Living in Peru : your everyday companion

Outside of Lima | June 24, 2011 [ 16:38 ]

Peru government cancels mine after violent clashes in Puno

By Jorge Riveros-Cayo
LivinginPeru.com


At least six people are reported to have been shot dead as a result of violent clashes between demonstrators and police and army members in the southeastern city of Juliaca, Puno.

The demonstrators were turned back trying to take over the Manco Cápac International Airport in Juliaca, but four were shot dead in the process. Parts of the airport were set on fire and there is was at least one dead body lying on the tarmac, reported El Comercio and RPP.

Television images of the airport showed its perimeter walls breached and tires burning.

Roads have been blocked since May 9 in a bid to cancel the Santa Ana mine as well as a proposed hydroelectric project on the Inambari river.

Today the García administration canceled the Canadian-owned silver mine as a result of the extreme violence that, so far has reported six people killed and at least 30 wounded when police fired on mostly indigenous protesters opposing the project.

Journalists reported that at least 5,000 protesters were involved in strikes and demonstrations.

Interior Minister, Miguel Hidalgo, said police in the nearby city of Azangaro were "in a difficult situation."

El Comercio has reported recently that protesters have surrounded the police station and set it on fire. Four members have been reported missing and presumably held as hostages.

Local radio reports said protesters are angry over the deaths of the demonstrators in Juliaca and were besieging the local police station.

Mine's reaction

Hours after the violence, mining vice minister, Fernando Gala, announced that the government had revoked a 2007 decree granting approval to Bear Creek Mining Corp. of Victoria, British Columbia, to mine silver at Santa Ana in Puno.

Bear Creek's director, Andrew Swarthout, said the company had not received formal notification of the decree's revocation, according The Associated Press.

He said any government attempt to cancel the project would be illegal and amount to "expropriation."

"We followed all the rules. We got public consent. We're in the middle of an environmental impact statement. It was due process. Everything was within the letter of the law," Swarthout said.

The company has said it already spent $96 million on the Santa Ana project.

Swarthout has warned previously that any attempt to end the project would give pause to international investors who have announced their intention to plow more than $40 billion into Peru's mining sector in the coming decade.

Mining accounts for two-thirds of Peru's export earnings and has been the underpinning of a decade of robust economic growth, but the rural poor have benefited little from mining and complain it contaminates their water and crops.

Watch images of the violent demonstrations today in Juliaca and Azángaro, Puno (Video footage: Panamericana Televisión):

 | | | |

  Latest news

• Lima : After 6 years, LivinginPeru.com will close on July 27th
• Travel & Tourism : UGM will evaluate plan to solve limited access to Machu Picchu
• Travel & Tourism : 130 pct increase in tourists visiting Machu Picchu, Peru
• Mining & Energy : 600,000 new natural gas connections for households in Lima
• International Relations : United States greets Peru on 190th independence anniversary

11 Comments

# RICO says :
June 25, 2011 [ 7:47 ]

I believe that foreign investors and elected officials must take notice; these interested domestic and foreign groups should demand that the local government provide for its people what is much needed, whatever it may be.  It is their responsibility to see that the local community needs are met. In order for one to take, one must give back, it is obvious that investors are only involved because of potential gain; however the investor also has the responsibility to demand the local government provide for its people from the rental benefits. The joint response from both participants the investor and local governments is to work hand in hand to prevent the reaction of the people due to leadership complacency.  How can a company that has invested much and plans to invest so much more of indicated incredible amounts act surprised, especially when the local communities lack schools, medical posts, housing and the necessary infrastructure. The results are quite grave, investors and governments behave in a reactionary way instead of being proactive…well, this inaction can be a great lesson to all, the people have spoken demanding “Social Inclusion.” The inevitable result, that was way overdue.

# Jim D says :
June 25, 2011 [ 9:17 ]

Airport and police station burning, thugs taking to the streets, a government seemingly powerless and incompetent, unable to control the lunatics.....unfortunately, mob rule as usual in Peru. With the new dictator coming into power, and the government caving into the demands of these mobs, watch foreign investment dry up. Investors don't want to put billions into an out of control country.
The new mayor of Lima is a joke and doing nothing. Crime is up in Lima and chaos will return with the new president and this mayor. Peru is ready to sink and fall apart.

# daved says :
June 25, 2011 [ 11:19 ]

when you bow down to radicals you open the door for more of this type of thing,  rather this mine is or could be a environmental issue or not, violence is not the way to solve problems,,,  

# AlexC says :
June 25, 2011 [ 12:59 ]

Make no mistake, this is a bad development. According to all reports, the company was doing everything by the book - an exemplary of how things should be done, as opposed to what the Aymaras really want to do - a free reign on illegal mining (the one that is the true pollutant and where no taxes are paid), illegal logging, and free flow of contraband goods across the border. Those who think that these are legitimate concerns of an indigenous community should get better acquainted with what has been happening in that area and the various illegal activities, political manipulation, and outside agitation that is going on there. The argument 'the mine will pollute our water' is an old one and quite frankly there's no shred of proof in this case. You can use this argument with any mining/exploration project anywhere in the world. Such arguments are more and more just manipulative, hoping to gain support of all those who knows NOTHING about the area.
This decision shows (like in the case of Tia Maria) that as long as somebody dies (which is exactly what the agitators/leaders of the protests are hoping for (it sounds cynical, but appears more and more like the case), the government will back off and revoke any legitimate rights and permits. This could lead to a collapse of investment and the entire industry in Peru and, sorry to say that, to a complete reversal of the countries fortunes that have been lately going so well.

