Angela Pinilla-Urzola
University Los Andes – Cider
Colombia
Multi-participatory construction of Social Dialogue in Colombia: Perspectives from the Mining
Sector
Introduction
The term “Social Dialog” arose from the International Labor Organization (ILO), derived from the
context of industrialized work relations. From this environment, this symbolizes any type of
business, consultation or exchange of information between representatives of the government,
employers and workers on topics of common interest related with social, economic and labor
problems (see Ishikawa, 2004). Nevertheless, in Colombia the term “Social Dialog” has been used
in recent years in the mining context due to state institutions which oversee mining policy. In
essence, the term used by them has the same connotation as the term employed by the ILO and
involves as principal actors the communities and representatives of civil society in the areas where
exploration and exploitation of minerals and energy sources. At the same time, the term has taken
on more importance in recent months within the context of the peacebuilding process, principally
for two main reasons. In the first place, the government is promoting a local peacebuilding process
from the population base in the area. In this context, the spaces of “Social Dialog” are essential. In
the second place, the transformation of the conflicts regarding mining activities related with the
territorial disputes regarding natural resources are a priority for the government. Given that there
is no previous research on “Social Dialog”, specifically in Colombia, the objective of this paper is to
understand how “Social Dialog” is constructed in the mining context in Colombia, its difficulties
and opportunities within the peacebuilding process. To carry out the objective of this study, 70
individuals at the national and local territorial level that represent governmental organizations,
mining companies, mining workers, communities and representatives of civil society in five mining
regions of Colombia. Even though “Social Dialog” is traditionally understood as an institution in
work relations, in Colombia it is just now being constructed from a multi-actor perspective and
may play a potential role in transforming conflicts in the territories.
Background on Social Dialog in the Colombian Context
Social Dialog from the ILO is understood as any type of business, consultation or exchange of
information between representatives of the government, employers and workers on topics of
economic, social and political interest. From the perspective of the ILO, work is understood as a
social relation between actors based on participative democracy. Social Dialog is of great
importance in this context since it is a basic aspect of avoiding conflicts and constructing social
capital (ILO, 2013). In this context, Social Dialog, has the transforming capability of fostering good
governments, peace, stability and economic development. In Colombia, Social Dialog has been
historically influenced by the dynamics of violent and non-violent conflicts which have existed in
the relationships between employers, the government and the employees. Historically, the voice
and participation of workers on economic, social and labor themes have been repressed by the
government and the employers and as a consequence, extralegal means such as strikes and
manifestations which affect public order have been the most effective mechanisms to initiate a
dialog process. The repression has been, in some instances, carried out by violence. There is a high
homicide rate of labor representatives (see CCJ, 2012). Traditionally, there has been a reluctance
shown by government to participate in Social Dialog and this has only been resorted to in
instances where there is a crisis in economic affairs (Fashoyin). At the same time, there is a lack of
political will on the part of the workers, employers and the government so that Social Dialog
produces social transformations (see Fashoyin, 369). The workers, for example, have little
capability for discussion and negotiation (see Vidal, 2012); there is a high level of politicizing by the
labor representatives (see Dombois, 2012), through ideologies and personal interests which
undermine the possibility of transforming social realities (see Vidal, 2012). The lack of political will
is reflected in the high rates of labor and subcontracting informality (see Vidal, 2012; Dejusticia,
2012; Vasquez, 2008). Additionally, the employers—and society—perceive that the function of
Social Dialog, in reality is the attainment of the economic objectives and interests of the workers
beyond having the purpose of participating in and constructing democracy (but see Bogg & Novitz,
2012). When Social Dialog is carried out, it is done with particular interest being placed on
improving salary conditions (Farné, 2012). Furthermore, there is a low rate of worker organization,
even when it is legal and legitimized in the Colombian National Constitution (Vasquez, 2008). In
Conclusion, “Social Dialog” has not catalyzed democratic processes that transform social and
political realities (See Vidal, 2012). The previously mentioned contrasts with the situations that are
presented in other Latin American countries such as Argentina and Costa Rica, countries in which
Social Dialog is supported and in which Social Dialog influences democratic processes and the
construction of political policy (see Senen, 2011 and Chaves, 2002).
