Trends and Conflicts in the
Extractive Sector
Public Policy for a More
Sustainable Future
Jorge Daniel Taillant –
jdtaillant@gmail.com
Rio + 20 – June 2012
Trends
• Exponential increase in investments, increased
exploration and extraction as a result of expanding
economies and increase in mineral demand
• Parallel increase of sophisticated use of modern
communication technologies and social networking to
discuss negative externalities extractives
• Rising social sensitivity and inflexible entrenched
opposition to social and environmental risks and lack of
information/participation posed by extractives
• Entrenched and Diametric Debate over exclusive
YES/NO to extractives
• Increasing engagement in legislatures in response to
social pressure, to band certain types of mining outright
(open pit, arsenic, etc.)
• Growingly evident governmental incapacity to manage
the sector, with deepening problems
• Political / Financial Deadlock in specific Extractives
Projects and Sector in general
Where is this leading us?
•
•
•
•
Increased conflict
Increasingly entrenched opposition
Difficulties with investments
Project suspension due to public unrest or
outright banning (due to pressure on legislative
frameworks)
• Tension and Deadlock
• Divergent interests of sector with community
needs
• Violence and Human Injury
Responses / Corporate
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Corporate CSR Programs
Sustainability Reporting
Introduction of Sustainability Management
Alliances with Pro-Mining Stakeholders (labor,
suppliers, government)
Conflict management with Opposition
Reinforced positive media to investors
Inside lobbying/pressure with public officials
Alienation of sophisticated CSO opposition
Andes Mountains – Chile/Argentina
Responses / Communities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interest and defense for/of Jobs … vs.
Raised awareness and concern over social/env risks
Social networking on concerns
Increased engagement on issues
Increased sophistication on advocacy/communication
Increased Tension/Conflict
Entrenched Opposition / Road Blocks
Int’l Complaints
Creation of Self Convened Assemblies
Social Movement in Parallel tracks to established CSOs
Andes Mountains – Chile/Argentina
Responses / State Actors
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Extractives Promotion
Favorable financial regulatory framework and incentive
Favorable legal framework
Fast approval of EIA processes
Creation of Parallel Environmental Authorities
Executive Favor to Sector
Opposition to social resistance
(criminalization of protestors)
Limited or no communication to stakeholders
Limited or no engagement/participation of stakeholders
Limited or no access to information by stakeholders
Limited or no access to justice to affected parties
Andes Mountains – Chile/Argentina
Key areas to address
• Limited or no information
• Poor or non-existent engagement between critical civil
society and companies
• No or failed communication between community and
State (no articulation by State)
• Poor capacity (and willingness) of State to monitor and
control
• No pressure from companies on State to be more
transparent
• Institutional irrationality between promotion/control
• Failure of access to justice and conflict resolution
mechanisms (national/int’l)
Trends and Conflicts in the
Extractive Sector
Public Policy for a More
Sustainable Future
Jorge Daniel Taillant –
jdtaillant@gmail.com
Rio + 20 – June 2012