194 Pía Marchegiani and Louisa Parks
to continue their action through dialogue. As the year unfolded, a decision to
change their approach was also driven by the complete lack of willingness among
extractives companies now active on their lands to pay any attention to or respect
any of the terms of the community protocol. For example, the protocol includes
the condition that all communities in the area be consulted together, since the
projects take place on a watershed that forms a single, connected ecosystem.
Yet, companies have instead approached communities individually, providing
information and promises in a manner similar to the aforementioned Olaroz case
(Ibid). This meant that although communities had formed their own process of
organizing internally, the Roundtable was not recognized by external actors,
who continued to see individual community representatives as the correct contact point for dialogue. This demonstrates the communities’ claims about being
ignored by authorities.
In early 2019, the communities discovered another new bidding process
involving studies to exploit lithium on their land about which they had not been
consulted in any way. At this point, the group decided to change their course of
action.
9 They mounted a peaceful demonstration, blocking the main highway
that runs through their lands and distributing pamphlets to inform those passing
through their lands and from other communities about their predicament. They
sought a meeting with the governor of the province, and were invited to meet
with him at his offices in the provincial capital of San Salvador de Jujuy, some
130 kilometres away. The community members, having engaged in dialogue and
meetings for years at this point, refused the meeting, inviting the governor to
visit their demonstration site instead. Rather than travelling to the communities’
land, the governor now ordered the police to clear the mobilization site. Following this turn of events, community members held an emergency meeting and
decided to change their position. While the community protocol and their previous work had been about proper consultation rather than against mining per se,
they now decided that simply asking for consultation was no longer enough, and
that a flat no and blanket opposition to mining was the better strategic choice.
They thus stopped calling for consultation rights and the respect of the process
outlined in Kachi Yupi, and adopted a “no to lithium” position. This could be
interpreted as a new way of framing the cause after lack of progress in their original strategy.
The effects and impacts of the Kachi Yupi community protocol thus went
well beyond the question of legal pluralism and can be read in a number of community and authority actions and reactions. In the short term, the protocol led to
dialogue, opening an opportunity to discuss the protocol and future possible ways
of engaging in dialogues on subjects beyond that of lithium too. The recognition
conferred by the national ombudsman and the provincial government suggested
that bridges were being built for a broader political cooperation agenda, constructing trust between the parties. This opportunity did not transpire however.
The dialogue came to be viewed as fruitless in light of concrete moves to recommence and boost mining projects without any regard to consultation processes
to continue their action through dialogue. As the year unfolded, a decision to
change their approach was also driven by the complete lack of willingness among
extractives companies now active on their lands to pay any attention to or respect
any of the terms of the community protocol. For example, the protocol includes
the condition that all communities in the area be consulted together, since the
projects take place on a watershed that forms a single, connected ecosystem.
Yet, companies have instead approached communities individually, providing
information and promises in a manner similar to the aforementioned Olaroz case
(Ibid). This meant that although communities had formed their own process of
organizing internally, the Roundtable was not recognized by external actors,
who continued to see individual community representatives as the correct contact point for dialogue. This demonstrates the communities’ claims about being
ignored by authorities.
In early 2019, the communities discovered another new bidding process
involving studies to exploit lithium on their land about which they had not been
consulted in any way. At this point, the group decided to change their course of
action.
9 They mounted a peaceful demonstration, blocking the main highway
that runs through their lands and distributing pamphlets to inform those passing
through their lands and from other communities about their predicament. They
sought a meeting with the governor of the province, and were invited to meet
with him at his offices in the provincial capital of San Salvador de Jujuy, some
130 kilometres away. The community members, having engaged in dialogue and
meetings for years at this point, refused the meeting, inviting the governor to
visit their demonstration site instead. Rather than travelling to the communities’
land, the governor now ordered the police to clear the mobilization site. Following this turn of events, community members held an emergency meeting and
decided to change their position. While the community protocol and their previous work had been about proper consultation rather than against mining per se,
they now decided that simply asking for consultation was no longer enough, and
that a flat no and blanket opposition to mining was the better strategic choice.
They thus stopped calling for consultation rights and the respect of the process
outlined in Kachi Yupi, and adopted a “no to lithium” position. This could be
interpreted as a new way of framing the cause after lack of progress in their original strategy.
The effects and impacts of the Kachi Yupi community protocol thus went
well beyond the question of legal pluralism and can be read in a number of community and authority actions and reactions. In the short term, the protocol led to
dialogue, opening an opportunity to discuss the protocol and future possible ways
of engaging in dialogues on subjects beyond that of lithium too. The recognition
conferred by the national ombudsman and the provincial government suggested
that bridges were being built for a broader political cooperation agenda, constructing trust between the parties. This opportunity did not transpire however.
The dialogue came to be viewed as fruitless in light of concrete moves to recommence and boost mining projects without any regard to consultation processes