Social Dialog in the Mining Context:
Moving toward a transformation?
Since the year 2014, the term “Social Dialog” has been used by the State bodies which govern
mineral resources in the Colombian territory. The term is being used by the National Mining
Agency, the Ministry of Mines and Energy, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of the
Environment and the Ministry of Labor to describe the spaces set apart for negotiation,
consultancy or exchange of information between representatives of the government, employers,
mining workers, communities and representatives of civil society on themes related to economic,
environmental and social interests regarding mining activities. In the current state of affairs of the
country, in the context of the peacebuilding process, the term “Social Dialog”, has gained
acceptance. For the Office of the Peace Commissioner, it is necessary to prepare the local areas for
peace and therefore agreements must be made between the differing actors residing there. The
Office of the Peace Commissioner claims that it is imperative to establish spaces for Dialog at the
local, institutional and non-institutional levels in the territories. The “Social Dialog” regarding
mining and the search for consensus at the regional and local level are decisive for the
transformation of conflicts that generate the activity in Colombia. Paffenholz (2010), Donais (2001)
and Lederach (1997) stress that social participation and local appropriation within a peacebuilding
process from the societal bases are necessary elements for reaching peace. On the contrary, the
reactive responses to the conflicts are not sufficient to transform the socio-political dynamics that
start, aggravate and/or perpetuate the conflicts (Galtung, 1969; Lederach, 2003, but also see Miall,
2004). The disputes over territories for the right to carry out determined economic activities—
mining or agriculture--, unleash new conflicts and the prolonging of older conflicts in the mining
context (see Garay; Kemp; Owen, Gotzmann, and Bond, 2011). Therefore, the “Social Dialog”, as
an intervention for the transformation of conflicts and the building of peace must focus on the
construction of direct, fair, just and communicative interactions between individuals within a
wider process of transformation to achieve social justice (Lederach, 2003), beyond social peace.
Research on Social Dialog in the Mining Regions
Historically, “Social Dialog” in Colombia has been affected by the use of violence to silence the
voice of the workers, the culture of illegality in terms of the fulfillment of labor law, a negative
perspective by the part of the employers and civil society toward the organizations of workers and
dynamics in the relations between actors who put personal ideologies and interests before the
common good (see Patiño, 2014). The spaces of “Social Dialog” have been insufficient to
transform economic, social and political realities (see Vidal 2012; Patiño, 2014). Nevertheless, the
term “Social Dialog” is being encouraged by multiple actors that govern the mineral resources in
the territory such as governmental organizations, private sector businesses, and civil society
through public policy and specific legal regulations, business policies and actions taken by civil
society. All this framed in the peacebuilding processes being carried out in the territory and set in
motion by the government of Juan Manuel Santos. This research was started, precisely, to
understand how “Social Dialog” is constructed in the mining context in Colombia, its difficulties
and opportunities within the context of peacebuilding. To achieve this, qualitative data was
collected through various methods. First, the individuals in the Ministry of Mines and Energy, the
Ministry of Labor and the National Association of Industry with knowledge on social topics and
Social Dialog and conflicts in the surrounding mining towns were identified and a series of initial
non-structured, face to face interviews were carried out. Based on these interviews, the regions
and towns to visit and the principal themes on which the definitive research questions were
structured were determined. The non-structured interviews are those in which the questions are
not pre-established and in which the researcher wishes to learn from the interviewer regarding a
particular phenomenon (see Creswell and Plano-Clark, 2004). The remote regions in the territory
which were visited were Choco, Guajira, Cesar, Tolima and Northeast Antioquia. Second, around
70 interviews were done in the capital of the country and the five regions visited. The
organizations interviewed for this research were classified as: (1) Central Governmental
Organizations; (2) Regional Governmental Organizations; (3) Local Governmental Organizations;
(4) Non-governmental Organizations working on diverse themes such as human rights,
environment peacebuilding, conflict and social development. (5) individuals from the
communities, farmers, settlers, women, indigenous people, African-Colombians and young people;
(6) Union members; (7) Large Mining Companies; (8) Small Miners; (9) Traditional miners; We
cannot indicate in this report the names of the organizations or persons who took part in the
interviews for this study due to reasons of confidentiality. The type of interview carried out with
this group of persons was semi-structured, face to face and some were done via Skype. Semistructured interviews are characterized for having the majority of questions pre-planned while
providing room for some spontaneous questions (see Creswell and Plano-Clark, 2004). The
interviewed persons were selected through snowball sampling in which some individuals lead to
others and these to others until completing the sample. Lastly, a focus-group was done with a
random group of individuals holding knowledge regarding the topic of “Social Dialog” and of
mining and those involved in the development of policies and interventions in the area. Focus
Groups are a technique of collecting data on the perception of a group of individuals regarding a
specific problem and when it involves persons with different stands, it allows for the explanation
of different points of view and a more in-depth understanding of their opinions. Qualitative data
analysis uses the methodology of content analysis. Two researchers realize the coding of the
interviews using Nvivo qualitative data analysis software. The coding of the interviews is done
based on various analytical categories. For this analysis, a sample of 30 interviews out of the
universe of 70 total interviews are taken.
