“Aunt Maria is going?”, by José De Echave

This week, the mining project Aunt Maria was back on the front page. Surprisingly, an internal company memo announcing “the resumption of activities in the Tía María project on July 1, 2024” was leaked on social media and in the press.

It should be noted that, in the long history of conflicts against mining projects in the country, Tía María stands out from others because of the repeated attempts to get it started. Usually, when a project generates rejection and mobilizations, these are put on hold with no immediate date for restarting. This occurred with Tambogrande in 2002; Cerro Quilish in 2003; Río Blanco 2007, Santa Ana 2011, Conga 2011, among others.

In the case of Tía María, however, there have already been three attempts, and everything indicates that they are going for the fourth. The first major uproar surrounding Tía María occurred in 2011, in the last months of Alan García’s government: the company had presented a first environmental impact study (EIA) that was reviewed and literally destroyed by a United Nations agency. After that, the EIA was declared inadmissible and the company had to withdraw it: Pedro Sánchez, then Alan García’s Minister of Energy and Mines, pointed out that there were “some insurmountable elements in this project, which is why this nullity has been declared.”

The second chapter of Tía María occurred just two years later: in December 2013, a new EIA was presented, which was finally approved in August 2014, during the Humala government, which caused a second outbreak. Finally, in July 2019, during the Vizcarra administration, the construction license was approved, leaving everything clear for the start of the project. However, amid social mobilizations in the area, the Mining Council decided to suspend the construction license.

In short, three different governments tried to move Tía María forward and failed. In each of these three chapters, tension and conflict escalated to levels rarely seen before. The unfortunate result has been seven people dead, six residents and a member of the National Police, dozens of wounded and the judicial persecution of a significant number of social leaders in the valley. Are we entering a new chapter of social upheaval in the valley? What arguments are being used?

Has the situation changed in the valley?

The company’s main argument is that the project would be more widely accepted by the population today and, according to its spokespeople, it has been working with a sector of farmers. In the company’s widely circulated internal memo, it goes further when it points out that “social and political conditions in the province of Islay, the region and at the national level” are in place.

It is clear that they currently have the support of the Executive, especially the Minister of Energy and Mines, Romulus Muchowho believes that Tía María will trigger mining investments: let it be clear that the stoppage of Tía María in 2011 and 2015 did not prevent mining investment from skyrocketing in those years and Peru from doubling its copper production. On the contrary, insisting on controversial projects can be counterproductive and create a climate of instability against mining.

The truth is that beyond the company’s statements, so far they have not presented any evidence of the alleged support in the area. On the part of the population, spokesmen for the farmers, such as Miguel Meza, confirm that the rejection of the project continues. The director of the Arequipa newspaper El Búho, Mabel Cáceres, provides an interesting argument: the recent electoral behavior of the population of Islay: “The only expression of the popular will in Peruvian democracy is the vote and it is the only way in which citizens express themselves every four years for regional and municipal elections, every five for general elections. Taking this into account, all the successive elections, whether for mayors, governors, congressmen or presidents, in that province and especially in the districts of Cocachacra and Punta de Bombón, always favor with more votes the candidates who have an anti-Tía María discourse,” she said in an interview published by La Mula.

Regardless of what is said, everything indicates that we are entering a new scenario of social tension in the Tambo Valley. Some protests have already been announced in response, and district mayors, as well as the provincial mayor himself, Richard Ale Cruz, and the Chamber of Commerce have taken a position against the mining project. This seems to be concrete evidence that the rejection continues.

As we have mentioned, the first EIA submitted by the Southern company was declared inadmissible for not meeting minimum requirements. The second EIA has been widely debated in various forums, both in Arequipa and Lima, with the participation of company representatives and technical advisors to the valley’s population. Arguments for and against have been heard and the truth is that the company has not been able to convince the population that the project does not represent risks for the area.

Furthermore, what is perceived in the valley is that La Tapada and Tía María, the two deposits that Southern intends to develop, would only be the beginning of a process of converting a good part of the province of Islay into a new mining expansion zone: when one looks at the map of mining concessions, one can see that more than 50% of the province is under concession and almost thirty companies have current mining rights. As one farmer from the valley commented: “Can any authority assure us that it is only Tía María and that there will be no more projects in the area?”

At this point, is it feasible that in Peru (or anywhere else in the world) a mining project can be imposed unilaterally? The answer is no, and if they do so, they must be aware that they would be violating several of the instruments that the companies themselves have signed, such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; the Guidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; the guidelines of the International Council on Mining and Metals.

One of the tasks we have pending in the country is how to learn lessons from cases like Tía María. Conflicts should be an opportunity to move forward, to avoid stagnation and, above all, to go backwards. The background of a conflict like Tía María is greater: cases like this are a clear sign that something is not working well. Here we are not only discussing Tía María; what is at stake is how to build a true proposal for mining governance for the coming years.

A new period of polarisation is sure to come; we will hear arguments that have been used before: a Southern official coined the term anti-mining terrorism. That is the caricature of the debate that must be avoided. But returning to Islay, after 15 years of conflict and tensions that return from time to time, the farmers of the Tambo Valley have long since earned the right to live in peace.