Las Bambas, Perú and social conflict

Las Bambas. A mining project and social conflicts

Introduction

Peru was always and will be mining country and according to the latest ranking of the Fraser Institute, has enhanced its attractiveness for mining investment.

In the past, mining companies focused on profitability, ignoring the demands and rights of the communities in the area of ​​influence, leaving environmental liabilities that still afflict many peoples; then these people were ignorant, were disconnected and had no ability to respond to abuses of private or State. At present the obligations imposed by the new reality, environmental awareness, awakening and increased capacity of grassroots organization, environmental awareness, greater integration and creating a responsive and pressure against a state that still has a monopoly of force, no longer has the full capacity to fully imposed (cases Bagua, Ilave, Moquegua, Madre de Dios, Pichanaki). Currently, pressures, strikes, lockouts and boycotts organized simultaneously by many people can paralyze the country and to ridiculize the State. It is no longer possible to send a request and in coordination with mining companies, a contingent of policemen or soldiers will disappear a few rebellious peasants, forcing others to others maintain passivity.

Social conflicts associated with mining and related environment, the negative impact of mining on it, are growing and are made fully aware, why responsible mining should be done counting the population as relevant agent in the processes and activities that positively or negatively affect the environment. Some companies flout all the rules and regulations and understandable opposition or rejection; other if they do and when they encounter opposition, strikes or boycotts not due to reasons of mining but political interests or conflicts of power between the leaders or community leaders.

The case of Las Bambas

Las Bambas, a large mining project in Apurimac is several years in business and understands that to be approved by the Peruvian government and the community, met the legal and social requirements. Studies such as the EIA (environmental impact study) showing the null or minimal impact, but reversible, on the environment were required documents and the execution of works for the benefit of the community in the area of ​​influence.

In a final report spoke of the suspension of activities of Las Bambas because of the possibility of boycott or pressure from cities within "a one hour trip" mine. If the district claiming benefits to the mining company was found water down the slope that includes rivers or water sources and that there is real or pollution or negative impact on the ecosystem as a result of mining of Las Bambas, would understand the claim. In that case, executives of the mine and people have to negotiate directly and seek solutions with the help and participation of the State, as an interested party and guarantor of the agreements.

If not, the inhabitants of this district to see progress or real improvements in the district who is actually in the area of ​​direct influence, envy or despair caused the abandonment of State defaults, forced to take action in other situations and places of Peru have given result (Note 1). The use of violence, strikes, roadblocks, destruction of public or private property, violence against outsiders problem, have achieved the attention of state and responses to address the claims. This situation is aggravated when it is found that the acts in a community does not correspond only to the initiative of the locals but complementary with the support of other peoples, organizations such as NGOs and political groups whose interest is to destabilize the system or government and gain notoriety. It is not uncommon among those who claim in this district (area of ​​indirect influence) a fifth column of Cajamarca, Puno, Piura or Madre de Dios. (Note 2)

Suppose that the mining company acts in good faith and in compliance with all environmental regulations labor, social, what should you do to overcome the problem?

First, as shown in Figure 1, you should seek opportunities and mechanisms for negotiation that is favorable to the company and the community. The obligation to the peoples in the area of ​​direct influence is inescapable, but cannot openly ignoring the peoples of the area of ​​indirect influence. Option A is no longer possible because although it could count on the support of the state to exert force and impose its conditions, resentment ignore peoples and create unpredictable critical situations in the future. A Chinese mining company in Africa had conflicts with a group of miners who were demanding wages and better working conditions. On one occasion, a fire destroyed the strikers who were in the mine; curiously all Chinese workers came before this. No one even ruffled. This was possible in Africa, where people are isolated tribes often rivals, disconnected and the government does not care about their fate; in today's Peru this solution is discarded.

