Dr.BrianEgan,DepartmentofGeography,SimonFraserUniversity - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dr.
Brian
Egan,
Department
of
Geography,
Simon
Fraser
University


revision
guidelines


 work
on
improving
your
wri?ng.


 sloppy
mistakes
–
e.g.,
spelling,
incomplete
sentences.
  sentence
structure.

  flow.


 make
full
and
best
use
of
the
space
available.


 avoid
empty
and
repe??ve
text.


 use
graphics
appropriately
and
effec?vely.


 don’t
use
graphics
to
just
fill
space;
they
must
add
to
(not
repeat)


informa?on
in
the
text.



 make
sure
graphics
are
labeled,
legible,
and
easy
to
understand.
  make
your
own
graphics,
if
necessary.


  reference
graphics
in
text.




revision
guidelines
(cont’d)


 Chicago
Manual
of
Style;
use
author‐date
style.



 in‐text
cita?ons:


In
2001,
40%
of
global
peanut
produc?on
went
into
the
manufacture
of
peanut
buVer
 (Brown
2002).

 Green
and
Blue
(2004)
report
that
peanut
buVer
consump?on
in
China
increased
by
200%
 between
2000
and
2005.

 White
(2006,
22)
argues
that
China’s
state
owned
peanut
buVer
corpora?on,
Sino‐Peanut
 Corp.,
has
come
to
“dominate
the
global
market,
threatening
peanut
buVer
supplies
in
 countries
like
Canada
and
the
United
States.”



 references


Brown,
B.
2002.
The
Global
Peanut
Industry.
New
York:
Penguin.

 Green,
A.,
and
C.
Blue.
2004.
“The
Chinese
Peanut
BuVer
Boom.”
Journal
of
Advanced
Peanut
 Bu9er
Studies
54:
22‐45.

 White,
B.
2006.
“The
Looming
Peanut
BuVer
Crisis.”
Bob
White’s
Peanut
Bu9er
Blog,
March
 10.
hVp://www.peanut‐buVer‐news.wordpress.com/2006/03/10/PB‐crisis.html



final
exam


 Monday,
April
16,
19:00
to
22:00,
AQ
3154.

  worth
35%
of
your
final
course
mark.
  exam
format:


 series
of
short
answer
ques?ons
(25%).
  three
long
answer
(short
essay)
ques?ons
(75%).


 in
week
12
(first
week
of
April)
I
will
give
you
5
essay
ques?ons,
three
of


which
will
appear
on
the
final
exam.





mining
and
minerals


 minerals
=
any
naturally
occurring
inorganic
substance.
  mineral
resource
=
a
mineral
that
has
human
use
or
value.
  mineral
reserves
=
proven
supply
or
deposits
of
a
mineral.





 minerals
are
stock
or
non‐renewable
resources.
  minerals
have
been
key
resources
in
long
trajectory
of
human
history;


e.g.,
bronze
age
(smel?ng
of
copper
and
?n),
iron
age.



 most
mineral
resources
are
distributed
unevenly
across
space;


aluminum
and
iron
ores
most
abundant
and
widespread,
while
minerals
 like
silver,
gold,
and
coltan
are
much
more
rare.


 most
minerals
are
not
found
naturally
in
pure
form
(gold
and
silver
are


notable
excep?ons)
but
in
mineral
compounds
or
“ores”.



mineral
explora?on


 mining
companies
scour
the
globe
for
highest
grade
ores
(concentra?on
of


mineral
element)
to
make
exploita?on
feasible
and
profitable.


 minimum
economic
ore
grade
varies
with
economic
condi?ons,
mineral


price,
and
rela?ve
scarcity
of
the
mineral
in
ques?on.


