Original Articles

Coro Coro and Challapata:Defending Collective Rights and Mother Earth

against Development Mining Fetishism

Emilio R. Madrid Lara, Angela Cuenca Sempertegui, Silvana Lafuente Tito,Elizabeth Lopez Canelas, and Jose Luis Rodrıguez Alanez

ABSTRACT

Differing attitudes towards development and relationships with nature constitute some of the most sig-nificant causes of conflict among peasant and indigenous communities involved in large-scale miningprojects. Both the state and the mining companies try to impose a fetishized interpretation of mining,envisioning it as fate, as the only way to bring economic growth to the high Andean regions, a view towhich all community expectations and ways of life must be subject. It is a fetishism that shows the worldupside down: ‘‘it is mining that accounts for society and not society that accounts for mining.’’ With thislogic, other forms of development are denied, and the legitimate territorial defense on the part of the peoplesis undermined. However, community mobilization in defense of shared rights is effectively unmasking thispoint of view. The peoples’ actions bring light to a central issue: the right to self-determined development.

INTRODUCTION

Coro Coro and Challapata have become two em-blematic cases of the struggle of indigenous peasant

peoples in Bolivia against the aggression of large-scalemines. Coro Coro, explicitly demanded its right to freeand informed prior consultation and consent from agovernment such as that of Evo Morales, who is renownedat the international level for his leadership in the defenseand promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples and ofMother Earth. The conflict highlighted the fact that, inspite of a new constitution that acknowledges these rights,there are still a number of views and attitudes, firmlyrooted in the state, that prevent putting words into action.

Challapata, for its part, has become an example of theextent to which a people can keep and defend their rightto freely determined development—in this case, agricul-tural, livestock, and dairy production—through shared

perseverance. Their fight was the result of a difficult de-cision made 16 years ago that has since been strengthenedby successful agricultural production.

The two cases share the same problems: they are facingnot only specific mining projects, but also a fetishizedinterpretation of mining and national development.

The purpose of this article is to highlight the contri-bution of these two cases to the fight against developmentmining fetishism. Towards this goal, the first section dealswith a brief explanation of what we mean when we talkabout mining fetishism. The two following sections de-scribe the main events of both conflicts. Finally, we con-clude by underlining the outcomes of both cases.

FETISHIZED VIEW OF MINING

Intensive mining has been ongoing in Bolivia sincethe country gained independence. However, contrary tothe promises made in each of the mining boom peri-ods, the results have not been the much-anticipated socio-economic development; poverty has not been reducedand quality of life has been negatively affected by severeenvironmental degradation in mining regions.1

Dr. Madrid Lara is with the Colectivo de Coordinacion deAcciones Socio Ambientales in Oruro, Bolivia. Ms. CuencaSempertegui is an agricultural engineer and member of Colectivode Coordinacion de Acciones Socio Ambientales. Ms. LafuenteTito is a chemical engineer. Ms. Lopez Canelas is an independentconsultant and a member of the Latin American Network ofWomen Defenders of Socio-Environmental Rights in Resistanceto Mining. Mr. Rodrıguez Alanez is a laywer of the Colectivo deCoordinacion de Acciones Socio Ambientales.

1United Nations Development Program: Report on HumanDevelopment in Bolivia, 2007.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEVolume 5, Number 2, 2012ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.DOI: 10.1089/env.2011.0027

65

The consistency of mining activity throughout nationalhistory has led many to say that Bolivia is ‘‘a country witha mining vocation.’’ In the high Andean regions, such asthe Department of Oruro, the saying has become a chorus:‘‘Oruro was, is, and will be a mining region.’’2 In this way, afetishized view of mining is revealed, where it is seen asan inescapable fate, taking place above society, instead ofas an activity performed by social actors. As Magnet3

says, there is an upside-down perception of reality, in thatmining determines society’s development rather thansociety defining the conditions of mining.

Mining fetishism has also been used as ideologicalarmor. Instead of a proper evaluation of risks and poten-tials, instead of incorporating mining into other economicsectors, and instead of respecting environmental standards,the fetishized view of mining demands that the country andits legal, institutional, economic, and social structures, aswell as its environmental conditions, adjust their standardsin order to facilitate mining. From this viewpoint, defenseof collective rights over ancestral territories, concern forecological impact, and regulation of pollution are all con-sidered obstacles to mining and, therefore, to development.

