Securing Community Acceptance

COLOMBIA AND PERU SECURING COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE IN NATURAL RESOURCE RICH AREAS Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs 2020 Capstone Group Suhaim Al Thani Fatema Alhashemi Andrea Avila Hannah H. Braun Nora Bettina Braun Carolyne Clermont Catherina Gioino Elizabeth Gonzalez Octavio Roldan Montijo Rocío Peña Nahle Nancy Talamantes Johnny Xavier Wong Coronel Beibei Zou Professor Jenik Radon Acknowledgements With many thanks to those who supported this Capstone and its mission. Miguel Inchaustegui, Ariana Melchor, and Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC) professors Claudia Guillén, José Carlos Manrique and Paloma Valqui. Thank you for sharing your invaluable insights. Luisa Bacca, Hegler Andrés, and Sebastián Guerra of the Ministry of Mines and Energy’s Office of Environmental and Social Affairs. Carolina Ocampo-Maya, Tehtena Mebratu-Tsegaye, and Alexander Rustler, all three from the Columbia Center for Sustainable Investment. Thank you for providing us with information on the Wayúu community and the governmen- tal structure in Colombia, and for guiding us in identifying key stakeholders. Corporación Comunidad de Juristas Akubadaura. Jonathan Ávila and Germán Arrango of Vali Consultores. Thanks to Nicolo Filippo Rosso, a fellow at the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma at Columbia, whose photos from La Guajira are found in this capstone. Special thanks to previous capstones for setting the stage. DRAFT 1 2 3 2020 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CAPSTONE ON SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES 6 — 13 INTRODUCTION: CALLING FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT 14 — 33 BACKGROUND: COLOMBIA AND PERU PRESENT DAY 34 — 73 AGREEMENT: CONTENTS OF TABLE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT 4 5 6 7 8 74 — 155 — 74 GUIDEBOOKS: FOR THE COMMUNITY, GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTOR 156 — 183 — 156 ENGAGEMENT: A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 184—197 METRICS TOOLS: A CHECKLIST TO MEASURE SUCCESS 198—199 AFTERWORD: LOOKING TOWARDS THE FUTURE 200—209 ABOUT US: THE 2020 CAPSTONE TEAM AT A GLANCE Introduction 16 Calling for a Paradigm Shift Securing Community Acceptance in Natural Resource-Rich Areas Through a Community Partnership Equitable development shouldn’t be a privilege. It should be canon. The prosperity enjoyed by the privileged has, among other things, been fueled by the successful harnessing of mineral and natural resources. Ironically, the people living right above mineral and fossil-fuel deposits have generally been left out of the prosperity equation, and, unfortunately, most have even suffered because of it. While minerals and fossil fuels have powered development in some parts of the world, other parts have been left with open mines, unrestored lands, polluted waters, and devastated livelihoods, which have had long-term—if not permanent—repercussions on surrounding communities. We, the 2020 Columbia University Capstone Team, support these peoples and communities in changing the approach to the contemporary culture of development through our work with the governments of Peru and Colombia. We call for a cultural paradigm shift that advances the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards—that both the public and private sector are increasingly incorporating in their growth strategies—through the establishment of an agreement that puts the communities on comparable, if not equal, footing with the companies and the government: the Community Partnership Agreement. The Tía María copper mine of the Arequipa region of Peru is the poster-child of what has gone wrong in Latin America. Stalled for more than ten years, the Tía María project, a $1.4 billion dollar investment from the Mexican-owned Southern Copper, expected to initiate construction in the Tambo Valley of Arequipa—a productive area that accounts for the vast majority of the agricultural and fishing activities of the region—in 2009.1 Multiple disturbing Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), the first reviewed by UNOPS with 138 observations and the last called “insensitive to the communities” by the former ministers of mines and environment themselves,2 coupled with the devastating environmental footprint of Southern Copper and its records, which evidenced corrup- tion, in the country, triggered overwhelming opposition by the communities of the valley. For the past number of years, the farming communities have endured tumultuous strikes, police and army repression—leaving more than six dead—and the imposition of a project that brings no benefit to them but is one that the Ministry of Mines is willing to support. 