METALS, why oppose the mining of metals?
interested Proponents of mining (and in general of mega projects) have a very closed mind, who can only understand the opposition to these projects, saying that the alleged "eco-hysterical" are "enriched" with it. Nor can they accept that communities are mobilizing on their own, without manipulation, violations of their rights or to perceive with his own eyes the damage to the environment.
By Camilo Salvadó *
AVANCSO 
economic reasons
is commonly found in the media, expressions of doubt and distrust of active opposition many peasant and indigenous communities, and social movement allies have maintained for years and, contrary to the mining and oil industries, the construction of large hydroelectric dams and mega (mega plantations, highways, etc.).
Focusing on mining metal, we can see that in many cases not all-this is a speech made by groups linked to companies that see their investments and returns "endangered." These interest groups will not understand the reasons for the communities and their allies to oppose the "wealth creation" and see only "eco-hysterics' with hidden agendas or peasants" manipulated "by those.
interested Proponents of mining (and in general of mega projects) have a very closed mind, who can only understand the opposition to these projects, saying that the alleged "eco- hysterical " are "enriched" with it. Nor can they accept that communities are mobilizing on their own, without manipulation, violations of their rights or to perceive with his own eyes the damage to the environment.
To understand the reasons for communities and organizations to oppose the mining of metals, we can not only from the logic of the capitalist economy. The reason is simple: any problems should be viewed only from one from one corner. We therefore seek to address the issue of mining from the field of political ecology, which we integrated view to economic, environmental and political.
Most positions favorable to mining, for example the recent report of CIEN "The contribution of mining to development of Guatemala" - only see this activity from the point of view the wealth it generates, and argue that mining, by the mere fact of its existence, has a "spillover effect" on the rest of the population (say, by way of jobs and private investment).
This argument is false, since wealth generated from the extraction, processing and sale of gold and other strategic metals (including uranium), is and will be only for the mining. The "spillover effect" does not exist, unless you call it that: a) investments that any company does for its activity, as the few jobs for foreign specialists. b) the dollar spill reaches only to shareholders but not to the communities affected, or c) the potential spill of cyanide in water sources.
These statements are not based on prejudice and lies, but on observation of reality mining past (El Estor, San Ildefonso Ixtahuacán) and present (Sipakapa, San Miguel community), which clearly shows that private investment has never become a mejornivel of life for nearby populations to exploitation, as companies increasingly realize higher profits: an ounce of gold exceeded the $ 1.100 this month.
position favoring mining only from economic arguments, also has a wrong position on the environmental impacts. In the worst cases, the refuse and the "best" case are considered "externalities", which must assume the communities but not mining. Even states that "all human activity has impacts on the environment" (which is true, but does not compare the environmental impact of a family cornfield with a large mining or oil company).
Even within the anti-mining attitudes is equally common to find arguments focused on the economic (especially on the issue of royalties). Of course, this question is crucial. From any point of view can be seen as just that mine stay with 99% of the profits and the remaining 1% is divided between central government and local government without a drop could certainly reach communities poorest.
But even increasing the royalties (or even if the lie of "spillover effect" were true), metal mining continues to have significant environmental impacts that do not fall into any economic calculations. Focus the debate only in perspective of the "profits", the "wealth" and "oro" (still positioned for communities) is to limit the discussion to the same spot where they wanted to locate mining advocates.
should seriously debated whether it is better to prevent environmental and health impacts, or give a small monetary compensation to those who suffer. These are issues that could be addressed in a new mining law. A law that even increasing the royalties (say 50%), do not focus only on economic issues, and ensure not only businesses but also and above all, by communities and
nature.
Finally, it is also urgent for the government to provide alternative production and survival of communities from falling into the trap of false "jobs." Or at least, if it considers that this is not their role or do not have enough money for it, leave space and facilities to communities to build themselves against their own economic alternatives to mining.
environmental reasons
When talking about the environmental impacts of mining not just mean that it is "ruining the landscape" (Siglo XXI 07/16/1909) but more serious issues, which in turn have implications for the economy, health and nutrition of the communities near the mines. Such is the case with Siria Valley in Honduras, where they have reported many adverse effects on the health of nearby populations.
In Guatemala, the Marlin mine spokesmen continue to deny that the activity in it has some kind of environmental impacts, despite already proven its effects on health inhabitants of nearby communities and mine workers (skin rash blood contamination with copper and arsenic) and the fact that 40 wells have dried and community water (Journal of Central, 11/03/09).
On the other hand, deforestation is associated with this type of industry (which is undeniable), because mining requires, first cutting the trees in the area, and second of literally "grinding" the mountain, separating the land of the metals, using heavy equipment (open pit mining) and poisonous chemicals (cyanide leaching of
sodium), which implies destruction and pollution toxic soil.
By this we mean that the soil where it has been practiced mining open pit metal, as practiced today, may not be used for cultivation or reforestation taking long-term impacts on the power of communities. Consider also that to get the gold needed to make a single ring of 18 carats, you need to generate
up to 20 tonnes of solid waste.
Another environmental impact is certainly serious in the water. Recall that the impulse to mining occurs mainly in the upper watersheds where, for geological reasons, are the largest deposits of gold and other metals with strategic value. But it is also in the upper watersheds where most water sources, as deforestation, over exploitation of water sources and soil destruction interrupt the process of water recharge.