What is understood by “Social Dialog” in the Mining Context
“Social Dialog” is understood and constructed from different perspectives in the national and
local-territorial contexts in Colombia. In general, the organizations of the national government
perceive “Social Dialog” as an instrument that allows for fostering economic stability of a region in
which mining activities are essential. These organizations associate the term “Social Dialog” with
social peace. These organizations perceive “Social Dialog” as spaces of information, consultancy
and negotiation. Some of these organizations identify “Social Dialog” as a tool for negotiation
between national governmental organizations and local communities and miners to reach
agreements and construct objectives with the parties involved with respect to the design of public
policy for the mining sector, decent working conditions and to discuss the incentives needed to
legitimize the activity of mining in the territory. Furthermore, the spaces of “Social Dialog” are
used to analyze situations which address social problems—regarding the situation of the
conditions of life and human development in the communities and the work conditions of the
miners and topics regarding environmental pollution, among others—at the local and territorial
levels of the miners. Additionally, “Social Dialog” is perceived as a tool which can generate
alternative solutions to a violent or non-violent conflict—such as situations of armed strikes and
community protests—which are going on in the territory. Despite that, one governmental entity in
particular sees “Social Dialog” from a very different perspective since for them the responsibility
for the management of such spaces must be done from the large corporations in the private
sector, with the purpose of socializing the development of mining projects with the company’s
interest groups. Furthermore, the local governmental organizations have a different perspective
on “Social Dialog” since they see them as spaces for participation and inclusion where through a
horizontal type of relation between the actors involved, the governmental organizations and the
large, medium and small mining projects can reach a consensus and go further than simply
informing about the mining activity. Consensus is reached on diverse themes, not only on the
mining problematic but also on labor issues and issues which affect the communities or regarding
the conservation of natural resources territorial management. As one interviewee indicated: “they
help to have a comprehensive look at the territory”.
The last perspective on “Social Dialog” as an instrument which helps to have an overall view of the
territory is shared by the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). As stated by one NGO, these
are “spaces to arrive at agreements as to the future of territories”. The NGOs which have the
objective of working for the conservation of the environment understand “Social Dialog” as spaces
of horizontal discussion and of equality and respect in which different actors of civil society,
among those found in the government, the large, medium and small mining companies and the
traditional miners and the communities who meet to build public policy for the mining sector from
the local perspective and being ever aware of the local interests. For this type of organizations, the
participation of a “foundation of actors” is important for defining a public agenda with concrete
actions with a view to the future. Similarly, the NGOs who work on themes of conflict resolution,
human rights and peacebuilding agree with environmental NGOs that “Social Dialog” is related
with scenarios and interactions in which a public agenda is set forth regarding mining issues and
some of them suggest that they are the ideal spaces to resolve the conflicts which exist in the
communities. Additionally, the NGOs which are dedicated to working on other social issues
coincide with the aforementioned NGOs in the perception held on “Social Dialog”, but they differ
from them in what they observe as a process which starts a transformation of a social or
environmental problem related to mining. In a separate case, one of these NGOs specifically works
on social dialog roundtables regarding mining and they view it as a function of the construction of
a positive narrative in mining with regards to the topic of risk management. For the NGOs with a
business focus, they perceive “Social Dialog” as the relating and incorporation of the perspectives
of the interested parties, workers and communities within the management of mining projects.
