http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17268976
When I first glanced at the headline of this article, I mistakenly assumed this was about Peruvians protesting for a crackdown against illegal mining. In fact, thousands of Peruvians are protesting the new sanctions the government has posed to stop illegal gold mining, which is destroying the rainforest and polluting nearby water sources with mercury. Since the operations are illegal, the government cannot regulate these practices and loses tax money from the profits that could be used to mitigate environmental damage. The government said their hope was that tougher laws would motivate illegal miners to get permits.
There are estimated to be 50,000 miners currently operating illegally, attracted by the recent rise in the price of gold. The miners and their families making up this protest assert
that they do not want to operate illegally, but that the government bureaucracy has made it too difficult to obtain permits, as they are only interested in giving access to multinational corporations. They say the crackdown will cause many people to lose their jobs and perhaps serve time in prison.
Pitting thousands of people and their livelihoods versus the health of the environment makes this a complex issue. On the human side, it is easy to sympathize with the miners struggles with government bureaucracy, "forcing" them to act illegally. However, I am not sure that these mining operations were really a necessity to make a living, but rather seem to be more profit-driven. Furthermore, even if these miners were able to readily obtain permits, should 50,000 miners really be allowed to mine anyways, given the ecological destruction that is a result? Large areas of jungle have already been destroyed, and mercury pollution found in water sources, endangering the people and animals depending on them. Did the miners think about this before they started digging for gold? While it may seem harsh, since the government will most likely have to foot the bill for this destruction, it seems fitting that the miners have to pay too. However, I do see the injustice in how these miners were treated by the government, and it also makes me wonder why it took the government so long to do something about these mines. Did they really not notice thousands of people mining for gold in the jungle? If so, this seems to indicate a huge gap in the government's environmental and economic regulatory practices. So I guess the issue is maybe not as black and white. What do you think? Is the environment the only victim here, or are these miners also victims of the government's neglect?
The issue of mining in the Andes has such a long and bloody history that it is extremely complicated and complex. But your comments begin to bring some of the current issues to light. Check out June Nash's "We eat the mines and the mines eat us."
ReplyDeleteI feel that in this situation, relating to the illegal mining industry as a whole, the environment and the wellbeing of the community seems to be more of a victim than the miners. According to Peru’s environmental minister, Antonio Brack, if the current levels of mining are to continue, “within 20 years Madre de Dios will be an ecological disaster the like of which mankind has never seen”. Madre de Dios is a southeastern region of Peru which has swelled with mining activity. In addition to severe detrimental effects on the environment, young women and under-age girls are the “victims of people-trafficking by mafias who use them to entice miners flush with cash”. Antonia Brack is in favor of mining but “it does need to be legitimized”. He feels that regulation needs to be introduced and enforced to educate the miners how to extract the gold safely without polluting and to hinder the demonizing effects of the entire culture of current mining. However, the issue is complex. A father of seven, struggling to support his family and currently making $8-a-day reflects on the issue, “I earn a pittance but it’s more than I can get in my village. I know we’re killing the jungle, this land will never be the same”. How can balance be established that hinders the detrimental effects of mining, but also supports the livelihood of local people?
ReplyDeletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8411408.stm
I agree with Twist's sentiments that the environment and well-being of the community are the true victims. While there are unfortunate families, like the father of seven, who rely solely on income from mining, these cases should not dictate the government's response to illegal mining. The fact is, illegal activity should be stopped by the government, and if the government refuses to respond to the situation, that is pure negligence. In view of the detrimental effects on the environment, it would behoove both the environment and community if mining were stopped. Consider the situation where in 100 years all of the land is degraded by miners. No land would be left to mine. Then people would have no choice but to find another means of income. Inevitably, the people of Peru will need to abandon mining. However, this transition can be assisted by the government and NGOs by providing employment opportunities for locals. This would reduce the impact on the land and gradually allow the community to find new sources of income. Patience may be the key to ending the illegal mining industry, just as it was for the Indians in their pursuit of land rights (conservation reading).
ReplyDelete