Ask Question
4 February, 02:26

How did the economic context of peru impact the decisions made in the tintaya mine endeavor? a. The small land-owner had an advantage in the negotiations by possessing something that the mine needed. b. It allowed for equality in the negotiations between interested parties. c. The impoverished context allowed the government to gain access to the land. d. No real impact?

+1
Answers (1)
  1. 4 February, 02:37
    0
    The explorations that led to the discovery of Tintaya mine go back to 1917. In 1971, the Peruvian government promoted the exploitation of the mine. In 1980, the expropriation of approximately 4,000 hectares of land, owned by the communities, was carried out. It is for this reason that started a dispute between the commoners and the Company. In 1985 the exploitation of Tintaya began and it became the third producer of the country. In 1994, the mine was bought by Broken Hill Proprietary (BHP), who subsequently merged with the company Billiton, forming the second biggest group in the world production of minerals. In 2001, the first proposal for the framework agreement was made public. An agreement was reached and the framework agreement was consolidated in 2003. The signature of the framework agreement was an innovative milestone. Never before, a mining company had agreed to transfer a percentage of profits to communities and to engage to dialogue with them at all times. In 2005, a violent takeover occurred of the Tintaya facilities. A reformulation of the framework agreement was demanded. The implementation of the framework agreement was taking place very slowly. The president of BHP Billiton had to suspend the mining activity until a new agreement was reached. Then the negotiations began again. Xstrata Cooper (now Glencore) bought Tintaya from BHP Billiton in 2006. The owner changed, but the same conflicts and mobilizations continued until 2012. The last stoppage lasted eight days. During this paralysis, violent acts occurred and even the mine was asked to close, which was completely rejected by the government. At present, no resolution or reformulation of the framework agreement has been reached. In conclusion, the answer is C. the impoverished context allowed the government to gain access to the land. As is often the case, the expansion of mining activity led to the expropriation or purchase of land, back in 1980, from five communities and left open conflicts (low prices, evictions, illegitimate negotiations, etc.), as well as various environmental and human rights problems.
Know the Answer?