Tag Archive for: Mining

,

Necessary debates: Fundeps held a discussion on the Energy Transition in Argentina

The event organized by Fundeps (Foundation for the Development of Sustainable Policies), CAUCE Foundation (Environmental Culture – Ecological Cause), FARN (Environment and Natural Resources Foundation) and Siglo 21 University, held on November 11, was a meeting of analysis and debate on the main challenges facing Argentina in the context of the global energy transition.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The event, which was held in a discussion format, was organized into thematic panels, one of which was: “The role of China, multilateral banking and transnational corporations in the Argentine energy transition” with the participation of Dr. Virginia Busilli and Lic. Maitén Fuma (UCC), Valeria Enderle (CAUCE Foundation), Francisco Zanichelli (UNC) and Carolina Juaneda (Bank Information Center), moderated by Matías Cena Trebucq (FARN). The second panel, “The challenges of lithium exploitation in Argentina in a context of investment incentives and environmental deregulation”, was hosted by Edgardo Litvinoff (Red RUIDO), María Laura Carrizo Morales (Fundeps), Leandro Gómez (FARN), Federico Trebucq (UES21, CONICET), moderated by Paula Hernández (Fundeps).

On this occasion, Fundeps also presented the report “The exploitation of lithium in the high Andean salt flats: a socio-environmental analysis based on the Argentine case”, which aims to comprehensively address the different conceptual, legislative and discursive perspectives and components that intervene in this context of global energy transition. It also addresses the consequent acceleration in the demand for lithium in our country and region for an informed discussion.

Not every energy transition is a fair energy transition

The race to control the supply chain of so-called critical minerals, or minerals for the energy transition, opens a new chapter in the global geopolitical dispute. Countries in North America, Europe, and Asia, particularly China, are competing not only to dominate the technologies of the final products, but also for access to the deposits of these minerals. At the same time, it is evident that the search for developing “green solutions” is the politically correct narrative today, but is there really progress towards a fair energy transition in social and environmental terms? What roles do the global south and the global north adopt in this new “green” dynamic? What place do communities have in this process? These were some of the questions addressed in the discussion.

Argentina is today the world’s fourth largest producer of lithium and has approximately 50 projects in different phases. With the focus on generating foreign currency required to repay the external debt, provincial and national governments prioritize these investments without carrying out the corresponding studies to determine whether the operations can be carried out without causing irreversible damage to the environment and the communities that have lived there for hundreds of years. The loss of biodiversity, ways of life, knowledge and Andean cultures not only turns these territories into sacrifice zones for the hyper-consumerist model of the Global North, which does not seek to reduce its demand for minerals and nature, but also reinforces existing inequalities and blocks the possibility of thinking about a paradigm shift that places the care of the lives of people and ecosystems at the center, and that teaches us to live within planetary limits.

Undoubtedly, the consequences of the increased demand for lithium extraction and production in this “green race” generate debates of a social, environmental, legal, discursive and ideological nature, as the different meanings and objectives of the different actors involved come into dispute. During the more than two hours that the discussion lasted, experts and representatives of civil society, academia and journalists from Córdoba and other provinces debated and exchanged their opinions on the impact of lithium mining on the environment, the economy and local communities, making it clear that not every energy transition is a fair energy transition and that the extractivist logic reproduces the historical roles of the countries of the Global North and South and also replicates extractivist practices and human rights violations of local and indigenous communities, while reinforcing the vicious cycle of continuing to exploit nature.

 

More Information

 

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

, , ,

The exploitation of lithium in the high Andean salt flats: a socio-environmental analysis based on the Argentine case

This report aims to address the different conceptual, legislative and discursive perspectives and components that intervene in this context of global energy transition and the consequent acceleration in the demand for lithium in our country and region. It seeks to take a comprehensive approach to lithium exploitation in Argentina and the region, providing elements for an informed discussion.

Descargar Documento / Download File
, , ,

Lithium and Transparency in Argentina

Throughout this report we will discuss, first of all, a series of data on the current situation of Argentina in relation to lithium production that places it in a central role within the world concert. Then we will focus on the mining governance system, stating the laws that configure it, its main elements and those points that merit further analysis. Subsequently, we will address, from some indicators suggested by the Standard, the two projects that are in the lithium production stage in Argentina: the Fénix Project in the Hombre Muerto salt flat and Sales de Jujuy in the Olaroz-Cauchari salt flat. In particular, regarding whether or not to publicize their contracts, as a fundamental link in terms of publicity and transparency in the development of these projects.