 as
mineral
scarcity,
demand,
and
price
increases,
lower
grade
ores
become


economically
feasible
and
aVrac?ve
(e.g.
price
of
gold
and
mining
in
the
Yukon)


 historically,
explora?on
has
focused
in
Global
North
(especially
USA,


Canada,
Australia)
but
the
last
few
decades
has
seen
great
increase
in
 mining
in
Global
South
(La?n
America,
Africa,
Asia).





 this
trend
driven
by
overall
trend
to
economic
globaliza?on
and
key
role
of


transna?onal
capital
(mul?na?onal
mining
corpora?ons).



 we
are
currently
in
a
period
of
unparalleled
growth
of
the
mining
sector
spread


across
the
globe,
driven
in
considerable
part
by
demand
from
Asia
(especially
 China).



mineral
‘development’


 a
number
of
factors
determine
whether
or
not
a
par?cular
mineral
ore


deposit
will
be
‘developed’
(or
exploited).



 geological
and
geographic:
quality,
quan?ty,
and
accessibility
of
the
ore.
  economic:
supply,
demand,
and
price
for
the
mineral,
and
costs
of
produc?on


(e.g.,
labour,
infrastructure,
royalty
regime,
environmental
costs,
etc.).


 poli?cal:
laws,
policies,
royalty
regimes,
and
considera?on
of
‘strategic’


resources
(e.g.,
potash
in
Canada,
uranium).



 mining
opera?ons
are
defined
as
either
surface
(open
pit,
quarrying,
strip)


• r
underground
(shak,
borehole)
systems.



 the
last
50
years
has
seen
a
shik
to
surface
mining
opera?ons,
which
are


generally
seen
as
less
expensive
(and
less
labour
intensive)
methods
of
 extrac?ng
mineral
ores.


costs
and
benefits


 in
many
countries,
mining
is
a
key
economic
driver,
par?cularly
early
in
a


na?on’s
process
of
economic
development.


 direct
employment
and
income
to
ci?zens,
and
royal?es
to
the
state
(which


can
provide
for
health,
educa?on,
and
other
social
programs)
–
but
also
 can
spur
secondary
industries.



 California
case
study:
gold,
silver,
copper,
and
(later)
oil,
?mber,
and
fisheries


“provided
spectacular
bursts
of
wealth
that
propelled
California
along
the
fast
 track
of
capitalist
development”
(Walker
2001,
172).


 in
California,
wealth
from
exploita?on
of
natural
resources
was
reinvested
in


the
broader
economy
(manufacturing,
processing,
real
estate)
and
provided
 basis
for
a
more
diversified
economy.





 other
case
studies
of
economies
built
primarily
on
mineral
wealth
are
South


Africa
(gold)
and
Chile
(copper).



Walker,
R.
2001.
California’s
golden
road
to
riches:
natural
 resources
and
regional
capitalism,
1848‐1940.
Annals
of
the
 Associa?on
of
American
Geographers
91(1):
167‐199.




resources
and
development


 the
fact
that
mining
is
increasingly
capital
intensive
and
the
lack
of
local


processing
and
manufacturing
of
ores
means
that
local
economic
benefits
 are
oken
less
than
hoped
for.



 mining
does
not
automa?cally
result
in
‘development’.




 the
‘resource
curse’
(or
the
‘paradox
of
plenty’)
speaks
to
the
fact
that


many
countries
blessed
with
an
abundance
of
natural
resources
fare
less
 well
than
countries
with
a
poor
stock
of
resources.
why?


 resource
conflicts.
  corrup?on
and
inequality.
  plunder
and
run.
  failure
to
reinvest
natural
wealth.
  lack
of
diversifica?on
(the
‘staples
trap’).


costs
and
benefits
(cont’d)


 the
high
impact
of
surface
mining
opera?ons
has
triggered
many
concerns


and
conflicts
–
esp.
re.
impacts
on
environment
and
on
aboriginal
rights.


 water
pollu?on
a
major
concern,
through
runoff
and
leaching
into
streams,


lakes,
oceans,
and
groundwater.