In option B, when the leader, leader or head of claims is who assumes full control (and profits taken), the company loses because it will be exposed to more pressure, blackmail and demands from the leader and his clique . Santos is the case in Cajamarca. If the Conga project does not go, assuming it is well made although whether it is because Santos and its allies want and expect the opportunity to give the green light to Chinese or Russian companies, the welfare of the people is not interested, rather advantage ignorance and need to manage their whim. The company lost because the feeling of being manipulated, weak, without options is created.

Option C is what we recommend because it allows to involve communities, the population affected in choosing the options that are more favorable for them. Here not only the gain of the population is allowed, but power remains the leader or leader, is gaining fans and in case of future problems, you can expect a base of support.

If you tried to maintain two bars of wood or metal attached, the use of knots at the ends is not adequate, moorings is needed in the center (Figure 1)

 

What implications does a negotiation that is located at point A? In Figure 2 some effects are observed. The decision may be long-term (or while the mine is operational) where the absolute power and the ability to use force, or the state itself, to control dissenting be taken. The community does not benefit and the image of the mining activity will be impaired. This is a solution of the past in Peru, although it can be applied in some African countries.

In case B, if the leader negotiates some favorable arrangements for the community, for example, building a school or a road, this population benefiting effortlessly may not adequately assess their importance and worry for asking more and more. It is short-term, costly and not necessarily guarantees the continuity of operations. The current situation of the Las Bambas graphs this case.

At best option long term, win win type negotiation, in which the company provides resources, training, guidance, really meet environmental requirements, the EIA are not mere formalities but strict compliance documents, but the population also contributes with what you have, people, time and dedication to the task. The company provides design and technical specifications of an irrigation system, urban waste treatment, villagers reproduce the scheme of minka (communal work) and for participating value their effort and what they have achieved. (Note 3)

The need for and interact with the people of the area of ​​influence is called Social Responsibility (SR); but in the case of the people of the area of ​​indirect influence whose requirements are not justified but using the situation of anarchy or social and political lawlessness in the country, must appeal to what I call the RSI (Intelligent Social Responsibility).

 Think of the potential conflict, their needs, evaluate your resources and potential (labor, materials), locate the stakeholders and negotiate directly with them, with the entire population, not just the leaders to avoid the pernicious effect Santos ("In Conga everything to me, the leader, nothing for the people, cannon fodder or useful idiots").

We must show that they have no right to demand the same as the people of the area of ​​direct influence, but that the company is willing to support their development if they support initiatives and participate directly in it. Negotiators should be working to demonstrate and convince them that  "there is no free lunch." One form of support is advice to achieve resources and support from sources that are truly committed to them (governments at different levels)

In Figure 3 have observed that for the peoples of the area of ​​direct influence indirectly, when the share of the company and the people in developing works or projects that benefit their community, commitment and satisfaction balances are higher, for long term, the company gain support and legitimacy and when necessary, repeat the experience elsewhere.

 

How loses lost in a large mining project whose operations are suspended for months? How much does for continuity and community support?

Notes
1. In Peru, the State is absent from remote villages, especially the mountains and forests. The ministerial meeting in the area of ​​Bambas and pledges of works and interventions should be taken with humor and Andean patience. Cities like Pisco, located on the coast, two hours from the capital Lima, have not been rebuilt since the earthquake of 2007. works or evil actions do not achieve that with the money spent one kilometer of road is rebuilt when with that money could be rebuilt five kilometers. In Andean peoples, the real possibility of being served is much more precarious. The company should know that when the State's promise, higher level of Social Responsibility Intelligent should exercise because people frustrated or circumvented the blame for the problems.

2. When a work, a road or a medical center or at a remote mining town where running is not because it responds to an initiative of the State from a planning process that assesses needs and the actions, is only the response to a test of strength or social pressure. The Peruvian government is reactive, not proactive, because there is no active and wise  decision makers and planning entity. In any case, decisions are taken by a horde of incapable occupying leadership positions in the state.

3. It is not a company like "Doe run", which openly violates environmental commitments, relying on the state's weakness, incompetence or corruption of government negotiators.