Peru Gives Continuity to Mining Policies without Guarantees to Human Rights

Documento del MINEM no considera pueblos afectados por la minería

FROM THE EDITORS: From Peru, Red Muqui shares an analysis of the Ministry of Energy’s new mining program under Pedro Castillo’s government, which essentially gives continuity to past mining policies. There is great concern about an obvious omission in recent documents of the human and social rights of indigenous and campesino communities, when Castillo had promised better negotiating conditions with multinationals and improved social benefits in affected regions.

SOURCE: Published with permission from Red Muqui, translated to English by Awasqa. See original in Spanish here: https://muqui.org/noticias/criterios-de-rentabilidad-social-del-minem-y-donde-quedan-los-derechos-humanos/

Documento del MINEM no considera pueblos afectados por la minería
Photo: Muqui Network

Social Profitability Criteria for the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MINEM): Where Are the Human Rights? 

Development cannot continue to be measured only under terms proposed by large investors, without specifically analyzing the broader needs of the population and communities.

[On September 16,] the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MINEM) published a document called “Social profitability” of mining that establishes a series of criteria for quantifying results. We highlight that these concepts were presented in a book written by Minister Iván Merino, Foreign investment = development?, published in 2003. MINEM’s official document states that for these initiatives (private investment) to be viable, they must offer economic profitability for the project’s owners and social profitability for the region where they will be implemented. It is noteworthy that the National Society for Mining Petroleum and Energy indicated publicly that they are already applying the “social profitability” criteria. 

In a press release from the National Society for Mining, Petroleum and Energy (SNMPE), Magaly Bardales stated that “mining companies are already applying social profitability.” The SNMPE emphasized that we must “build on advances already made,” in particular. The leading mining union in Peru is that MINEM’s expressed concern that the new management follows through with reforms and agreements reached thanks to their influence in the last few years. Keep in mind that last year, in 2020, amid the pandemic, the New Mining Procedures Regulation (Decree N° 020-2020-EM) and the New Regulations on Environmental Protection for Mining Exploration Activities (Decree N° 019-2020-EM) were approved, as a result of the mining lobby. 

Moreover, the document about social profitability criteria published by MINEM is greatly concerning because it parallels, coincidentally, Minister Iván Minero’s proposal and the one from the National Society for Mining Petroleum and Energy. 

The document states seven criteria to measure social profitability: 1) revitalizing the economy; 2) national income, fiscal balance, and balanced payments; 3) level and quality of employment and wages; 4) local and national infrastructure; 5) technology; 6) income distribution, status, and power structure; and 7) ecosystem and culture. The document presents not only inconsistencies and substantial gaps in its social, economic, cultural, and environmental assessment, but it also omits a focus on human rights by providing a welfare and privatizing approach.  

The IACHR (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) in its 2019 report on “Business and Human Rights” noted that States must adequately address the fulfillment of human rights, including the “right to development… [It] will fundamentally require empowering individuals and communities as rights holders, placing them at the center of how development is conceived and implemented” (p. 39). The report adds that economic growth is not an end in itself but a component to fulfill the right to development and human rights in general. The right to development thus allows to monitor how States and companies comply with their obligations and whether the procedures followed are coherent with a human rights framework. 

For this reason, we believe it is pertinent to comment on the criteria of social and economic viability presented by the MINEM, since these criteria must be, without failure, linked to the protection of human rights. 

Nothing about the rights of the indigenous peoples is mentioned in the published document; it only mentions “a group of people” or “marginalized or displaced groups of people.” It leaves out how the development of the local economy is intrinsically linked to the cultural and social values of the affected indigenous communities and general populations settled in diverse territories.

Commentary and analysis of MINEM’s “Social Profitability” document

Among several of the most striking points, the “Ecosystems and culture” section does not contain even a basic environmental impact assessment; it merely states that the “physical modifications to the environment, resulting from the direct action of the projects, are relatively easy to identify and assess.” There is a significant omission when describing the relationship between local economic development and the socio-environmental conditions of the territories. Key variables such as the impact on human and environmental health are missing. This item can not be left out of social profitability, considering that one of the most significant impacts of mining is environmental pollution and its components due to toxic metals. 

Another overarching gap in the document is its omission of the main social actors in areas impacted by mining activities, that is, peasant communities. Nothing about the rights of the indigenous peoples is mentioned in the published document; it only mentions “a group of people” or “marginalized or displaced groups of people.” It leaves out how the development of the local economy is intrinsically linked to the cultural and social values of the affected indigenous communities and general populations settled in diverse territories. Additionally, the colonialist view of believing that social actors in the area are mere recipients of “knowledge,” “training,” and/or mining “technology” is concerning. The State needs to assess all productive activities being developed by communities and various populations in the country, instead of considering mining as the only activity in the affected territories, believing, without the technical merit, that mining companies will be able to develop important productive chains at the local level, when in all these years, they haven’t managed to do so. 

On the other hand, the “Jobs and wages” section focuses its analysis on the mining companies’ “productivity” in terms of “workforce” skills but does not mention anything about the current state of labor and trade union rights in the mining sector. Workers’ rights disputes are a latent problem on a national scale. Not to mention how mining is not generating the necessary employment to foster better economic welfare and sustainability in the affected areas where it operates. 

In the last section, the most critical part of the document, there are 34 questions to measure the economic-labor relationship and impact of the mining company on the territories. However, it is striking that these are questions related to projects already in operation, that is, when the impacts are already occurring, and almost all questions asked are for the business sector. Aren’t these supposed to be questions to assess the feasibility of future projects, before they start their operations? How can we analyze social and economic feasibility with questions specifically aimed at business owners and not at communities and populations? 

The questions asked to evaluate social profitability leave out key social actors in the territories, and avoids a human rights perspective. Only one of the questions vaguely makes a reference to ILO (International Labor Organization) norms, but there are also many related and interconnected rights, such as water, health, environment, food, and housing rights, among others. 

Development cannot continue to be measured only under terms proposed by large investors, without specifically analyzing the broader needs of the population and communities. Pedro Castillo’s government must not forget that it has a mandate to generate changes in favor of the people’s life and economy: the State must reinforce its role as guarantor of rights and economic regulator. That is, to ensure that economic production policies comply with the promotion and protection of human rights and, in particular, social rights.  

Authors

Beatriz Cortez Sánchez

Member, technical team, Red Muqui.

Visit author profile
Organisations
  • We are a network of Peruvian institutions that at the local, regional, national, and international level, defends and promotes the recognition, respect, and exercise of the rights of communities and populations, as well as sustainable development, where mining activities are planned and/or being carried out to analyze their social, environmental and cultural implications.

    Visit Organisation Profile