Advertisement

Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 747–768 | Cite as

The flow/fund model of Conga: exploring the anatomy of environmental conflicts at the Andes–Amazon commodity frontier

  • Jose C. Silva-Macher
  • Katharine N. Farrell
Case Study

Abstract

This paper aims to contribute toward improved understanding of complex ecological distribution conflicts at the commodity frontiers, where increasing metabolism in industrial societies is leading to increased environmental destruction in resource-rich countries throughout the world. The focus of this paper is the Conga gold mine project in northern Peru, where there have been violent clashes between the Minera Yanacocha mining company and the local population, represented mainly by campesinos that live in the highlands of the Andes–Amazon region. We do this by using the flow/fund model developed by Georgescu-Roegen and extended by Giampietro and Mayumi, to help us trace the anatomy of this conflict, using simplified representations of the central economic processes involved: gold mining and milk production. By complementing the concept of Ricardian land—an indestructible fund—with the concept of land materials, which is susceptible to qualitative change, and therefore can be either a fund or a flow element of the economic process, we illustrate that the gold extraction process, which treats this land material as a flow, stands in conflict with the milk production process, at least in part, because that process is using these land materials as a fund, i.e., in order to make production possible. The paper employs the concept of environmental valuation triadics, developed by Farrell, in order to explore how the boundaries—physical frontiers and temporal durations—of a specified economic process are related to flow/fund element identities. We conclude with some reflections on potential future applications for the methods employed and on the implications of our analytical results.

Keywords

Flow/fund model Valuation triadics Multi-scale integrated analysis Andes–Amazon commodity frontier Gold extraction Conga conflict 