It is within this context that conflicts arising in ruraland indigenous communities against the risks and im-pacts of mining in their territories provide a radical cri-tique to the fetishized view. These conflicts defend theright of peoples to a freely determined development.4

THE CORO CORO CONFLICT: THE RIGHTTO PRIOR CONSULTATION WHEN ACTIVITIES

AFFECT ANCESTRAL TERRITORY

The Coro Coro region is located about 60 km southwestof La Paz City. It has historically been part of the Jach’aSuyu Pakajaqi ancestral territory.5

In June 2008, the Bolivian government, the state Cor-poracion Minera de Bolivia (COMIBOL), and the SouthKorean company Korea Resources Corporation (KORES),signed the Risk Contract for the exploitation of the CoroCoro copper deposit. The project was to be carried out in twostages. The first phase would consist of regional prospectingby KORES and installation of a hydrometallurgical plant byCOMIBOL. The second phase, of which KORES would be incharge, assisted by an investment of USD 210 million, wouldend regional prospecting and begin open-pit activities inorder to process 10 to 15 thousand tons of copper daily and

produce 30 to 50 thousand fine metric tons (FMT)/year ofcopper.6

The hydrometallurgical plant, in the first stage, had atreatment capacity of 300 tons/day of mining leftoversand waste from old operations, with the aim of recoveringcathode copper at a pace of 390 FMT/month. The plantstarted operations on October 27, 2009. During its instal-lation, COMIBOL occupied, without consent, nearly 15hectares (ha) belonging to ayllu Huacasayana in order tobuild the residues dam. It also expanded water convey-ance works in the Pontezuelo River, ayllu Sikuypata. Theeffects of the subsequent decrease in water flow on thelocal population and the river ecosystem were not eval-uated, nor were they discussed with affected individuals.Those actions undermined the right to prior consultationand consent, as stated in the International Labour Orga-nization (ILO) Agreement No. 169, the United NationsDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and inthe State Political Constitution passed in February 2009.7

Before these abuses, the peoples’ authorities of Jach’aSuyu Pakajaqi had, as of December 2008, repeatedlyasked for information about the mining project and theirright to prior consultation from the Ministry of Mining,COMIBOL, the Legislative Assembly, and even PresidentEvo Morales, all without any success.

On November 22, 2009, the community members ofayllu Sikuypata, tired of being ignored, restored thePontezuelo River’s natural channel, cutting the watersupply to the hydrometallurgical plant. The governmentreacted to this incident through the Minister of Mining,who publicly called it ‘‘an act of terrorism.’’8 However,the measures taken by the peoples obliged the govern-ment to sign a covenant with the representatives of Jach’aSuyu Pakajaqi, agreeing upon the enforcement of priorconsultation and compensation for possible damages.

The promised consultation timetable was not adheredto, however, due to aggressions on the part of hydro-metallurgical plant staff, who did not want such a processto work. Since then, the government, despite acknowl-edging its duty to consult the ayllus and respond to en-vironmental concern, has been evading responsibility,hiding behind the opposition of miners and the lack oflegal and institutional mechanisms.

Due to the government’s unwillingness to solve theclaims of the ayllus of Jacha Suyu Pakajaqi, the peoples’authorities have decided to present the case before theInter American Human Rights Commission (IAHRC) in ahearing during the 140th Period of Sessions, hoping thattaking this step will force the Bolivian government tocomply with the right to consultation.

2Advertising agency’s message for mining companies’ cam-paigns in the City of Oruro.

3Jordi Magnet Colmer, ‘‘Fetichizacion Jurıdica del Derecho,’’Nomadas: Revista Crıtica de Ciencias Sociales y Jurıdicas 20 (Barce-lona: Universidad de Barcelona, 2008).

4Raquel Yrigoyen, ‘‘De la tutela indıgena a la libre determinaciondel desarrollo, la participacion, la consulta y el consentimiento,’’(Lima: Instituto Internacional de Derecho y Sociedad-IIDS, 2009).

5Suyu: pre-colonial territorial political organization. Jach’aSuyu Pakajaqi (in Aymara Jach’a = great, Suyu = region, equiva-lent to ‘‘Great Region’’) is now the Province of Pacajes (Spanishversion of Pakajaqi), subdivided into 10 markas (minor territorialpolitical organizations), which at the same time are subdividedinto Ayllus (territorial unity equivalent to a community).

6Gustavo Soto, ‘‘Neodesarrollismo y Derechos Indıgenas enBolivia,’’ (CEADESC, December 2010).

7See Article 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples, and Article 30, II, 15 of the PlurinationalState Political Constitution of Bolivia.

8‘‘Comunarios cortan el agua a la planta Coro Coro.’’ Minerıade Bolivia. November 26, 2009. < http://www.boliviaminera.blogspot.com > (Last accessed on March 2011).

