leader received an anonymous letter threatening him with death if he continued to oppose CONAP.

The incredible contradiction that official policies of removing community members from their land while letting a foreign oil company destroy the environment with impunity is very apparent to even the poorest farmer. As they said "we will gladly follow the oil companies right out of here."

To add insult to injury, community members complained about the abysmally low price they received for their corn. They had no idea that the US government in promoting free-trade is forcing governments everywhere into accepting US farm products at US market prices which are currently forcing even small scale producers in the US out of business. It takes little imagination to understand what it is doing to the small farmer (a large portion of the population) in Guatemala. The neo-liberal argument is that of course the comparative advantage of Guatemala is low cost labor. Again in a country with exceedingly high unemployment, entering the wage labor force is simply not an option. Immigration although illegal is.

The final problem of oil development to be discussed here is the loss to democratic institutions. This problem is not only the most insidious and intractable problem but also the most damaging in the long term. The way in which multi-national corporations have participated in the corruption of third-world governments in order to gain advantage has been well documented elsewhere. The excuse has always been that in a competitive environment, one has to adapt to local practices in order to conduct business. The "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" way of doing business has been the custom among third world oligarchies. Multinationals have, as a result, frequently incorporated bribery as a standard business practice. Because the US Congress has recognized this as a big threat to democracy (as well as bad for business in the long run) they have seen fit to pass laws against US based businesses bribing foreign government officials.

Several of our sources strongly implied that Basic Resources, the major oil company involved in Guatemalan oil development, had "made a number of top Guatemalan officials very rich." Included in this group one must include top military officials, the real holders of Guatemalan power over a period of 35 years. There is a reason for the fact that the military base of one of the Guatemalan military's elite forces is not just near but adjoining the Basic Resources' refinery. It is not incidental that the oil pipeline is protected all along its length by military installations.

Given that Basic Resources is now controlled by Union Pacific Resources a Houston Texas based corporation, it is reasonable to question whether such close ties between Guatemalan officials and Basic Resources is legal under US law. It turns out that since Basic Resources is not a US corporation; it is not accountable to US law even though its majority owner is. Thus Union Pacific Resources is not legally liable for the action of its not wholly owned subsidiary. Most of us, however, would certainly hold it ethically and morally liable.

The August 1999 Witness For Peace delegation to Guatemala talked with a large number of individuals in a wide variety of settings. We also witnessed first hand the conditions that we found in the Mayan Biosphere reserve and some of the communities that are within its boundaries. As a part of Witness for Peace, we are mandated to listen to all sides without prejudice. We are interested in serving justice particularly when we find evidence that the US government and or US corporations are serving the interests of injustice. As the above discussion suggests we have found credible evidence of injustice from two US sources, the US government through USAID and the other by the hands of a company whose majority ownership is in the hands of Union Pacific Resources.

Ways in which USAID is responsible:

Ways in which Union Pacific Resources is responsible:

As a result of our findings, we urge all US citizens to demand that any aid granted by our government through USAID be only used in ways that puts human rights at the top of its considerations. We also urge that all citizens as consumers, investors, and voters demand that Union Pacific Resources adhere to high ethical standards in their conduct of business. These standards should at the very least respect the environment and human rights.

The sources for this report are primarily interviews that were conducted (primarily in Spanish and translated by International Team members) by the delegation with a large number of individuals and organizations. The author of this report took extensive notes during these interviews, as did other members of the delegation. Given the atmosphere of fear and intimidation (including death threats) in which many interviewees live, we have pledged to protect their individual identities for their safety. It should be noted, however, that their statements were almost always made in front of the members of the entire delegation who can willingly verify their accuracy.

There is one notable group that was not among our list of interviewees, officials from Basic Resources. They failed to respond to our numerous attempts to set up a meeting with them. They also refused to give us access to or even a tour of their facilities. Since Basic Resources was the most important and immediate actor in the region we were investigating we did not attempt to contact the parent company, Union Pacific.