1 For more information about the community of Tambo and the Tía María Project, see Peru’s Tía María Mining Conflict: Another Mega Imposition, Truthout Organization, June 2015. https://truthout.org/articles/peru-s-tia-maria-mining-conflict-another-mega-imposition/; As Anti-Mining Protests Escalate, Peru’s Vizcarra Sides with Mining Companies, World Politics Review, December 2019, https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/28403/as-anti-mining-protests-escalate-peru-s-vizcarra-sides-with-mining-companies; and Arequipa Governor Defends Tía María Mine Protests, Andean Air Mail & Peruvian Times, July 2019. https://www.peruviantimes.com/19/arequipa-governor-defends-tia-maria-mine-protests/31498/. 2 Interview with former ministers of Mines and Environment Carlos Herrera and Ricardo Giesecke respectively, and congressman from Frente Amplio, Marco Arana, Ideele Radio, July 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCcdgpZQpI8. 7 Although the construction license was granted in 2019, the company and Peruvian presi- dent were forced to acknowledge the increasing social unrest, conceding that there would be no green light without the communities’ consent. Likewise, the northern Andes region of Cajamarca has endeavored to address its own mining mistakes in light of the lessons learned from Tía María to promote Peru’s Mining Vision 2030, a groundbreaking new set of standards for the mining industry. Neighboring Colombia has taken inspiration from Cajamarca’s ambitious project given that it has no shortage of mining-related social conflicts itself; the northeastern-most department of La Guajira, already damaged by civil war, has also been devastated by the draining or rerouting of water sources, the deterioration of air quality, and the displace- ment of indigenous communities, all in the pursuit of a profitable international coal-ex- porting business. This environmental and social distress simply cannot continue. In a startling 2014 report entitled Business risks facing mining and metals, Ernst & Young states:3 "A failure of the controls can quickly put an organization into crisis... More importantly, it can also take a long time to restore the credibility required to regain acceptance by stakeholders, resulting in further delays and impacts. As part of providing acceptance, local communities and broader stakeholders expect that an operator will act responsibly, deliver on their commitments and provide an equitable share of the benefits that the operation generates. Operators need to acknowledge concerns such as equitable land access, environmental damage and the ongoing impact of large multinational companies on local economies" [emphasis added]. The need for greater community engagement, or at the very least more responsi- ble development practices and activities, is far from new. And yet little has changed since 2014. Statements like the one published by Ernst & Young have been shelved, left to gather dust or watered down over the years. This fact highlights the serious but necessary need to nail down basic principles of human rights. The question that then arises is how to re-mold development standards so that ev- eryone benefits. The answer is not an easy one in that it requires not merely a framework shift, but rather, a cultural one. In contrast to the likes of a “Social License to Operate” (SLO), “Prior Consultation” (known as consulta previa in Spanish), or “Free Prior and Informed Consent” (which typically applies to indigenous communities only, leaving other marginalized peoples out), the Community Partnership Agreement was purpose- fully designed for its emphasis on a partnership. As the name suggests, we propose that communities become partners in the projects being developed on, and in, the vicinity of their lands. In order for the promises of companies and governments to be binding, they must be set forth in a binding agreement that specifies what the community will gain from its cooperation with the project and how it will participate in setting development 3 Ernst & Young, Business Risks Facing Mining and Metals 2014–2015, 2014, pg.16. 8 standards;4 how the company and/or the government, as applicable, will ensure that the community is in no way harmed from project development; and what the penalties are for failing to deliver on those promises. The Government is incorporated into the Community Partnership Agreement as a signatory explicitly siding with the Community both during and after negotiations with the Project Company and its Parent Company, as required. A government should fulfill its higher commitment, namely supporting the community they were elected to repre- sent. Sitting on opposite sides of the negotiating table does not mean that development isn’t one of the primary goals of the government. On the contrary, the government is also expected to aid in the project’s development given that positive economic activity is in all parties’ interests. The community’s new role as partner has

Load more