Translated by Helena Redman
Mining and its negative impacts, along with analyses by activists, social organizations and academics, have had an increasing presence in public debates in recent years, sparking protests and varied reactions from the people and communities affected. But though the topic is becoming more and more prominent in our discussions, we have hardly scratched the surface regarding the harmful effects of mining from a gender perspective. With this in mind, the publication Views in the Territory: How Women and Men Face Mining in Mexico – published by the Women and Environment organization in collaboration with the German Heinrich Böll Foundation – is well-timed.
This study invites us to reflect from the very beginning. It challenges us to take a closer look, to improve our understanding of local realities and, above all, to listen to people – specifically, it asks us to listen to women. To this end, Women and Environment and the Heinrich Böll Foundation Mexico focus on three case studies: the town of Carrizalillo in Guerrero, the Nonoalco and Malila populations in the Molango region and the community* of Capulálpam de Méndez in Oaxaca. In this last case we can see very traditional relationships between men and women, with their own differences and nuances. However, these relationships show us that the patriarchal system is useful for mineral extraction, in any of its forms.
The study also depicts how territory control is essential for the development of mining. Land ownership rights and decisions concerning their applications are therefore fundamental in these communities. However, analyzing this from a gender perspective is important as women are finding their agricultural rights pushed to the side.
Regardless of the type of land ownership, in all three case studies women were left out of decisions to sell, rent or reject land for the use of mining companies. Land ownership rights have long been structural factors in gender inequality in rural areas because they determine access to other natural resources such as water, woodland, flora and fauna. They form the basis of organization and decision-making in ejidos and communities.
*MV Note: Mexico has two forms of indigenous collective land ownership: community and ejido. Community refers to land granted by Spanish king after the conquest. Community members, comuneros, own and work their land collectively.
Ejidos developed as the government's response to the strident demands for land reform made by campesinos who had fought in the Mexican Revolution (1910-1917). To satisfy those demands, the government expropriated lands from large landholders and awarded them to indigenous communities, ejidos, whose members are ejidatarios.
Article 2 of Mexico’s Constitution recognizes the right of indigenous communities to choose self-government under traditional uses and customs, the legal term denoting indigenous customary law in Latin America. The people's assembly is the traditional decision-making mechanism; decisions themselves are communal and consensual.In Carrizalillo, for example, women represent 34 percent of ejidatarios, but despite this they feel excluded. Men control ejido assemblies, and women’s voices go unheard in decisions about land use, renting to mining companies and negotiations. Paradoxically, in Capulálpam, not a single woman has an active role in community decision-making. As we know, the promise of jobs, economic growth and a higher quality of life are mining companies’ main arguments for persuading communities to allow use of their land. There is a trend among these companies to sell jobs in mining as an attractive alternative type of work for women.
Schooling, however, is the main filter for access to work, though not the only one. This makes things more complicated for women, not only because of the gender divide in work, which relegates them to childrearing, but also because women have generally had less schooling and participate less in the technical coursework required to work in the mining industry. In this case, the promotion of gender equality is more rhetorical than useful.
The companies say that they comply with social responsibility standards – in order to increase their prestige and counteract strong criticism, among other reasons – but they set aside the main international agreements related to the rights of working women. These include, among others, Conventions 103 and 183 of the International Labor Organization on maternity protection, Convention 100 on pay remuneration and Convention 111 on discrimination in employment and occupation.
To a greater or lesser extent, mining has caused substantial changes in all areas of life in the three communities studied: economic activity, the state of natural resources, organization, services, health, cultural issues, and social and territorial unrest. These transformations have remodelled the forms of social coexistence and ways of obtaining a livelihood, rewriting the definition of local development. From a gender perspective, we have seen a consolidation of male control over the lives of women despite the fact that women provide fundamental support, not only in terms of family life but also in facing the power of mining companies. Excepting their integration into mining activity, women’s options for economic independence are limited, and their participation in community decision-making is practically non-existent.
Finally, the notion of the future in these contexts demonstrates the difference between women and men. The investigations carried out in the three communities show that for the women and men who were interviewed, mining is not wanted because of its negative impacts. Mining does not generate development, it does not substantially improve quality of life, and it destroys the human and natural environment.
Despite this, and with the exception of Capulálpam, there are no other obvious means to find employment and income and, hence, a way out of marginalization and poverty. It should be asked whether greater gender equality in resisting the power of mining companies will contribute to creating new ideas for local development, wellbeing and quality of life. It is time for the people and communities to have their say. Spanish original
*Miguel Concha, B.A., in Philosophy and Diplomate in Social Sciences (Rome), earned the Ph.D. in theology from Providence College, RI. Co-founder of the National Commission of Human Rights, Dr. Concha is a long-time professor at the UNAM (National Autonomous University of Mexico). In 2003, he was elected one of two vice-presidents of the Mexican Academy of Human Rights.
The companies say that they comply with social responsibility standards – in order to increase their prestige and counteract strong criticism, among other reasons – but they set aside the main international agreements related to the rights of working women. These include, among others, Conventions 103 and 183 of the International Labor Organization on maternity protection, Convention 100 on pay remuneration and Convention 111 on discrimination in employment and occupation.
To a greater or lesser extent, mining has caused substantial changes in all areas of life in the three communities studied: economic activity, the state of natural resources, organization, services, health, cultural issues, and social and territorial unrest. These transformations have remodelled the forms of social coexistence and ways of obtaining a livelihood, rewriting the definition of local development. From a gender perspective, we have seen a consolidation of male control over the lives of women despite the fact that women provide fundamental support, not only in terms of family life but also in facing the power of mining companies. Excepting their integration into mining activity, women’s options for economic independence are limited, and their participation in community decision-making is practically non-existent.
Finally, the notion of the future in these contexts demonstrates the difference between women and men. The investigations carried out in the three communities show that for the women and men who were interviewed, mining is not wanted because of its negative impacts. Mining does not generate development, it does not substantially improve quality of life, and it destroys the human and natural environment.
Despite this, and with the exception of Capulálpam, there are no other obvious means to find employment and income and, hence, a way out of marginalization and poverty. It should be asked whether greater gender equality in resisting the power of mining companies will contribute to creating new ideas for local development, wellbeing and quality of life. It is time for the people and communities to have their say. Spanish original
*Miguel Concha, B.A., in Philosophy and Diplomate in Social Sciences (Rome), earned the Ph.D. in theology from Providence College, RI. Co-founder of the National Commission of Human Rights, Dr. Concha is a long-time professor at the UNAM (National Autonomous University of Mexico). In 2003, he was elected one of two vice-presidents of the Mexican Academy of Human Rights.