 heavy
metals
like
copper,
lead,
mercury,
and
zinc
are
toxic,
as
are
chemicals
used


to
process
ores
(acids,
cyanide,
petrochemicals)
–
with
consequent
impacts
on
 drinking
water
and
aqua?c
life.



 one
recent
report
suggested
that,
around
the
world,
mining
companies
dump


180
million
tons
of
hazardous
waste
into
water
bodies
every
year
(Earthworks
 and
Mining
Watch
Canada
2012).




 land
and
habitat
degrada?on,
impacts
on
plant
and
animals
communi?es,


including
game
species
of
importance
to
local
aboriginal
and
non‐ aboriginal
communi?es.



Earthworks
and
Mining
Watch
Canada.
2012.
Troubled
waters:
how
 mine
waste
dumping
is
poisoning
our
oceans,
rivers,
and
lakes.
 hVp://www.miningwatch.ca/


mining
in
Canada


 in
many
ways,
Canada
is
a
global
leader
in
mining.
  globally,
ranked
#1
in
produc?on
of
uranium
and
potash,
#2
in
nickel
and


cobalt,
#3
in
?tanium,
pla?num,
and
aluminum,
#4
in
gypsum,
and
#5
in
 zinc,
molybdenum,
and
salt.


 within
Canada,
in
2009
highest
value
produc?on
came
from
coal
($4.5b),


potash
($3.4b),
gold
($3.4b),
iron
ore
($3.2b),
copper
($2.8b),
nickel
 ($2.2b),
diamonds
($1.7b),
sand
and
gravel
($1.5b),
and
uranium
($1.4b).



 in
2009,
mining
and
mineral
processing
contributed
$32
billon
to
Canadian


economy
(about
2.3%
of
na?onal
GDP)
and
employed
just
over
300,000
 people.



 mineral
produc?on
has
increased
steadily
over
past
few
decades,
and


especially
over
past
decade,
with
increasing
global
demand
and
prices.



Source:
Canadian
Mining
Associa?on.
2010.
A
Report



• n
the
State
of
the
Canadian
Mining
Industry.



Total
value
of
mine
produc?on
(metallic
minerals,
non‐metallic
 minerals,
and
coal)
in
Canada,
1978
to
2011.




0
 10
 20
 30
 40
 50
 60
 1975
 1980
 1985
 1990
 1995
 2000
 2005
 2010
 2015
 $
(billions)


Total
value
of
mine
produc?on
(metallic
minerals,
non‐metallic
 minerals,
and
coal)
in
Canada,
and
mining
jobs,
1995
to
2011.




0
 5
 10
 15
 20
 25
 30
 1994
 1996
 1998
 2000
 2002
 2004
 2006
 2008
 2010
 2012
 Metal
 Non‐Metal
 Coal
 jobs
(x10,000)


the
‘commodi?es
boom’


 important
discussion
underway
about
how
the
commodi?es
boom


contributes
to
the
broader
economy:


 in
Australia,
which
is
similar
to
Canada
with
respect
to
its
reliance
on


commodi?es
(esp.
minerals),
the
labour
government
has
pushed
for
higher
 royal?es
on
mineral
extrac?on
in
the
highly
profitable
mining
sector.



 Alberta
proposed
raising
royal?es
in
petroleum
sector,
but
opposi?on
from


industry
(threats
to
pull
investment)
defeated
this
proposal.



 in
places
like
Canada
and
Australia,
concern
that
the
commodi?es
boom
hurts


broader
economy,
especially
manufacturing
sector,
due
to
currency
infla?on
 (the
‘Dutch
disease’).


 disparate
regional
economies
in
Canada;
e.g.,
the
commodi?es
economy
in
the


West
and
manufacturing
in
Ontario.


 do
we
have
a
longer
term
na?onal
economic
strategy?