On the other hand, in private organizations, a consensus can be observed regarding what is
understood by “Social Dialog”. In general, large companies in the private sector perceive “Social
Dialog” as an “indispensable element to be used in the mining regions since it is essential to
successfully carrying out the cycle of mining [production]”. In a like manner, these organizations
perceive it as a necessary mechanism to be able to get close to the communities and to
understand their needs. It is the space in which they converse with their differing interested
parties on issues such as relating with communities, decent work, human, environmental and
social rights, among others. Furthermore, the small and medium-sized mining projects understand
“Social Dialog” as a necessary space in the search for better standards of living—in economic
terms, most importantly, and in decent work conditions, the legitimization of the mining activity
and the exploration of alternatives to the problematics experienced in the mining territories. At
the same time, the mining associations understand it as the stage of proceedings in which all of
the societal actors agree upon public policy with regards to the mining problematic. One mining
association in particular associates “Social Dialog” with local and territorial peacebuilding. Lastly,
one consulting company specialized in the area of community management perceives “Social
Dialog” as “bi-directional communication, as equals and with respect achieved for seeking
alternatives together with the purpose of developing a common goal”.
Additionally, the communities, represented by the mining workers and farmers of the region
perceive “Social Dialog” from various perspectives. For the mining workers, “Social Dialog” is a
mechanism for resolving conflicts and for building alternatives to social problems—of conditions
of life, of decent work and the health problematic as well as the environment---that afflict workers
or the community in general. The groups of local workers—unions and other veteran’s
associations—define Social Dialog as “the capability to generate decent conditions to small towns
and workers”. In the local communities, two perspectives can be observed. For some, it is the
space where the participation of all the community that inhabits a territory exists—including
groups outside the law—to solve a conflict or problem with the mining activity. In general, for the
communities, “Social Dialog” means participation by all people. Likewise, there are communities
that think of “Social Dialog” as those “spaces where large mining companies bring people together
to impose their will”.
Challenges and Hurdles to Implement Social Dialog
The majority of national governmental organizations state that the main challenge they face to
have “Social Dialog” in the territory is related with negative myths and beliefs regarding mining
activities. For them, these myths have caused an anti-mining culture to appear in some territories.
Furthermore, these organizations indicate that there are territorial governmental authorities that
foster this negative image toward the activity of mining, which makes the legitimacy of “Social
Dialog” more difficult. At the same time, it is argued that the legitimacy of “Social Dialog” is
affected by the strong lack of confidence in the government and institutions of mining. This lack of
confidence has arisen due to the fact that communities exist which have had negative experiences
with respect to the management of social and environmental issues regarding mining by
governmental organizations. These perceive that these do not solve problems and that there
exists favoritism toward large mining companies. In fact, in some territories there are groups with
radical positions again mining who use violent means or acts to impede the carrying out of “Social
Dialog” in the territory. In addition, the absence and abandon of the State in some mining
territories leads the communities to have erroneous expectations regarding the reach of the
discussions in the social dialog spaces, the responsibilities of the governmental organizations that
lead such processes and the demands that can be carried out in such spaces. In fact, the great
economic expectations and of the generation of economic earnings held by the communities with
regards to mining projects and which are a cause of conflicts, affect the quality of the “Social
Dialog” in the territory. Similarly, this occurs with the incompliance of the application of mining
law and the generalized informality of the labor conditions in the mining sector. Lastly, the
operational capacity of the national governmental organizations in terms of knowledge, personnel
and financial resources and the inadequate planning affect the quality of the “Social Dialog”
spaces. The regional governmental organizations are in agreement with the challenges identified
by the national governmental organizations. Additionally, one regional governmental organization,
has identified groups of individuals present in the territory who manipulate information and the
communities and who attempt to impede the realization of “Social Dialog”, so that “to the degree
that information is lacking, they can exercise certain power [over the communities]”. In a like
manner, there is a local organization which argues that involvement of political ideologies in the
debates regarding the mining problematic generates a lack of transparency and clarity when
debating issues in the Social Dialog spaces.