# Peru-N-English Blog says :
June 25, 2011 [ 17:26 ]

Can we now call this what it is? Because it's not about the environment. It's about extortion, corruption and theft of Bear Creek Mining's legal rights to the Puno Santa Ana project area. Achieved through mob rule and terrorist actions.
---
From Reuters:
 "There are dark political interests here that are demanding power," Garcia told reporters. "What they are trying to do is pressure the next government of Ollanta Humala by issuing threats and forcefully demonstrating," Garcia said without providing further details.

Some 5,000 protesters, mostly Aymara Indians, have descended on Puno over the past few weeks to demand concessions be revoked for all mining companies, not just Bear Creek's Santa Ana project, ostensibly over concerns about potential pollution.

Magazine Caretas reported this week, however, that wildcat miners are interested in Bear Creek's concession and are working alongside protesters. Locals think the land has valuable gold deposits in addition to silver.

Often times they (the Puno terrorists) also demand direct economic benefits from mining and oil projects.
--
Isn't that how criminal territorial monopolies and protection money has always worked? Is this the corruption President-elect Ollanta Humala has sworn to stop? I think Alan Garcia is rightfully washing his of this and just passing the baton, because this isn't over. Bear Creek has in vested nearly $100 million. And notoriously environmentally unfriendly wildcat miners want to take it away. This really sinks bad.

# Vivienne says :
June 25, 2011 [ 18:39 ]

There is no accountability in Peru. It's just a corrupt regime.  If protesters and activists demonstrate about miners poisoning their rivers and the polluting the environment, they are called "terrorists".  Incredible with a "robust economy" there are so many people living in abject poverty - like the dark ages- with no electricity, heating, schools or infrastructure.  They are dismissed as ignorant!  Foreign mining companies should not be allowed to take over the land of the indigenous peoples.  There are no human rights in Peru - a land of cruelty, corruption and dark secrets.

# Herve says :
June 26, 2011 [ 20:05 ]

@Vivienne. I invit you to read this article from Associated Press about the sad but true reality about illegal mining in Peru. You will see that the guilty are not necessaraly the ones you might think about.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700143414/Gold-rush-another-blight-to-ailing-Amazon-jungle.html?pg=4

# Dr X says :
June 27, 2011 [ 5:51 ]

Hey if there was someone digging up my backyard and I wasn't getting paid a cent for it there will most certainly be commotion arising!

At the very least Pres Garcia should stop by Puno and apologize for the violance and brutality enforced by officials. All this opression by govt officials is getting out of hand. Hopefully Humalas presidency will end all this.

# mericorps says :
June 27, 2011 [ 12:26 ]

Like many here, I sympathize with the Punenos for wanting to keep out the mine.

However, the ones that choose to become a violent mob I label as ignorant and used.  Even in corrupt Peru, there are ways to stand your ground without killing people, and halting work to tens of thousands of poor people by halting the tourist trade.  Puno, more than any other region, has done a good job of putting many of the tourist dollars in the hands of the locals, and now that is lost.

# Peru-N-English Blog says :
June 27, 2011 [ 18:43 ]

Dr X, According to the mine ministry, Puno receives 700 million soles ($250 million) annually from the government, of which about 40% is from mining royalties.

The canceling of the Santa Ana mine could cost Puno some 25 million soles ($9 million) in royalties, Gala said.

# Rose Mary says :
June 30, 2011 [ 15:30 ]

I understand that people are sick of being pushed around, there rivers polluted and their land taken. But if all the rules are correctly written and adhered to, if ecological damage is minimal because the mining company has to clean up after itself, if all taxes are paid, there should be no reason for objections.

It seems as though outgoing governments are trying their best to make  countries as ungovernable as possible for the incoming group. Something similar seems to be happening in Spain.

Add your comment

Name

Email

Notify me via e-mail of new comments to this entry

Code :

Comment

• Comments are the property of their respective authors, and LivinginPeru.com is not responsible for the content of these comments
• Only comments in English will be published
• Por ahora solo se permiten comentarios en ingles.
• Any offensive, injurious, profane or disrespectful comments will not be published
• You must include a real email address (this WILL be verified) for your comments to be published
• Repeat comments, or comments of a similar nature written by the same person will not be published
• All comments are sent to a moderator before publication
• Referring to the topic indicated in the article will increase your chances of publication
• Repeat offenses of the above guidelines will result in the removal of your ability to comment