Bri?sh
Columbia


 third
leading
province
in
mining
revenue,
aker
Ont.
and
Que.
  snapshot
of
BC’s
mining
industry
in
2010:



 $7.9b
in
gross
mining
revenue,
$3.7b
net
revenue.
  63%
return
on
investment
in
mining
sector.
  coal
was
most
important
element
of
mining
sector,
accoun?ng
for
51%
of
all


mining
revenue,
followed
by
copper
(21%),
zinc,
gold,
and
silver.




 direct
employment
by
mining
industry
=
8195
(<0.5%
of
all
jobs
in
BC).
  government
revenues
from
mining
=
$691
million;
but
BC
and
federal


government
also
provide
financial
assistance
(subsidies)
to
mining
industry.


 many
new
mines
in
development.



Price
Waterhouse
Coopers.
2010.
Seize
the
Day:

 the
Mining
Industry
in
Bri?sh
Columbia
in
2010.



the
(new)
prosperity
mine


 proposal
by
Taseko
Mines
Ltd.
to
develop
gold‐copper
mine
in
BC’s


southern
Chilco?n
region.


 described
as
one
of
Canada’s
largest
undeveloped
gold‐copper
deposits,
with


13.3
million
ounces
of
gold
and
5.3
billion
tonnes
of
copper.


 economic
benefits
include
almost
$10b
in
government
revenues
and
71,000
job


• ver
life
of
project.


 project
would
yield
significant
shareholder
value
and
transform
Taseko
into
a


mid‐?er
mining
company.


 in
2010,
original
proposal
failed
under
federal
environmental
assessment


review,
due
to
concerns
about
impacts
on
lake,
stream,
and
riparian
habitats,
 fisheries
and
grizzly
bears,
and
on
aboriginal
land
and
resource
rights
and
uses.


 biggest
problem
was
Taseko’s
plan
to
turn
Fish
Lake
into
a
tailings
pond.



  company
argues
that
new
proposal
will
greatly
reduce
environmental
impacts.
  proposal
has
broad
support
among
regional
non‐aboriginal
popula?on;
seen
as


providing
jobs
in
a
region
hard
hit
by
downturn
in
forest
industry.



Fish
Lake
/
Teztan
Biny.
(Photo
credit:
hVp://fonv.ca/wildhorses/photosfishlake/)


aboriginal
opposi?on


 the
Xeni
Gwe?n
(part
of
the
larger
Tsilhqot’in
First
Na?on)
strongly


• pposed
the
original
mine
proposal.


 the
Tsilhqot’in
have
been
defending
their
territory
for
150
years
(since
the


‘Chilco?n
war’
of
1864)
and
strongly
assert
their
right
to
self‐determina?on
and
 to
govern
their
own
territory
according
to
their
own
values
and
culture.


 2007
BC
Supreme
Court
ruling
provided
strong
legal
support
(though
not
a


formal
declara?on)
for
the
Tsilhqot’in
claim
to
200,000
ha
of
land
in
area.



 Tsilhqot’in
opposi?on
to
mine
based
on
their
broader
territorial
claim,
but


impacts
on
Teztan
Biny
(aka
Fish
Lake)
became
main
focus.


 other
First
Na?ons,
environmental
groups,
and
others
rallied
to
support
the


Tsilhqot’in
cause.


 the
Tsilhqot’in
argue
that
the
revised
proposal
is
as
bad
(if
not
worse)
than


• riginal
mining
plan,
and
that
toxic
runoff
from
mine
waste
will
s?ll
destroy


Teztan
Biny.



ques?ons
…


 how
do
you
strike
an
appropriate
balance
between
economic


benefits
and
environmental
costs?



 economic
benefits
are
easy
to
calculate
(and
to
inflate)
but
how
do
you


calculate
the
economic
benefits
of
the
environment?
Is
it
possible
to
aVach
a
 monetary
value
to
lakes,
rivers,
fish
habitat,
wildlife
habitat?



 what
do
you
do
when
the
local
aboriginal
community,
which
has
a


clear
and
strong
aboriginal
?tle
and
rights
claim,
is
fundamentally


• pposed
to
a
development
proposal
that
will
have
serious
impacts


in
their
territory?


 the
Crown
is
obliged
to
consult
the
First
Na?on
and,
in
some
cases,
to


‘accommodate’
their
concerns,
but
what
if
this
fails?



 how
do
you
address
the
conflic?ng
and
seemingly
irreconcilable
interests
(First


Na?ons,
Crown,
industry,
non‐aboriginal
community)
in
such
a
case?