66 MADRID LARA ET AL.

CHALLAPATA: THE RIGHTTO SELF-DETERMINED DEVELOPMENT

The Municipality of Challapata, located 120 km from theCity of Oruro, is known as the ‘‘Farming, Livestock andDairy Region of Western Bolivia,’’9 a title that acknowledgesthe importance of these activities to the region since the in-stallation of the Tacagua Dam and irrigation system in 1961.

Livestock in the area is estimated at about 11,108 cattle,with an average of 13.8 cows per family, and 60,000sheep, with an average of 70 sheep per family. Milkproduction (only cattle) yields 36,000 L/day in summerand 19,000 L/day during winter.10

Due to this significant production, the Irrigators’ As-sociation successfully convinced the government to installa dairy processing plant with a capacity of 18,000 L/day,which was officially opened by Evo Morales on February9, 2011.

It is estimated that farming, livestock, and dairy pro-duction in the region generates an economic revenue ofabout 5 million dollars per year, with the likelihood offuture increases due to the operation of the dairy pro-cessing plant and the projects that are now being carriedout to dredge the dam. The increase in employment dueto these activities is estimated at 1,200 direct jobs, corre-sponding to the number of people affiliated with the ir-rigation system, and nearly 2,500 indirect jobs connectedto the processes of trade, transport, services, and others.

The mining threat

In 1993, the Bolivian Canadian Consortium EMUSA-ORVANA started mining prospecting work in the Acha-chucani Hill, located about one thousand meters from theTacagua Dam in Challapata. Preliminary reports showedthe existence of a mineral deposit estimated at nearly 51.6million tons, containing 2.3 million ounces of gold.11 Basedon this data, the company announced its goal to begin alarge open-pit operation using cyanide-leaching methods.

This announcement was immediately concerning to thecommunities that relied on the irrigation system, giventhat the mining project was to be located very near theTacagua Dam (see Figure 1), and they feared severe im-pacts. During the last quarter of 1993, representatives ofcommunities requested information from both the com-pany and the government about the mining project, butthey could get no answer to their claim.

Given the silence of the company and authorities, inJanuary and February of 199412 the communities ofChallapata mobilized. They blocked the road betweenOruro and Potosı, which goes through their territory and

constitutes the main artery flowing towards the south ofthe country. This decisive action obliged the company tostop its prospecting activities and evict its staff from thearea, thus adjourning the mining project indefinitely.

In 2007, during a period of high international goldprices, the Achachucani extraction project was resumed,this time by another Canadian company, Castillian Re-sources, which installed equipment and staff in the area tostart prospecting work again.

In May, the communities responded again, blockingthe road from Oruro to Potosı for nearly a week, evictingthe company from the area, and forcing the departmentgovernment to pass Administrative Resolution No. 205/2007, which included the following provisions:

Article 1 ‘‘Any mining company, including Castillian Re-sources Bolivia S.A., shall abandon the intention to carry outmining activities in the Achachucani region, as said com-pany complies neither with the corresponding social licensenor with the environmental licence, both of which are es-sential for any mining activity that respects the integrity ofthe productive areas of the Department of Oruro.’’

However, international gold prices soon reached re-cord levels,13 providing enough of an incentive for Cas-tillian Resources to violate the majority will of theChallapata communities. This company is currently de-ploying a strong advertising campaign in local media,extolling the supposed benefits of mining, with the clearaim of dividing opinions within the communities. At thesame time, the company is lobbying both the national anddepartmental government authorities, with the aim ofgarnering their support for and authorization of the pro-ject, as the following media notes indicate:

‘‘Our country is rich in different mineral deposits,’’ thegovernmental authority said (Deputy Minister for MiningMetallurgical Development), while simultaneously con-firming that a Canadian company was exploring a po-tential gold mine adjacent to the Challapata population.14

‘‘The Achachucani exploitation project was presentedyesterday to the Communication Unit of the Governmentof Oruro, before the Mining Commission members of theDepartment Assembly, the Secretary of Mining, and theSecretary of Mother Earth and Environment.’’15

In response to the harassment in the form of companyadvertising, the communities, together with the political andadministrative authorities and Challapata social organiza-tions, held a general assembly on February 4, 2011. Theyissued a resolution in which they declared their united re-jection of mining exploitation. The resolution was personallydelivered to President Evo Morales when he opened thedairy processing plant. The main points state the following:

Article 1 WE DECLARE OUR REJECTION IPSO FACTOto any and all forms of mining exploration and exploita-tion on the part of Castillian Resources and by any other

9See Leyes de la Republica N� 2516 dated October 24, 2003 andN� 2632 dated on March 5, 2004.