Furthermore, for the environmental NGOs, the challenges surrounding “Social Dialog” at the
territorial levels are related to the actions of the national and territorial governmental
organizations. In general, the NGOs dedicated to protecting the environment perceive a lack of
confidence of the communities in the governmental organizations. They also indicate that in the
“Social Dialog” spaces created, there is a weakness in the accompaniment and follow up in relation
to the agreed upon pacts between the government and the communities in the territories.
Furthermore, they perceive that the instruments of citizen participation are seen as an obstacle
both by the government as well as by the large mining companies and there is one NGO which
indicates that there is no “Social Dialog” in the territory. In fact, they observe that in some
territories there is a polarization between the communities of the same region in favor and against
mining activities. For one NGO, disinformation on the impacts of the mining activity can create
chaos and feelings of terror in the communities, toward the large companies and toward mining in
general. For the NGOs that work in the area of peacebuilding and human rights, the unbalance of
community-corporation power in the territory regarding “Social Dialog” is not equal. In fact, they
note that the commitments and agreements of those arriving at the “Social Dialog” spaces is not
fulfilled and that actions taken by the government are not effective. These organizations observe
that a problem exists regarding the financing of the processes of “Social Dialog” to guarantee their
sustainability. Furthermore they note that regulations regarding citizen participation are not
fulfilled by the competent governmental organizations. They also observe that the large
companies of the private sector are intervening on the topics developed in the “Social Dialog”
processes so that the community is not duly informed. Lastly, they indicate that there is no
governmental presence in the territories and that under those conditions it is difficult to foster
“Social Dialog” spaces. For the NGOs that work on themes of a business nature, some companies
of the mining sector focus on financial earnings and returns without taking into account the
management of the social necessities, labor conditions of the workers or the environmental
conditions of the communities where they labor. For an NGO that works on the roundtables of the
workers and the environment for the mining sector, the main problem lies in the prejudices that
many of the actors have about one another making it difficult to get them seated in one place for
a dialog.
In addition, for the large private companies, there are also various challenges related with “Social
Dialog”. In the first place, there are companies which perceive these scenarios as adverse spaces
under hostile conditions. Some companies argue that the communities do not want to enter into
conversations with them and that they can observe disinformation about technical aspects and
economic, social and environmental impacts of the activities being circulated. Even though they
also perceive that there are high expectations regarding the responsibilities of the companies in
these spaces, and that there is confusion regarding what should be the role of the company and
the role of the government. They state that there is a highly politicized environment at the
territorial level which impedes diverse actors from coming together at the dialog table. They also
state that there are groups in the communities who intimidate the people so that they do not take
advantage of the Social Dialog spaces. They indicate that there are individuals that arrive in their
communities and convince them to use other more aggressive actions and to file lawsuits to get
economic benefits rather than going to participate in a roundtable. They also speak of problems
related with the governmental organizations. They argue that the lack of clear laws and guidelines
with respect to Social Dialog are affecting its implementation. Furthermore, they indicate the
existence of weaknesses in the processes of managing corporate responsibility such as identifying
the interested parties and having clear communication with them can also affect the Social Dialog.
They observe that there is fragmentation between communities with differing needs and
demands. They go on to point out the lack of presence of governmental organizations in areas
where there is informal and illegal mining going on and being carried out by violent actors is a
barrier to communication which must be addressed with these communities. For small and
medium-sized miners, the problem lies in the fact that they perceive a greater power at work than
the large mining companies in these spaces which puts their activities at risk as well as their
economic sustainability into the future. They also feel that they are truly not included in the
process of establishing public policy for the sector. The traditional miners share the same
perception of the small and medium-sized miners when they feel that there is a very strong power
held by the large companies which adversely affects the quality of the Social Dialog.