Descargar Documento / Download File
,

We participated in a workshop: Beneficiaries of the extractive sector in Argentina

On March 3 and 4, we participated in the workshop on Final Beneficiaries of Companies in the extractive and energy sector of Argentina, held in the City of Buenos Aires. The event was organized by Opening Extractives (a program co-implemented by EITI and Open Ownership) and the Argentine Journalism Forum (FOPEA).

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The workshop had among its objectives to raise awareness about the importance of public information of the final beneficiaries, and at the same time, provide resources and materials to increase research, projects and analysis within this field.

In this sense, the training was divided into three modules: first, content and information on final beneficiaries was presented, from the theoretical to the legal and also practical, both nationally and internationally. Those who spoke in this first module were: Andrés Knobel from the Tax Justice Network; María Eugenia Marano, specialist in corporate law; Pamela Morales, Undersecretary of Mining Development of the Government of the Nation; Gonzalo Fernández of the Ministry of Mining Development of the Nation; and Lucía Cirimello from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).

Secondly, civil society organizations had the opportunity to present their projects related to the theme. In this way, Edgardo Livitnoff (Red Ruido Coordinator) presented progress on the report “Lithium and transparency in Argentina” that we prepared together. For her part, Eugenia Rodríguez (Centro de Economía Política Argentina) shared details about the work of her organization: “The rich of Argentina”.

Finally, the third module consisted of a practical workshop given by Mariel Fitz Patricks, in which tools and resources were provided for approaching final beneficiaries. The journalist helped us, mainly, to access information and how, in this way, to enrich work carried out and to carry out on the subject.
This instance was very fruitful, not only in terms of knowledge and learning, but also in terms of the possibility of meeting peers from other civil society organizations, with whom one could work together in the near future.

 

 

More information:

 

Author

Maitén de los Milagros Fuma

Contact

Maria Victoria Sibilla, ninasibilla@fundeps.org

,

Mining in Andalgalá: we present ourselves as Amicus Curiae before the Supreme Court

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Together with the ANDHES Foundation, we present ourselves as friends of the court in the framework of the case in which the constitutionality of an ordinance of Andalgalá (Catamarca), which prohibits open-pit mining, is being debated.

Since 2016, the Municipality of Andalgalá has prohibited, through Ordinance No. 029/16, open pit mining and the use of certain hazardous substances. With broad social consensus, this ordinance sought to protect the environment and the water courses in the area.

Since then, the Canadian company “Yamana Gold” through its “Agua Rica” mining project, today the Mara project, which plans to extract minerals in the Andalgalá River Basin, just 17 km from the city center, has judicially questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance. After several pronouncements of the courts, the Supreme Court of the Province of Catamarca finally declared it invalid.

Today the case is pending before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, awaiting a resolution. This resolution will determine the way of life of the Andalgalá community, as it will enable or not the open pit metal extraction of the highly questioned Mara project, which is currently in an advanced exploration stage. Meanwhile, the communities resist daily the actions of authorities and companies in defense of the territory and the environment, putting their lives and physical integrity at risk.

In this context, with the ANDHES Foundation we request participation in the case as “friends of the court”. This modality allows to contribute to the process arguments to solve the judicial case. We believe that the Court must declare the constitutionality of the law and the autonomy of the people of Andalgalá in the defense of their environment and territory must be respected.

Contact

Maráa Laura Carrizo, @lauracarrizo@fundeps.org

,

We reject the modification of the mining law in Mendoza

The Governor of Mendoza, Rodolfo Suárez, endorsed the reform of the law that protects the water of his province, to end the ban on the use of cyanide and other toxic substances and to remove the need for the Environmental Impact Statement (DIA) For metal mining projects, it must be ratified by the provincial legislative body. This modification implies a setback in the levels of environmental protection.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Law 7722 in force in the province of Mendoza began to take shape in 2005 when, in the face of the interest of mining companies to settle in the Uco Valley, residents began to inform themselves and mobilize in defense of water. The law was approved by the Mendoza legislature in 2007 and ratified by the Mendoza Supreme Court in 2015 before about ten requests for unconstitutionality filed by mining companies. This law does not prohibit mining, but prohibits in the territory of the province of Mendoza, the use of chemical substances such as cyanide, mercury, sulfuric acid, and other similar toxic substances in mining processes, in pursuit of water protection and of agriculture

The draft modification of the law of Governor Rodolfo Suárez, seeks to introduce changes in the essential articles of the law, proposes to eliminate the prohibition of the use of chemical substances –except for mercury- and toxic substances “in metal mining mining processes, prospecting, exploration, exploitation and / or industrialization of metal ores ”; on the other hand, it seeks to remove the need for the Declaration of Environmental Impact (DIA) for metal mining projects to have to be ratified by the provincial legislative body. It aims to promote large-scale metal mining activity in the province of Mendoza.