As indicated, water operated by the Marlin mine is poisoned with cyanide and other chemicals during the leaching process and then is impounded in a hole pompously called "tailings dam, which does not prevent the leakage of chemicals into groundwater. In Honduras and other countries have documented accidents due to spills and breakage of these "dams." In Guatemala, there have been several trucks carrying cyanide spill, which has also been introduced to the country without paying taxes (Prensa Libre, 30/06/09).
The water issue is not only troubling from the standpoint of environmental impacts on the health of living organisms and in food. It is also blatantly unfair that the companies can exploit for free up to 250,000 liters of water per hour, the same amount that a farm family could consume in 22 years (in theory, if
had access to piped drinking water).
When discussing the issue of metal mining, there is a need to provide the environmental issue at least as much attention given to economic issues. After all, remember that the position in favor of mining usually denies the environmental impacts.
Among groups opposed to the mining industry, there are many criticisms focused solely on the ecological (ignoring or taking into account the economic issue superficially). This position, if it can be argued from the point of view of the ethics of life, often tends toward an idealized vision of nature and peasant communities, ignoring the poverty and exploitation that routinely survive.
Similarly, the criticism focused solely on the economic issue, they lose sight not only the direct links between environment and economy, but also that environmental impacts in themselves, are sufficient reasons to oppose the mining of metals. The critical need to focus not only on the issue of royalties, because even if they increase, this does not eliminate environmental impacts.
Political reasons
By taking a position for or against the mining of metals, generally made from the economy or ecology. Another point of view not yet fully explored, is political. This does not refer to the ideology of the incumbent government, because from the overtly neo-liberal PAN, WIN), to those who sailed under other flags (DCG, FRG, UNE) have open or veiled support to mining and have used -with different speech nuances, the same as the "engine of development."
The current government does not go so far as to deny neoliberal environmental impacts of mining. However, to argue that these can be minimized, hidden that are not due to "errors" or "excesses" of the companies but are part of the normal process of mining.
seems that the government only cares about the needs of businesses but not to the communities impacted or threatened by activities extraction. Only this can explain the transnational Goldcorp (Montana owns and Marlin) can continue their activities, paying the same 1% of royalties, despite the signs of communities, organizations and of the Ministry of Environment on the negative impacts environmental and economic.
The apostles of "free market", the "job creation" and the "spillover effect" felt very safe "investment security" when Marlin mine personnel prevented access Sipakapa Mayor, who sought to take samples of water from dam tails (Free Press 03/17/2008), or when the Environment Ministry was forced to backtrack on its shares for income tax-free cyanide and environmental controls (Prensa Libre, 30/06/09).
As expected, compared with community consultations against the mining and oil extraction, mega hydroelectric and other similar activities, the current government took the same position as above. Like WIN, the NEU hareconocido not the validity or has complied with the results of the 24 community consultations held during his tenure, and replicates the discourse of "opposition to development ", the" natives managed "and" lawlessness ".
community consultations But they can not be seen only under that lens. Rather we should ask ourselves if we really live in democracy (weak and insufficient, but democracy at the end) Why do not you have to respect the results of the 51 community consultations carried out since
2005? Could it be that more than half a million votes (600.800) against mining and mega projects have no value or political clout? Do democracy and voting
only imported into election season, but do not count in the day to day?
The issue of community consultation is also related to the issue of the ILO Convention 169 on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. This agreement, signed by the neoliberal government of PAN, in 1996 (only to pass a year after the current Mining Act) requires, among other things, the government and businesses to inform and consult communities before granting concessions and to initiate projects, which has never been fulfilled.
Since the Convention 169 establishes procedures for information and consultation to communities and community consultations have been held several times after the award of projects, some analysts have argued that consultations not only illegal but also would
themselves violate the said agreement (Siglo XXI 9/25/2009), I argue that not only is clearly concerned, but also absurd.
First, the community consultation meetings are a form of protest peacefully against human rights violation or not in the said Convention. In that sense,
many UN rapporteurs have been clearly identified mining as a cause of serious violations of specific rights and freedoms of indigenous peoples and peasants in general (eg, the right to food and land).
Second, the queries defined in the Convention 169 does not look like video advertising with breakfast included practiced by companies. By contrast, consultations with communities must be After all, "according to their own customs and traditions, in a participatory and
free" (Article 6). The consultations undertaken by the communities are a dramatic and life of such "customs and traditions", ie are the way decisions have been made leading community for centuries.
Third, it is true that the community consultations have invoked the Convention 169 (with the exception of Rio Hondo, mostly mestizo), but also based on the existing articles of the Constitution, the Municipal Code and the Law on Decentralization. Beyond the legal issue, there is a moral obligation to respect the results of these community processes of dialogue, consensus and decision making.
Finally, whether or not Convention 169, with or without specific laws or regulations for its implementation, community consultation must be understood and heeded as valid forms, democratic and peaceful resistance, and as a clear message to government, business and society: "DO NOT WANT OUR TERRITORIES MEGAPROJECTS" Esacaso a message so hard to understand?
(*) Research of the Association for the Advancement of Social Sciences-AVANCSO, Guatemala. Article fueorn parties Noticierto editorial Maya C'at of
Guatemalan Federation of Radio Education-FGER-16 and 22 December. 2009 and 19 January. 2010 www.fger.org
Name: Yenny Zoraida Morales Zambrano
Subject : RF Circuits
metals http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bfit8l4I16c/SrpVnAaTBKI/AAAAAAAAFPg/ qMJbZpxIqgo/s400/mineria.jpg
blog View: http://crfzoraida.blogspot.com/
0 comments:
Post a Comment