10Angela Sempertegui Cuenca, ‘‘Reporte sobre el municipio deChallapata,’’ (Oruro: Documento de trabajo colectivo CASA,February 2011).

11Emilio Madrid Lara, Nilda Guzman et al. ‘‘Historia de laMinerıa de Oro en Bolivia—La Lucha de Challapata (Oruro),’’Ecologıa Polıtica 28 (Barcelona: Icaria, 2005).

12Ibid.

13In November 2010 gold quotation was US$1325 per troyounce. On February 25, 2011 a troy ounce was quoted asUS$1409.

14La Patria (Newspaper), July 31, 2010.15La Patria, November 28, 2010.

DEFENDING AGAINST MINING FETISHISM IN BOLIVIA 67

company that damages regional development interests,impedes the right to good health, disturbs farming andlivestock production, or that affects sovereignty and foodsafety, either regional, departmental, or national.Article 2 We declare a permanent state of emergency if wesee any sign of mining exploration and exploitation byCastillian Resources.

Despite their determination to defend their agriculture,livestock, and dairy production, Castillian Resources hasnot stopped its media campaign and continues to influ-ence the government. The communities feel justifiable fearregarding, above all, the authorities’ behavior, given thatin recent times the government has defended large-scaleextraction projects, such as in the case of San Cristobalmine and the Japanese company Sumitomo.

CONCLUSION

By way of conclusion: there are lessons from both cases.The Bolivian State has tended to assume a rigid attitude

towards mining, which remains unchanging regardless ofturnovers in government and administrative variation. Asfar as the State is concerned, mining is synonymous withnational development. In adopting this attitude, the Stateassumes the role of guarantor and promoter of this ac-tivity’s prerogatives. This attitude is transformed into a

legal and institutional reality when, for example, it is re-vealed that current legislation names the mining industryas a ‘‘public utility,’’ indicating its priority for the Stateand guaranteeing its access to and use of natural re-sources such as water and soil.

One is therefore faced with a fetishized vision of min-ing, which is rooted in the State by laws that privilege itover and above the interests of civil society.

As discussed in this article and despite their differ-ences, the conflicts in Coro Coro and Challapata are bothchallenging the fetishized view of mining that is ex-pressed by State policies.

In the first case, the actions of the State and the minersdemonstrate fetishization. Here, it was considered normaland legal for the mining company to occupy other people’sland and to alter the course of the river that runs throughthe communities in order to store water, as if this regionexisted for no purpose other than the mine. On the otherhand, when the residents of the communities decided toreclaim their lands and to restore the natural course of theriver, their actions were considered an ‘‘act of terrorism.’’

In the case of the communities of Challapata, successfulresistance to the open pit mine, which has characterizedthe region from 1994 to now, proves that there are othervisions of development, and that it is possible to see themine in a different light. Their consistent defense a

FIG. 1. Map of the mining project and Tacagua Dam. Source: Silvana Lafuente, based on cartographic informationtaken from the Military Geographic Institute.

68 MADRID LARA ET AL.

development based in agriculture, livestock, and dairyproduction suggests that for these communities large-scale mining is not a productive activity, but is ratherpredatory and high-risk.

Currently, Bolivia is facing the challenge of putting intopractice the ideas laid out in its New Political Constitu-tion, which notably includes the consolidation of a plur-inational state, understood to imply the full participationof all indigenous groups in public decision making. Oneof the lessons learned in the previous cases is that untilBolivia is able to overcome the fetishization of develop-ment mining, the creation of a ‘‘plurinational’’ state willface serious obstacles. One can hardly produce plur-inationality when the State identifies with only one formof socio-economic development, denying other possibili-ties and opinions that vary from that of mining.

These are also challenges for the local communities: tounmask the fetishism of development through theirstruggles and to remove the veil that until now has ob-

scured the knowledge that mining is an activity thatshould be at the service of society, and not the other wayaround.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Guest Editors gratefully acknowledge translationsupport provided by Ana Maccioni, National Universityof Cordoba.

Address correspondence to:Dr. Emilio R. Madrid Lara

Colectivo de Coordinacion de Acciones Socio AmbientalesJunin N� 719 La Ptala y Presidente Montes

Oruro, Bolivia 1658

E-mail: emiwila@hotmail.comcolectivocasa@gmail.com

DEFENDING AGAINST MINING FETISHISM IN BOLIVIA 69