Will the Mining Ban in E.S. Become Permanent? Or is it Merely a Bargaining Chip for Election Purposes?

            Five months ago, on June 28, 2011, President Funes decided to fulfill his campaign promise and legally ban the mining of metals in El Salvador. In her report, Emily Atchenberg quotes Funes’ reasoning behind this ban: “Despite the potential relief that mining revenues could offer his cash-strapped government, Funes said, ‘I will not put the public health of the population at risk in exchange for some additional income that we might receive’” (Atchenberg 1).

            Although this ban is a major step for El Salvador, it isn’t enough for many of its citizens, especially those belonging to The National Round Table Against Mining (known as the Mesa). Mesa members are not content with this ban because it will only last as long as Funes is in office and can thus, change at the will of each future president. To keep this from happening, Mesa members are pushing for the government to pass a bill and make this ban permanent.

            Unfortunately for the government, passing a bill to permanently ban metal mining is easier said than done. The current ban has brought on several law suits against the country from mining companies such as the Pacific Rim, which is a Canada-based transnational mining company that received a permit to start a massive exploratory for gold mines in 2002. The location of this mine is in the basin of the country’s largest river, the Lempa, which is one of few uncontaminated water sources left in the country. The Mesa and other anti-mining supporters argue that this mining project is more problematic than it is beneficial. Their reasons include:

1. “The water-intensive cyanide ore process used by mining companies like Pacific Rim will undermine rural farming and fishing economies, and deplete drinking-water supplies—the average metallic mine uses 24,000 gallons of water per hour, or about what a typical Salvadoran family consumes in 20 years” (1).
2. “Toxic runoff, leaks, or spills could cause widespread contamination, and Cabañas is prone to earthquakes and torrential rains, further heightening public health and safety concerns. Such problems would add to the many environmental challenges already facing El Salvador, which is arguably the second-most environmentally degraded country in the Americas (after Haiti)” (2).
3. “Mesa says few local residents have the technical skills to qualify for a permanent position. Under existing law, only 3% of mining profits would be paid to the Salvadoran government for potential reinvestment in social and economic programs” (2).
4. “The projected operational life of Pacific Rim’s Cabañas mine is just six years” (2).
5. “Mining has also caused social conflict and violence in communities… Pacific Rim targets funds for scholarships, schools, and other benefits to municipalities (and mayors) not directly impacted by mining, creating friction with those communities that are affected. In this context of mounting tension, four anti-mining activists in Cabañas have been killed since 2009 in what the Mesa describes as targeted assassinations. Dozens more, including environmental leaders, priests, and community radio journalists, have received death threats, which the company blames on “internal feuds”—that is, the very conflicts that its presence has created”(2).

The nation is fighting lawsuits, because in 2007 the majority of its citizens decided mining should be banned and thus prevented the Pacific Rim from completing technical steps that were required to continue and in 2008 the company was unable to proceed with exploratory operations. Because of this, the Pacific Rim decided to sue the Salvadoran government for $77 million claiming that the government violated their investor’s rights under DR-CAFTA by failing to approve an extradition permit. This case is currently pending in a World Bank court. Meanwhile, the Salvadoran government is spending over $800,000 defending itself against charges by other companies. Funes has been consulting with a Spanish firm since 2010 to discuss the pros and cons of the ban in order to become better prepared for potential legal exposure that accompanies the 26 existing active exploration permits and the 73 pending applications. Rosa Chávez, the Environmental Minister, explains that it is because of these potential lawsuits, that the government must consider alternatives to the ban because: “We are the government now...We have to play by the formal rules” (3).

However, in regards to upcoming elections and promises made, Chávez quickly follows stating that governments and public officials should never be trusted. The Mesa, on the other hand, believes that if Funes decides to stick with a ban, then the rest of the legislature will receive pressure from the public and be forced to support it due to upcoming elections.

With Salvadoran legislative elections in May of 2012 the campaigning period has begun. The question remains, however, will the government listen to its people and ban the mining of metals permanently? Or will they merely promise a permanent ban for the purpose of elections and fail to follow through once elected? OR, will the government be forced to retract the ban (elections or not) due to the financial strain created by the lawsuits, which will only contribute the nation’s already bleak state of financial affairs that have worsened as result of the E-12 storm damages?