This modification not only violates the environment as an integral legal good, but also implies the violation of the principles that order the environmental microsystem, in particular the principles of irretroactivity and progressivity established in the General Environment Law (Law 25.675), meaning a setback in the levels of protection already existing in the province. To this must be added the lack of water suffered by the Mendoza area, attentive to the fact that it has a water emergency declaration for more than ten years. The right to water constitutes a basic human right, a fundamental public good for life and health insofar as it is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other human rights. Thus, in protection of this human right, it is that law 7722 was enacted that today the Mendoza government intends to modify.

It is a primary duty of legislators to listen to citizens who have been mobilizing for years and expressing their rejection of this project during these days. As the Superior Court of Justice of Mendoza will express, the Mendoza decided by law 7722 the productive model they want to develop, it is the right of each society to decide, define and manage the way it adopts to progress. Given these circumstances, we express our concern and rejection of the attempt of the Government of the province to modify the current law.

Author

Maria Laura Carrizo

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

The Supreme Court rejected the action initiated by the mining company Barrick Gold against the Law of Glaciers

Within the framework of a declarative action of certainty initiated by Barrick Exploraciones Argentinas S.A and the Province of San Juan, the highest judicial organ of Argentina decided to reject the action. Although the arguments for such a resolution were related to the non-existence of a “judicial case”, in addition, the Court hinted at its position in the eventual proposal of unconstitutionality of the Law of Minimum Budgets for the Preservation of Glaciers and the Periglacial Environment.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The proposals of the mining company and the province of San Juan, focused on questioning: a) the legislative procedure for the enactment of Law 26,639 (of Glaciers); b) The unconstitutionality of the aforementioned regulations for advancing on regulatory competences specific to the Province as holder of the original domain of natural resources. The company Barrick and the province of San Juan converged on this last point arguing that the law in question, hypothetically, posed an affront to the possibilities of exploitation by the mining company and management of natural resources by the province.

In view of this situation, the Court analyzed whether the necessary requirements were met for the organ to enter into the analysis of the parties’ claims, that is, if there was a “judicial case” (subject that may be subject to a process). The conclusion reached was that there was no sufficient accredited legal interest, or a so-called “act in the making” (administrative act necessary to consider the existence of a judicial case) that endangers the rights of the parties. He also considered that the lack of completion of the Glacier Inventory (ordered to the Executive Branch by the glaciers law), necessarily implied the inexistence of the “act in the making”, since this inventory was a basic budget for the operation of the attacked law by the parties.

As a consequence of the inexistence of the justiciable case, the Supreme Court held that as regards the conflict between the provincial and national jurisdiction alleged by the province of San Juan, the judicial power should not intervene, while the environmental policy issues should be resolved by the federal dialogue before the intervention of the judges.

However, even though it was not necessary according to the conclusions regarding the inexistence of a justiciable “case”, the ministers of the Court held that the process by which the Glaciers Law had been sanctioned had been valid from the point of view constitutional, according to the background and regulations of the Chamber of Senators.

On the other hand, in a convincing “environmental” message, the Court expressed its opinion regarding the validity of the Glaciers Law, in the face of the arguments that raised its unconstitutionality, thus outlining its position regarding a future “judicial case”. Among some of the arguments offered by the high judicial body, the following can be highlighted:

