Community Protocols as Tools for Collective Action 193
run a campaign that included attention to indigenous matters, including the
community protocol. As it had promised before the elections, the new provincial
government discussed the community protocol. In addition, permits stopped
moving forward in the Salinas Grandes and Laguna de Guayatayoc area and lithium mining practically came to a halt, though it should be noted that this coincided not only with the community protocol but with a slackening in the pace
of investments. A dialogue between the community members and the provincial
government began, with various meetings and discussions in the following years,
focusing for the most part on a draft provincial decree that would legally recognize the protocol, and make adherence to its terms compulsory. During the same
period, the protocol was recognized publicly at the national level by the National
Ombudsman. The National Ombudsman’s office had intervened in an attempt
to act as a neutral broker between communities and different external actors in a
variety of cases in the country in previous years, and had taken an interest in the
community protocol and the issues surrounding EIAs and consultation and consent before its public launch. When the protocol was published, the office praised
it as a useful source for guiding consultation procedures, and recommended its
application to all government authorities (both at the provincial and national
levels) where any decision that would affect communities in the Salinas Grandes
area was to be made.
Despite all these positive signs of an opening towards the claims of the communities for fairer and better specified rules about consultation procedures, it is
worth recalling that economic reforms aimed at benefiting the extractives sector
were brought in following Macri’s election. Further moves in this direction were
also introduced in 2016, when export duties were cut for the sector, and the
geographical reach of mining projects extended. As the dialogue between the
provincial government and the communities continued, the communities thus
also engaged in other strategies. They sought to gather independent expertise
about the potential impacts on water sources from the proposed mining projects,
and met with other communities in the lithium triangle to exchange information. This is in line with the aims of the protocol, which underlines the need for
independent expert information, given that in Argentina, and indeed many other
countries, those applying for permits to mine also commission and supply expert
information since local authorities lack the necessary resources. Understandably,
this raises suspicions among community members about the independent nature
of the information where it is produced by experts hired by mining companies
(Marchegiani et al., 2020; Parks, 2020).
Concerns in the communities about the genuineness of the dialogue with
the provincial government were also growing, and came to a culmination at the
end of 2017, when new permits were granted ending the de facto pause that had
commenced after the elections. In early 2018, with no legal decree forthcoming,
the accumulation of authorities’ actions in favour of mining at both local and
federal levels and the recommencement of exploration work on their lands by
mining companies, the communities began to question whether it made sense
run a campaign that included attention to indigenous matters, including the
community protocol. As it had promised before the elections, the new provincial
government discussed the community protocol. In addition, permits stopped
moving forward in the Salinas Grandes and Laguna de Guayatayoc area and lithium mining practically came to a halt, though it should be noted that this coincided not only with the community protocol but with a slackening in the pace
of investments. A dialogue between the community members and the provincial
government began, with various meetings and discussions in the following years,
focusing for the most part on a draft provincial decree that would legally recognize the protocol, and make adherence to its terms compulsory. During the same
period, the protocol was recognized publicly at the national level by the National
Ombudsman. The National Ombudsman’s office had intervened in an attempt
to act as a neutral broker between communities and different external actors in a
variety of cases in the country in previous years, and had taken an interest in the
community protocol and the issues surrounding EIAs and consultation and consent before its public launch. When the protocol was published, the office praised
it as a useful source for guiding consultation procedures, and recommended its
application to all government authorities (both at the provincial and national
levels) where any decision that would affect communities in the Salinas Grandes
area was to be made.
Despite all these positive signs of an opening towards the claims of the communities for fairer and better specified rules about consultation procedures, it is
worth recalling that economic reforms aimed at benefiting the extractives sector
were brought in following Macri’s election. Further moves in this direction were
also introduced in 2016, when export duties were cut for the sector, and the
geographical reach of mining projects extended. As the dialogue between the
provincial government and the communities continued, the communities thus
also engaged in other strategies. They sought to gather independent expertise
about the potential impacts on water sources from the proposed mining projects,
and met with other communities in the lithium triangle to exchange information. This is in line with the aims of the protocol, which underlines the need for
independent expert information, given that in Argentina, and indeed many other
countries, those applying for permits to mine also commission and supply expert
information since local authorities lack the necessary resources. Understandably,
this raises suspicions among community members about the independent nature
of the information where it is produced by experts hired by mining companies
(Marchegiani et al., 2020; Parks, 2020).
Concerns in the communities about the genuineness of the dialogue with
the provincial government were also growing, and came to a culmination at the
end of 2017, when new permits were granted ending the de facto pause that had
commenced after the elections. In early 2018, with no legal decree forthcoming,
the accumulation of authorities’ actions in favour of mining at both local and
federal levels and the recommencement of exploration work on their lands by
mining companies, the communities began to question whether it made sense