Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
from the respective community, the decision to develop the project will be adopted by
resolution of the Sectorial Ministry.'' Thus, although communities that may be affected
by mining have the right to be informed and consulted, their opposition to a project
does not necessarily result in a legally recognised resolution or action. Ultimately, local
people still do not have the power to decide whether mining extraction can take place
in their territory or not.
The new law further contradicts some of the provisions of the constitution and
the international agreements mentioned above. The mining rights include the freedom
of prospecting, but the rights to informed consultation only begin at the stage when
a concession is already granted. In practice, a community can only oppose a project
at a very late stage and the State has the ultimate power to decide whether a mining
project takes place or not. Moreover, if the land ownership and mine ownership (or
title) are distinct and independent of each other, this means that when easements are
established, the lands in question are divisible, even if they are communal lands of
Indigenous peoples going against their Constitutional rights. Thus, taken together,
these laws suggest that the scenario for communities is more likely to be one in which
companies are allowed to begin mining in their territory at any time and if they do not
agree with these activities, they are not entitled to prevent it.
7.6 TOWARDS ATHEORY OF NATIONALISATION AND
CONFLICT IN BOLIVIA AND ECUADOR
Emerging from the above narratives of 'nationalisation' in Bolivia and Ecuador are
several insights into the way these processes need to be theorised. It is important to ask
where the 'nation' lies within the concept of 'nationalisation' and what implications
the construction of plurinational states have. While the theoretical framework pro-
vided by Schlager and Ostrom (1992) suggests that this needs to be located first and
foremost in property rights, the evidence presented here problematises such a straight-
forward conceptualisation. 'Nationalisation' has not resulted in take-over of property
rights and the displacement of foreign corporations by economic entities owned or
operated by the state, nor even by individuals who are nationals of these countries.
Instead, 'nationalisation' has left enough space for foreign corporations to enter into
various forms of agreements - concessions, joint ventures, etc. - that are blessed by
the state. Such arrangements have not only been made within the legal remits of new
constitutions that reinforced the sovereignty of these nations over their nature and
natural resources, but they have in fact been used to demonstrate their effectiveness.
In other words, a theory of nationalisation needs to move beyond simplistic notions
of ownership and control by 'the nation', even more so in states that are or should be
transformed into plurinational states.
As the preceding discussions of the changes taking place in Bolivia and Ecuador
demonstrate, the signifance of the ongoing 'Left Turn' in Latin America can be found
not in its shifting articulations of property rights at the operational level, but instead
at the level of collective action. In other words, the relationship between nationalisa-
tion and property rights cannot strictly be located at the level of ownership, but must
be considered within broader political economic dynamics concerning decisions on
development politics and processes. Specifically, the changes at hand, even when they
Search WWH ::
Custom Search