  1. The clear rule that when there are rights of collective incidence pertaining to the protection of the environment – in the case of the Law of Glaciers the strategic resource Water – the hypothetical controversy can not be treated as the mere collision of subjective rights (individual lease). The characterization of the environment as a “collective good” changes the focus of the problem, which must not only address the claims of the parties.
  2. The interests that exceed the bilateral conflict must be considered (in the case between the Province of San Juan and the Barrick mining company against the provisions of the Glaciers Law), in order to have a polycentric vision, since there are numerous rights affected.
  3. The solution can not only be limited to solving the past, but, and fundamentally, to promoting a solution focused on future sustainability, for which a decision is required that foresees the consequences of such a decision.
  4. The environment is not according to the National Constitution, an object intended for the exclusive service of man, appropriable according to their needs.
  5. Access to drinking water is a right that must be regulated under an eco-centric, or systemic legal paradigm, which not only takes into account private or state interests, but also those of the same system, according to the General Environmental Law ( 25,675).
  6. This vision regarding access to drinking water is relevant as the regulation that protects the glaciers, has as an objective to preserve them as strategic reserves of water resources for human consumption; for agriculture; for the recharge of water basins; for the protection of biodiversity.
  7. Based on these objectives, the Glaciers Law protects this resource from the harmful effects that certain extractive processes (mining) can have on the preservation and conservation of glaciers. Such protection is part of the provisions of the Paris Agreement on global warming.
  8. Faced with the provisions of the Law of Glaciers that aim to protect rights of collective incidence, judges must consider that natural and legal persons can certainly be holders of subjective property rights. More must also consider that this individual right must be harmonized with the rights of collective incidence to ensure that the exercise of lawful industry is sustainable.
  9. The Court concludes that the constitutionality trial of a possible injurious act derived from the glacier law -if a judicial cause is proven- should be analyzed in the context of the weighing of the various rights and property involved.
  10. Likewise, the Court warns that such weighting will not be possible until the National Executive Power complies with the obligation to draw up the national inventory of glaciers.

In short, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, rejected the action of Barrick Gold and the province of San Juan on the grounds that there was no “judicial case” and did not resolve the substantive claim on the constitutionality or otherwise of the Law of Glaciers. However, in a blunt message, he left his position before an eventual proposal of similar characteristics: Glaciers law, protects a supraindividual environmental good, which, faced with a conflict against an individual right, must be weighted based on criteria of sustainability , Intergenerationality, biodiversity, under an eco-centric or systemic paradigm (not anthropocentric). Between the lines, the Glaciers Law … is constitutional.

  • More information:

Read the full ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice

  • Author:

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

We participated in the public hearing for the installation of Cantera Colombo in Chacras de la Merced

Concerned about the situation of vulnerability in the community of Chacras de la Merced, we participated in the public hearing with a legal technical report that gives an account of the irregularities of the project to install a new quarry.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

On Wednesday, April 12, the Secretary of Environment and Climate Change convened a public hearing to discuss the installation project “Cantera Colombo” in the vicinity of the neighborhood Chacra de la Merced. The Cantera Colombo project would be located to the east of the city of Cordova, outside the urban ejido of the city, in the place known as Heart of Maria, being the population center affected by the work the locality of Chacra de la Merced. This is an open pit dry quarry, where the extraction of aggregates without the use of explosives would be carried out, and then transferred the material to the classification plant owned by the owner named Canteras Ruiz, located at Camino Chacra de La Merced, Km.

Among the main considerations that we made in the Report on the environmental impact study “Cantera Colombo” it should be mentioned that it did not take into account the special situation of vulnerability in which the community of Chacra de la Merced is located due to the accumulated impact that affects Progressive and negative in the right to health, life and a healthy environment. Among the main causes that explain the transformation of what was the “Green Belt of the city of Cordoba” we find: the installation of real estate ventures, quarrying, installation and omission in the controls on tanneries, malfunctions and The supersaturation of the sewage treatment plant (EDAR Bajo Grande), lagoons generated by the old quarries. Also within the irregularities that emerged from the analysis of the environmental impact study we find that:

-The integrality of the project will have significant and mostly negative and irreversible impacts on the environment, especially on the quality of water, soil, air, health and quality of life.

– Does not comply with the minimum content detailed in art. 19 of the law 10,208 (baseline in health taking into account that it will be located 300 meters from a school and 150 meters from the river Suquía, public services affected as public transport).

-Takes outdated baselines (affected population, census 2008).

“He does not cite reliable sources.”

– Does not detail the measures of recomposition and mitigation of the impacts.

Therefore, from FUNDEPS we recommend an in-depth evaluation by the Ministry of Environment as the controlling body of this project, taking into account the considerations made, and having the necessary mechanisms in order to comply with the expected legal and environmental parameters In order to protect the fundamental rights of the residents of Chacra de la Merced.

More information

Report of FUNDEPS by installation Cantera Colombo

Video situation Chacras de la Merced

Authors

María Pérez Alsina, Virginia Corradi y Male Martínez Espeche.

Contact

Male Martínez Espeche / Environment Team Coordinator

malemartinez@fundeps.org