Maria Luisa Burneo
One of the central issues that always arises in the discussion on conflict by land uses is the system of granting mining concessions. The different actors agree on at least three points: 1) The way to proceed INGEMMET and concessions delivery mechanism leads to problems, one of them is the lack of consolidation of land in concession areas, 2 ) INGEMMET should better inform the regional and local governments and populations of the areas involved in granting a concession, since the current reporting mechanism is insufficient and inadequate in both form and content, and 3) the current system delivery of grants is one of the causes of conflicts that occur in mining exploration phase. No agreement, however, on how to solve this problem: what would be the right design, which requires legislative changes, how to implement reorganization strategies, information, among others. Nor is there agreement on whether regional governments should or not (and how) to have involvement in the delivery of concessions.
From the Regions, it is considered that regional governments must not only be informed but must participate in the process of granting concessions: for example, being consulted through their management of natural resources for review based on the zoning that region has on the area to be given in concession. In response, the national executive responds by noting that we are not a federal state and that, therefore, subnational governments may not have the authority to decide on use of subsoil resources of the nation's houses. Regional governments, meanwhile, clarified that they ask is participation, the issue is to define what terms would be given. Currently, in the absence of mechanisms to a level of coordination, regional ordinances approving end generate more tension between the national and regional level, and although they represent a political position, which may even despite the decision of national executive, "transcend regional competitions.
Another key issues is that of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). As with the previous topic, there is consensus on some points, for example, that the direction of MINEM responsible for approval does not currently have sufficient capacity for adequate review. Major discrepancies exist on the old argument about whether this sector should be in charge or not to approve the EIA, given the conflict of interest between the role of environmental assessment and investment promoter, "or whether it should be a function of the Ministry of Environment. For several officials of the mining sector, the problem involves an issue of human resources and quality of the EIA prepared by private consultants. The private sector, meanwhile, MINEM not dispute that the adoption of the EIA, some company representatives say even that the problem lies not so much on the quality of the instrument or the authority to approve it, but the lack of legitimacy of the State so that people trust that if it approves an EIS, it is because the project is viable. This speech, however, contradicts the very reasons why companies prefer to continue approving the EIA MINEM.
Some regional officials have proposed an interest in reviewing the EIA of projects to develop in their areas of management, as well, for example, argue that they are the natural resource managers in charge of reviewing and opinion on the EIA, for it to be considered by the MINEM. For others, it should transfer the role of EIA review and approval to the regions. From Lima on the other hand, look you have is that there is capacity in the regions to assume that role. While it is true that regional realities are heterogeneous and that there are differences between the technical staff of the various regional governments, they point out that this itself would be viable if they had more resources (from the same mining sector) geared specifically to the creation of groups technicians who would join, through conventions, professional associations and regional universities. All require, as a precondition, a strong national government's policy decision.
Some regional governments also proposed to form a Regional Environmental Authority as was done in Arequipa, which would be responsible, among other things, to evaluate new projects to develop in the region. In the case of Cajamarca, is also proposed creation of a Regional Environmental Information System, which is responsible for centralizing and updating information to feed the bodies of territorial planning and regional development.
On the other hand, from institutions and civil society organizations and regional governments, facing criticism of mechanisms for citizen participation in the approval route of the EIA, which are mostly of a more informative than participatory. Thus, the lack of mechanisms that allow a process of discussion and consensus prior is also considered one of the causes of conflict in the exploration phase. At issue is the role of the state, which is perceived as virtually absent throughout the process to appear in the Public Hearing, acting more as an observer than as a promoter of these spaces. However, this is a rather complex topic: it is still unclear, for example, what is the level of participation being proposed (if it would be decisive), who would participate, through what mechanisms and depending on what criteria would such participation. This is an unresolved debate. What is clear is that it is an issue that can not be defined in the private sector. From the regions, it is suggested that instruments such as the ecological and economic zoning may provide inputs for these processes, since no other criteria, the EIS (prepared by the same companies) ends up playing the decisive role.
Finally, another issue raised by regional governments and some time is also part of the national debate, "is the Land (OT). From the regions, we propose the adoption of a Land Law that considered as binding OT regional plans, a proposal that is considered feasible by the officials of the executive sectors and companies. The regions that come forward with their process of Ecological and Economic Zoning (EEZ) for Zoning, and those who already resulted, and will have these tools to discuss with the national executive of the investment orientation. This dialogue, however, has not been given and there is an institutional design that allows it. The articulation of sectoral investment policies and regional plans of OT is a matter to be thought (and soon) to exist in the state more clearly the relationship between land management and policy decisions across levels of government.
All these points allow us to see the gaps between the proposals as part of regional agendas and the way decisions are made on the management of natural resources in the country. In this case we have referred only to the conflicts linked to the large mining and exploration phase, only in this sector, there is a pending reform work that will require negotiations and agreements between public and private national and regional. Without progress on this, the gaps and we will enlarge and lead to greater polarization that will be detrimental to the country's governance. Finally, the national executive and its sectors should look to regions without neglecting the ongoing processes, the Ministry of Environment should be an ally of regional governments by providing technical assistance and information that is necessary for the Ecological and Economic Zoning and subsequent developing land use plans.
0 comments:
Post a Comment