Vesna Marinkovic U.

The senator emphasizes that several management plans, approved by SERGEOMIN, describe drilling processes using dynamite, mercury use, and machinery movement in watershed areas and areas near glaciers…

 

1Is it possible that the current mining law allows excesses, ostensibly to defend the rights of cooperative miners?

 

Mining Law No. 535, by itself, is already a violation, not only of human rights but also of other provisions of the CPE (Political Constitution of the State). The UN recognizes the right to a healthy environment as a human right. Article 33 of the Constitution establishes the same, among many other articles that designate water resources as strategic for the country, the Amazon as a space to be protected, and the obligation to respect protected areas, considered common heritage, along with the mandatory requirement of prior consultation according to international standards. These are just a few examples of the rights and duties violated by Mining Law 535, passed during the government of Evo Morales in 2014.

 

The mining law distorts and violates provisions related to water protection and access to water as a fundamental right. These rights and duties involve access, and therefore sufficient, permanent, and stable availability of water, as well as clean water that does not poison or cause illness due to contamination with heavy metals derived from mining, among other issues.

 

The same happens with the rights of indigenous peoples to prior, free, and informed consultation. The law reduces it to a mere administrative procedure that, if it does not achieve a result favorable to miners, can still be imposed through state institutions, such as the Ministry of Mining. To this extent, this law has distorted a constitutional right of indigenous peoples, which is also endorsed by an ILO (International Labour Organization) convention.

 

These are two examples of fundamental rights and legality areas violated by this law. That is why a constitutional challenge has been filed against this law.

 

“…mining cooperativism has been very pragmatic in safeguarding its privileged economic interests. It has become the social foundation of the current political power.”

 

 

2If so, is it possible that public officials, disabled by law from participating in mining concessions, can benefit through third parties from concessions and/or encroachments?

 

Certainly, it is possible precisely due to the lack of transparency and access to information regarding mining cooperatives, both in their composition and in the mining rights they are processing or have been granted, or even in cooperatives found committing crimes. This key information is not accessible, not even for legislators who have the right and duty to oversee. So, it is very easy to use and hide “frontmen” to benefit authorities who are both judges and parties and could be involved in authorizations or other determinations at any stage of the process of mining rights authorization, monitoring, control, or sanction for non-compliance with regulations.

 

3Do you think that the mobilizations of gold miners are driven more by economic interests than political interests and that they are just the tip of the iceberg?

 

Definitely, the interests guiding this sector are markedly economic and very significant. The business reached 3 billion dollars last year, leaving about 60 million dollars to public coffers through meager royalties that amount to approximately 2%, still not meeting the minimum royalty required by the mining law, which is 2.5% for marginal and artisanal deposits. Large non-artisanal ventures in highly profitable deposits should pay more, according to the law. However, those who pay, when they do (because a good portion is smuggled without contributing anything), hide behind the minimum contribution, despite being in many cases million-dollar businesses.

 

Therefore, they are not making a significant contribution to the common good, despite exploiting a highly valuable non-renewable natural resource. Additionally, they are generating incalculable, irreversible costs, such as the accelerated destruction of the Amazon, with all its disastrous implications for the rainfall in almost the entire country, or the destruction of sustainable economic opportunities, such as ecotourism or the standing forest economy, which would provide much more sustainable resources and employment.

 

In fact, mining cooperatives have been very pragmatic in safeguarding their privileged economic interests. They have become the social base of the ruling party. In their time, during Evo Morales’s government, who gifted them a law full of privileges that no one else in this country has, despite also being given rights over a non-renewable natural resource of great value that is also the property of all Bolivians, as stated in the Constitution, which would be particularly useful in the Central Bank for economic stability. They have been given all this to so-called “cooperatives,” which, from what can be seen amid the chronic lack of information, do not function as cooperatives. It is a cover for hiding labor exploitation of workers who should not exist in a cooperative system or illegal alliances with foreign capital of dubious origin.

 

And just as Evo Morales granted them these benefits, it is also evident that this sector managed to operate during the Añez government. It was a year of expansion of mining in the Amazon basin and protected areas. In fact, leaders of this sector were also authorities of the Añez government and obtained special permits (CCU) in protected areas, later overturned thanks to social pressure. Now they function as a kind of social base for the Arce government, pressing for more benefits. I have no doubt that they can also function as coordinated lobbying and shock groups with the other wing of the MAS (Movement for Socialism), but always in terms of proximity. They are not an opposition sector to the government in any way. There is always an alliance that is paid very dearly, not only to the government but, and this is the worst part, to the entire country.

 

4You have mentioned that gold miners, who threaten to block roads if not heard, ultimately demand more land, more facilities, more public positions, and demand the Amazon to exploit it. Can you provide more details?

 

The miners are demanding many more mining rights. Most of the mining rights they are currently demanding are located in the Amazon basin. Although they have stepped back from their previous demands, especially related to protected areas, mining rights in the entire Amazon basin are still being pursued. It’s important to understand the Amazon basin broadly. A significant portion of mining, for example, occurs on the slopes of many mountains in the Los Yungas region and is part of the Amazon basin. Therefore, it covers a broad spectrum, and that is the expectation of the miners. They also want a flat tax that hides substantial profits along with rather precarious mining ventures. Additionally, they seek the approval of mining contracts that do not comply with all the legal requirements mandated by regulations. These are all elements of additional concessions or undue additional sessions that are very harmful to the common good. They are also requesting assistance and funding from the State if they are to use less mercury or engage in less harmful activities. In other countries, such as Peru, cooperatives are required to have an environmental engineer and are responsible for solving environmental problems themselves. It is not acceptable to grant mining rights to exploit such a valuable non-renewable natural resource, provide tax exemptions for the import of machinery, allow subsidized diesel even when mining rights are not legal, and so on. And now, on top of that, do we have to finance and assist them because otherwise, they do not have the capacity to comply with environmental standards? They also do not comply with labor regulations.

 

5You have also pointed out that existing mining contracts with mining cooperatives violate, without exception, the Constitution and laws, stating that all these mining rights contracts are in bodies of water. Can you provide an example, please?

 

They want to impose the approval of contracts that have serious legality issues, as we have demonstrated with a technical report from the Environmental Commission, conducted with great seriousness.

 

In the context and analysis of Bill No. 236/2022-2023 (discussed between July and August 2023), which sought to approve 23 mining contracts, we established that 100% of the 23 mining contracts are in EXCEPTIONAL AREAS. The law states that in exceptional areas, “mining activities cannot be carried out” according to Article 93 of Law No. 535, which states that mining activities cannot be carried out:

 

Exclusion Art. 93 Law No. 535

 

a) Within cities, towns, cemeteries, and public and private buildings.

 

b) In the proximity of roads, canals, ducts, railways, energy transmission lines, and communications up to one hundred (100) meters.

 

c) In the vicinity of watershed heads, lakes, rivers, springs, and reservoirs, restrictions shall be subject to Environmental Studies with a multisectoral approach.