Peru Mining Consultation Reveals Popular Opposition to Further Mining

October 2nd, 2007

On Sunday, October 16th, 2007 a consultation, called for by the political authorities of the provinces of Ayabaca, Carmen de la Frontera and Pacaipama (region of Piura in the north of Peru) was held, not without difficulties, but resulting in a firm majority position on the part of the population against the mining projects.

It is important to be aware of certain aspects of the political process in a democratic country such as Peru in order to understand some of the difficulties in the process. Elections in Peru, municipal, regional or national, are always held on a Sunday. Every person between the ages of 18 and 65 has to vote. This is an obligation, not a choice. Those people aged 65 and older are free to vote if they wish. And, the result of the vote is determinative.

In this case, as there was no question of an election, but rather of a consultation of the local population, the rules of the game were different. The consultation was held on a Sunday, but people were not under obligation to vote. Interestingly enough, more than 80% of those eligible to vote did so, many after having walked great distances (from 6 to 18) hours in order to vote. Furthermore, the results of the consultation are non-binding.

Throughout the process, certain realities have become evident in Peru: the national government stands by the concessions it has granted to mining companies, even when the local population was not previously consulted, and even if the necessary and legal process of environmental impact studies have not been completed.

The consultation asked that those choosing to exercise their right to vote do so by answering “yes” or “no” to the question “¿Está usted de acuerdo con la actividad minera en su distrito?” (“Do you agree to mining activity in your district?”). 96.1% of the population (17,268 of 17,967) exercised the right to vote. Of these, 281 voted “yes” (1.6%), while 16,987 voted “no” (94.5%).[1] There is obvious disagreement with what the people consider will end up turning around their lives and livelihood.

All sides now say they are open to dialogue. The clearest positions are as follows: On the government and mining companies’ side of things: Granting mining concessions are within the domain of the national government. Concessions have already been granted. The country needs the income from mining in order to hasten development. And, natural resources belong to the whole country, not just the local population. On the other hand, the local population claims, rightly so, that it was not consulted by the national government. The area in question now provides a decent lifestyle because it is an agricultural one, supplies food products for the region and for export. There is little water and it must be well managed. The people contend that if mining is allowed, the water supply will diminish and what is left will be contaminated. They also cite the experience of those living in other mining areas when they claim that if mining is allowed there will be many unfavorable consequences to traditional lifestyle and culture, rising prices of goods and services, and social problems such as alcoholism, drug addiction and prostitution will become endemic. Furthermore, they see very little, if any, positive results for themselves or coming generations if mining is allowed in their area.

At this stage in the process the positions of different groups and organizations have been made clear. The churches have clearly been involved in accompanying the people and have garnered support from their respective church bodies both nationally and internationally. It is to be hoped that a frank and open dialogue can now begin and that a conclusion can be arrived at which will allow for the best possible results for all concerned.

——————————————————————————–

[1] RED “AGUA, DESARROLLO Y DEMOCRACIA”, Piura, September 17, 2007.

Return to Top