References

  1. Amnesty International. (2013). Annual report 2013: the state of the world’s human rights, country report: Peru. http://amnesty.org/en/region/peru/report-2013/. Accessed 15 July 2013.
  2. Bloomberg. (2013). Gold, silver, and industrial metals prices. http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/futures/metals/. Accessed 10 Feb 2013.
  3. Box, G. E. P. (1979). Robustness is the strategy of scientific model building. In R. L. Launer & G. N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Robustness in statistics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cadena, M. (2010). Indigenous cosmopolitics in the Andes: conceptual reflections beyond “Politics”. Cultural Anthropology, 25(2), 334–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castello, L., McGrath, D. G., Hess, L. L., Coe, M. T., Lefebvre, P. A., Petry, P., et al. (2012). The vulnerability of Amazon freshwater ecosystems. Conservation Letters,. doi: 10.1111/conl.12008.Google Scholar
  6. CNDDHH. (2013). Noticias de la coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos del Perú. http://derechoshumanos.pe/2013/01/24-muertos-y-649-heridos-dejaron-conflictos-sociales-el-2012/. Accessed 22 Jan 2013.
  7. Daly, H., & Farley, J. (2011[2004]). Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications 2nd edition. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  8. Defensoría del Pueblo. (2013). Reporte de conflictos sociales Nº 106: Diciembre 2012. Defensoría del Pueblo de Perú. http://servindi.org/pdf/Informe_ConflictosSociales2012.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2013.
  9. EIA. (2010a). Conga Project Environmental Impact Assessment Final Report Volume 1: executive summary. Prepared for Minera Yanacocha by Knight Piésold and Co. Project No. DV202.00165/17, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  10. EIA. (2010b). Conga Project Environmental Impact Assessment Final Report volume 2: Sections 1–3. Prepared for Minera Yanacocha by Knight Piésold and Co. Project No. DV202.00165/17, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  11. EIA. (2010c). Conga Project Environmental Impact Assessment Final Report volume 3: Sections 4–13. Prepared for Minera Yanacocha by Knight Piésold and Co. Project No. DV202.00165/17, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  12. EIA. (2010d). Conga Project Environmental Impact Assessment Final Report volume 4: Tables. Prepared for Minera Yanacocha by Knight Piésold and Co. Project No. DV202.00165/17, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  13. EIA. (2010e). Conga Project Environmental Impact Assessment Final Report Volume 5: Graphs and figures. Prepared for Minera Yanacocha by Knight Piésold and Co. Project No. DV202.00165/17, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  14. EIA. (2010f). Conga Project Environmental Impact Assessment Final Report Volume 6: Photographs. Prepared for Minera Yanacocha by Knight Piésold and Co. Project No. DV202.00165/17, Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  15. EITI. (2011). EITI rules 2011: Including the validation guide. Extractives industries transparency initiative international secretariat Oslo. http://eiti.org/files/2011-11-01_2011_EITI_RULES.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2013.
  16. Farrell, K. N. (2007). Living with living systems: The co-evolution of values and valuation. International Journal on Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14, 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farrell, K.N. (2009[2005]). Making good decisions well: A theory of collective ecological management. Shaker Verlag GmbH, Aachen, Germany.Google Scholar
  18. Farrell, K., & Mayumi, K. (2009). Time horizons and electricity futures: An application of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s general theory of economic production. Energy, 34, 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farrell, K.N., & Vatn, A. (2004). Exosomatic instruments of production and the human species: Historical and normative epistemological foundations of ecological economics. In: Proceedings if paper presented at the 8th Biennial conference of the international society for ecological economics, Montreal.Google Scholar
  20. Fernández, R., Lopez, L., & Martins, J. (2012). International experts’ review: Hydric component of the environmental impact assessment of Conga mining project (Cajamarca). Prepared for: Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros (Peruvian Premier’s Bureau). Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
  21. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. London and Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1976[1965]). Process in farming versus process in manufacturing: a problem of balanced development. Energy and Economic Myths, pp. 71–102.Google Scholar
  23. Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2000a). Multiple-scale integrated assessment of societal metabolism: Introducing the approach. Population and Environment, 22(2), 109–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2000b). Multiple-scale integrated assessment of societal metabolism: Integrating biophysical and economic representations across scales. Population and Environment, 22(2), 155–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2004). Impredicative loop analysis: Dealing with the representation of chicken-egg processes. In M. Giampietro (Ed.), Multi-scale integrated analysis of agroecosystems (pp. 171–230). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  26. Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2009). The biofuel delusion: The fallacy of large-scale agro-biofuel production. London and Sterling: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  27. IIED and WBCSD. (2002). Breaking new ground: the report of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development Project. International Institute for Environment and Development and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. London and Sterling: Earthscan Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  28. INEI. (1994). III Censo Nacional Agropecuario. Lima: Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática.Google Scholar
  29. INEI. (2007). Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda 2007. Lima, Perú: Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática.Google Scholar
  30. INEI. (2009). Compendio Estadístico Departamental de Cajamarca 2009. Cajamarca, Perú: Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática.Google Scholar
  31. Martínez-Alier, J. (2010 [2002]). El ecologismo de los pobres: conflictos ambientales y lenguajes de valoración. 4th ed. Lima: Espiritrompa Ediciones.Google Scholar
  32. Martínez-Alier, J., Kallis, G., Veuthey, S., Walter, M., & Temper, L. (2010). Introduction: Social metabolism, ecological distribution conflicts, and valuation languages. Ecological Economics, 70, 153–158.Google Scholar
  33. Mayumi, K. (1999). Embodied energy analysis, Sraffa’s analysis, Georgescu-Roegen’s flow-fund model and viability of solar technology. In K. Mayumi & J. Gowdy (Eds.), Bioeconomics and sustainability: Essays in honor of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. Minera Yanacocha. (2010). Memoria de sostenibilidad 2010. http://www.yanacocha.com.pe/. Accessed 15 Nov 2012.
  35. Minera Yanacocha. (2012). Gestión del agua en Yanacocha: Cuidados, controles y generación de activos ambientales. http://www.yanacocha.com.pe/. Accessed 20 Nov 2012.
  36. USGS, James, I., Sams, III, & Beer, K. M. (2000). Effects of coal–mine drainage on stream water quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River Basins—Sulfate transport and trends. Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4208, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  37. Moore, J. W. (2000). Sugar and the expansion of the early modern world-economy: Commodity frontiers, ecological transformation, and industrialization. Review, 23(3), 409–433.Google Scholar
  38. Moran, R. (2012). The Conga mine, Peru: Comments on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and related issues. Prepared for the Environmental Defender Law Center, Michael-Moran Assoc., L.L.C., Colorado.Google Scholar
  39. Morris, J. H. (2010). Going for gold: The history of Newmont mining corporation. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  40. Muradian, R., Walter, M., & Martínez-Alier, J. (2012). Hegemonic transitions and global shifts in social metabolism: Implications for resource-rich countries, Introduction to the special section, global environmental change part A. Human and Policy Dimensions, 22(3), 559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Newmont. (2011). Annual report and form 10-K. Newmont mining corporation. http://newmont.q4web.com/files/doc_downloads/2011_Newmont_Annual_Report_and_10_K.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2012.
  42. Newmont. (2012). Conga project overview. Newmont Mining Corporation. http://www.newmont.com/. Accessed 10 Aug 2012.
  43. Pérez-Rincón, M. A. (2006). Colombian international trade from a physical perspective: Towards an ecological “Prebisch thesis”. Ecological Economics, 59(4), 519–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Russi, D., Gonzalez-Martínez, A. C., Silva-Macher, J. C., Giljum, S., Martínez-Alier, J., & Vallejo, M. C. (2008). Material flows in Latin America: A comparative analysis of Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru, 1980–2000. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(5–6), 704–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Salthe, S.N. (1985). Representing a dynamic system hierarchically: The basic triadic system. In: Evolving hierarchical systems. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Schlink, A. C., Nguyen, M. L., & Viljoen, G. J. (2010). Water requirements for livestock production: a global perspective. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics), 29(3), 603–619.Google Scholar
  47. Urrutia, J. (2003). Cambios y permanencias comunales en medio siglo: Revista a un texto olvidado. Debate Agrario Nº 35. Lima: CEPES.Google Scholar
  48. Vatn, A. (2005). Institutions and the environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA)Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Edifici C Campus de la UABBellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations