Mesas de Diálogo
Social Conflict and Community Engagement
in the Mining Sector of Peru
Presented at IFC Sustainability Exchange 2015
Washington, DC. May 20, 2015
For internal discussion. Do not cite or circulate
Overview
1.
Background: Mining and Conflict in
Peru
2.
Institutional Responses to Conflict
3.
A new multi-stakeholder approach:
Dialogue Tables
4.
The Tintaya/Espinar & Quellaveco
study
5.
Lessons learned and
Recommendations
1. Background: Mining and Conflict in Peru



Peru is the World’s second largest producer of
copper and silver, and has other major reserves
Mining has become the main driver of its fastgrowing economy
Peru has the highest number of social conflicts
associated to mining in LAC, together with Chile
The social and economic costs of conflict have
increasingly put questions of equity, fairness,
and sustainability on the national agenda
% associated
to Mining
# of conflicts
300
60%
250
50%
200
40%
150
30%
100
20%
50
10%
0
0%
Jan-05
May-05
Sep-05
Jan-06
May-06
Sep-06
Jan-07
May-07
Sep-07
Jan-08
May-08
Sep-08
Jan-09
May-09
Sep-09
Jan-10
May-10
Sep-10
Jan-11
May-11
Sep-11
Jan-12
May-12
Sep-12
Jan-13
May-13

Conflictos mineros
Conflictos totales
% conflictos asociados a minería
Source: Peruvian Ombudsman and Central Bank
2. Institutional responses to conflict

Traditionally, many government institutions have
been involved in the prevention and management
of social conflicts in Peru

Unclear distribution of competences among them

Different approaches and capacities

Not always direct engagement with relevant
stakeholders at the local level
Ministry of
Mining
National
Office of
Dialogue
Regional
governments
Ombudsman
3. Dialogue
Tables
Address community
concerns & aspirations
through direct
engagement
Diffuse tension &
enable conflict
transformation: voice
to excluded
stakeholders
Multi-stakeholder and
convened at different
levels: national,
regional and local
Innovative response of
dialogue over resource
extraction (not only
during the conflict)

Dialogue
Tables in Peru
Examples: Quellaveco and Tintaya dialogue tables
Facilitated by a
trusted individual
4. The Tintaya & Quellaveco study
1. By comparing 2 large-scale copper mining projects in different contexts, the study
aims to obtain:

Key observations and lessons for addressing future processes of dialogue

A set of policy recommendations that encourage the direct engagement of citizens in
mining areas
2. This is a result of a multi-stakeholder combined effort:

Systematization of Quellaveco experience: CCPM (coordinated by The World Bank)

Systematization of Tintaya/Espinar: Societas/CooperAcción (coordinated by Oxfam)

Comparative analysis: Shift Group (Harvard University) and CSRM (U. of Queensland)

Workshop with stakeholders, Lima, July 2014: Futuro Sostenible
4. The Tintaya & Quellaveco study
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (1/2)
Time
Ownership
Drivers
Issues
Local
context
Principles
QUELLAVECO
TINTAYA/ESPINAR
2011. The DT* was active for 18 months 2002 (DT of Espinar) and 2011-12 (DT Tintaya)
A single owner: Anglo American
Numerous corporate owners over 15 years.
Current owner: Xtrata
DT established in response to company- DT established in response to companycommunity conflict with reputational
community conflict with reputational risk for
risk for the company
the companies
Water scarcity
Contamination of water and legacy issues
relating to land expropriation
Higher level of literacy. Urbanised
Higher levels of poverty. The province became
context. Access and quality to health & urbanised over time. Priorities for the
education was a priority
communities: basic infrastructure and social
services
Decision-making by consensus.
Decision-making by consensus. Principles and
Principles and rules established prior to rules established prior to dealing with
dealing with substantive issues
substantive issues
*DT= Dialogue Table
4. The Tintaya & Quellaveco study
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (2/2)
Scope
Structure
Parties
Company
Outcomes
QUELLAVECO
The DT of Moquegua included regional
concerns
Plenary and sub-working
groups/committees. Regional
government initiated and facilitated
the DT, with national government
support.
DT of Quellaveco was open and
conducted with full transparency
TINTAYA/ESPINAR
The DT of Tintaya process was focused on
affected communities
Plenary and sub-working groups/committees.
Presence of third party factilitator (Oxfam).
No government involvement in the first phase
(2002); national and regional involvement in
the second DT (2011-12).
DT of Tintaya was closed to participants only,
while allowing community representatives
time to consult with their constituencies
Process led by Anglo American Peru, but Process led by Xtrata Peru, but required
required corporate-level involvement in corporate-level involvement in the initial
the initial stages
stages
Final reports and 26 agreements
Final reports and agreements in both DT (2002
and 2012-13)
5. Lessons learned and Recommendations
1. Lessons learned
Well-functioning
dialogue tables can
be an operationallevel asset for
companies
Capacity building
can help address
power asymmetries
Regulation can play
an important role
(attention to its
interpretation and
implementation)
The involvement of
third party
facilitators can be
central to success
Dialogue tables
provide an
opportunity to
enhance social
inclusion
A constructive,
even leading, role
for government is
ideal
New forms of
‘dialogue tables’
appear to be
emerging
5. Lessons learned and Recommendations
2. Recommendations
Build a
coherent
regulatory
framework for
community
engagement
Recognize
value in
meaningful
dialogue
Focus on the
enabling role
of government
+
Continue to
build
knowledge
More coordination among
private sector players to
improve their engagement
with local communities
and agree on common E&S
standards and practices
Regulatory frameworks
require the consent of all
stakeholders. Unilateral
implementations are
difficult and politically
costly
Germán Freire & Sergi Pérez
Social Development (GPSURR)
gfreire@worldbank.org