Global Solidarity Network Fall 2012

 

Session II: Natural Resource Extraction: Risks to Environment and Health

 

October 22 – November 2, 2012

 

Discussion Questions

 

The following are  suggested discussion questions, formulated by the GSN faculty planning team, on the main documents for GSN Session II. Of course, the use of the questions is optional. If you wish, however, simply assign the corresponding questions along with the readings you select from the GSN homepage. The questions are meant to focus students’ reading  and enhance the quality and diversity of comments in the online forum.  As always, you should feel free to use these materials in the way that best suits your course.

 

CRS Framing Document – Extractives and Equity (CRS, 2011)

 

Extractives and Equity, Introductory Essay, pp. 1-25

 

1.       Consider the challenges posed by extractive industries (p. 4-9). For example, who gets the revenue from a privately owned copper smelter in Peru? Who bears the impact of pollution?

2.       Do you agree that there is such a thing as a “resource curse"? If so, is good governance enough to break it? And what would count as good governance? (Need it be democratic?)

3.       Why might the risk of civil war go up with the presence of extraction (p. 8)?

4.       Responding to these challenges posed by the extractive industries requires engaging stakeholders (p. 9). Define the term stakeholder (in your own words), and identify the possible stakeholders in the instance of extraction by, for example, an American-owned copper refinery in Peru.

5.       What is corporate social responsibility, or CSR (p. 10)? Why should companies be interested in it?

6.       What, concretely, would it mean for a company engaged in extractives to adhere to the principle of "do no harm" (p.11)? Does the principle demand too much? Does it demand too little?

7.       Consider the value of international advocacy and partnerships -- people around the world campaigning for better practices in areas where the impact from extractives is devastating. Describe either the international “Publish what you pay campaign” or the “Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative” (p. 14). What is the merit of the campaign you chose to describe? What might make it hard to implement or monitor? Do you see any problems with the campaign? Do you support it, or do you have qualms with it?

8.       Lastly, what is the purpose of section 1502 of the American Dodd-Frank Act (p. 16)? Bonus points for going online and identifying the status of implementation of this legislation.

 

Extractives and Equity, Peru: Environmental Health as an Equity Issue; The Case of La Oroya, by Barbara Fraser, pp. 28-54

 

Nature of the Conflict

1.       When was the smelter in La Oroya purchased by the Doe Run company (p. 29)? And how long had it been operating prior to that (p. 28)?

2.       What is the relationship between local citizens and the smelter? Consider employment opportunities and health risks. Note the particular health risks to women and children (p. 38).

3.       What is the PAMA (p. 32-34)? Has Doe Run fulfilled its obligations under the PAMA (p. 32-34)? Has government enforcement of these regulations of industry emissions been sufficient (p. 33-37)?

4.       At the time of publication of this report in 2011, the Doe Run Peru smelter in La Oroya was closed. What were the barriers to its reopening (p. 35-37)? See the recommended faculty links for additional information on the current status of the smelter.

The Work of Environmental Justice

5.       Choose one of the following organizations and describe its membership and goals: MASAO, the Environmental Dialogue Roundtable, and El Mantaro Revive (p. 39-47). Identify the group’s major accomplishments and at least one shortfall of its work.

6.       Why do you think local citizens may have feared participating in activism versus Doe Run (see p. 29, for example)?

7.       Until national and international NGOs became involved in this case, there was little access to good data on the environmental and health impact of the smelter. Identify one instance of data collection in this case. What group (or partnership) led the project? And what was the impact?

Who Is Responsible?

By all accounts, at the time of publication of this essay, the future of the Doe Run company’s operation of the smelter was uncertain, La Oroya’s environment was damaged, people were still loaded with pollutants, and Doe Run couldn’t get access to credit.  But Doe Run’s affiliate company, Renco, had made handsome profits and then “established Doe Run Peru as an independent company, creating a debt, at least on paper, to the U.S. company” (p. 34).

8.       Respond to the following prompt with your position supported by facts from this case: “Doing good is good for business.” Would Doe Run be better off had it complied fully with regulations to mitigate impact of the smelter on people’s health? Discuss profit but also consider other factors such as reputation and morality as “goods.” See the video “House of Lead” for more information on Doe Run’s owner.

9.       The case states that “although Peru’s national environmental legislation is fairly good, enforcement is weak” (48). One could argue that Doe Run has a special duty to comply with regulations in a country where enforcement is weak. What do you think are the most promising avenues for strengthening the capacity and political will of government?

10.   Imagine you are the Archbishop of Huancayo, whose jurisdiction includes La Oroya. Write a brief letter to the editor of the New York Times about why American-owned Renco should be held to higher standards concerning the health and environmental impacts of its industry. Use language from Catholic Social Teaching. (See pages 41, 43, and 51 of the case study and also the USCCB Backgrounder on Natural Resource Extraction.)

What Can You Do?

11.   Can you think of a commodity you use daily that may be produced in a way that generates adverse environmental impact?  (Think about your gas, electronics components, food, and clothing.) What is your level of awareness of the environmental risks associated with production of that item? Would you characterize yourself as informed or uninformed? Bonus: Post a web link to our discussion board that gives more information on the environmental impact of production of your chosen commodity, and give one interesting fact you learned.