Finally, for the communities, the challenges to developing a “Social Dialog” in the territory are
related to the large mining companies. In accordance with some sectors of the communities, they
do not care about the social, economic and environmental needs of the communities and they
argue that there is not follow through on the part of the competent governmental organizations
regarding the commitments made by the business with respect to the communities. They also
make reference to the inequality in the division of power between the communities and the large
companies in the “Social Dialog” scenarios and they indicate that they feel marginalized in these
processes. There are communities which routinely refuse to sit at the negotiation table with the
large multinational companies given that they feel these are spaces used for manipulation since all
they want is for the large mining companies to be out of their territories. Furthermore, for the
workers, the theme of personal interests of the politicians and persons in power in the territory
affect the “Social Dialog” process. They feel that “they end up doing what the [politician or
governing body] would consider should be done” without even taking into account the common
good. For another group of workers, the laws and legislation which applies in the territory favors
the large companies more than the interests of the communities and this brings about distrust on
the part of the communities to the scenarios of Social Dialog. Some communities and workers see
that the only form that there can be Social Dialog is through doing strikes and social protests on
their part.
Social Dialog in a Peacebuilding Context
From the office of the High Commission for Peace, the government of Juan Manuel Santos, the
strategy of the construction of peace, which has been planned, is based on a transformation of
conflicts (see Lederach, 2003) at the local level, in the territory. Therefore, in this scenario, the
construction of spaces open to direct, just, communicative interactions between individuals are
vitally important within a wider process of transformation to achieve social justice. In this sense, it
is very important what has been happening over the last years in the mining sector where they
have begun to construct a “Social Dialog” from different perspectives and from different actors:
governmental, workers, business people and of civil society to transform conflicts which occur in
the mining sector. Nevertheless, the surveyed people are not completely aware of the role that
Social Dialog would play at the local level and in the mining context what would their role be, as
actors, in Peacebuilding. For a labor representative and an organization of the national
government, Social Dialog is essential for the construction of “Labor Peace” which in the mining
context is essential given that it is a vehicle to combining efforts toward formalization of workers
in the mining sector. This is vitally important in view that the necessity of formalizing mining is one
of the causes of greatest conflict in the mining territories. Other representatives of workers go
beyond this as they understand Social Dialog as a peacemaking tool to resolve violent and nonviolent conflicts as indicated by Lederach (2003). Furthermore, one of the largest private
companies indicates that the tools of Corporate Social Responsibility, as the voluntary principles of
human rights are the most efficient tools for peacebuilding.
Conclusion
Social Dialog is effective and legitimate when integrated within a joint process at the micro and
macro level of governance in the territory in the greater context of peacebuilding. Leadership in
the design and implementation of Social Dialog in the territory, is a participative process carried
out together with all the actors that inhabit the territory whether they are the Government, Civil
Society, the Private Sector or the workers and communities. In some territories, where there is a
presence of armed actors, it is essential to find mechanisms to resolve the complexities of
inclusion in these spaces considering that for the communities in the territory they are also a
legitimate actor who should participate in such processes. The objective of Social Dialog is that of
constructing a process of conflict transformation (see Lederach, 2007) in the framework of
peacebuilding with the purpose of deciding, in a participative and inclusive form, the destiny of
the territories, considering that which is established in the National Constitution of Colombia. The
principal products of Social Dialog must be the following two: Firstly, a specific agreement which
can be used within the processes of governance in the territory and which empowers decision
making and governance from the territory to the communities. Secondly, specific and usable
information that helps to have a correct management of the mining territories. The challenges to
the implementation of Social Dialog in the territory are various. It is necessary to develop the
capacity of the governmental organizations at the national level and in the territories to bring
together the guidelines and governmental legislation, at the micro and macro levels and at the
horizontal and vertical levels with respect to the issues of mining, the environment, the territorial
laws and the social issues and formalization of work conditions for decent work including
participation of the community. Furthermore, it is necessary to coordinate policies and efforts
between the different governmental, private and civil society actors who live in the territories.
There must be respect for State Rule of Law. The creation of value for society based on Social
Dialog will be achieved by converting it into spaces which create synergy and efforts joined
together to transform social and environmental conflicts that exist in the mining territories.