Canadian
companies
overseas


 Canadian
mining
companies,
large
and
small,
are
very
ac?ve
in


mining
explora?on
and
development
across
the
planet,
and
 par?cularly
in
the
Global
South.



 while
most
companies
act
responsibly,
there
are
increasing
concerns


about
the
nega?ve
environmental
and
ethical
(human
rights)
impacts
of
 some
opera?ons,
par?cularly
in
countries
with
weak
environmental
and
 labour
laws
and
where
corrup?on
is
a
serious
problem.



 this
creates
a
‘governance
gap’
in
which
companies
can
act
with


impunity,
out
of
reach
of
Canadian
and
foreign
rules.



 what
is
the
most
effec?ve
way
of
dealing
with
these
concerns?


 voluntary
(CSR)
measures?

  Canadian
regula?ons?


  or
something
else?


Source:
The
Toronto
Star,
October
19,
2010.
www.thestar.com


Source:
http://halifaxinitiative.org/updir/miningmap.pdf


Modern
mining
 in
Guatemala


Source:
Vinicio
Lopez


four
cycles
of
conquest


1.

Spanish
conquest
and
congrega?on,
1500s
 to
1820s.


2.

liberaliza?on,
1880s
to
mid‐20th
century.





‐
land
grabs
and
vagrancy
laws.


3.

state
terror,
1960s
to
1996.




‐
scorched
earth
 

‐
selected
and
targeted
assassina?ons.
 

‐
massacres.
 

‐
displacement
(internal
and
external).
 

‐
model
villages
/
development
poles.



4.

neoliberaliza?on
/
neoliberal
development.




‐
violence
creates
the
condi?ons
that
makes
 neoliberaliza?on
possible
and
profitable.




• n
January
8th
and
9th,
2007,
…


 …
hundreds
of
police
and
soldiers
in
Guatemala
forcibly
evicted
the


inhabitants
of
several
communi?es
who
were
living
on
lands
that
a
 Guatemalan
military
government
had
granted
to
Canadian
mining
company
 INCO
in
1965.
(Canada's
Skye
Resources
bought
the
mining
rights
from
 INCO
and
then
Hudbay
Minerals
bought
Skye
in
2008.)
With
the
force
of
 the
army
and
police,
company
workers
took
chainsaws
and
torches
to
 people's
homes,
while
women
and
children
stood
by.



 one
local
man
was
killed,
a
boy
seriously
injured
by
gunfire,
a
dozen


women
reported
being
raped
by
security
forces.



 hVp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q20YxkM‐

CGI&feature=player_embedded


Hudbay
Minerals
Ltd.


 “Hudbay
is
commiVed
to
producing
strong
investor
investor
returns
and
crea?ng


beVer
futures
for
communi?es
and
employees
by
finding,
building
and
opera?ng
 successful
mines.”



 “We
seek
to
uphold
high
standards
of
honest
and
ethical
behaviour.
Opera?ng
our


company
openly,
fairly
and
with
integrity
best
serves
our
many
stakeholders
as
well
 as
our
business.
It’s
also
the
right
thing
to
do.”


 “Hudbay
Minerals,
through
its
subsidiary
Compania
Guatemalteca
de
Niquel
(CGN),


is
commiVed
to
advancing
the
Fenix
nickel
project,
located
near
El
Estor,
 Guatemala…
and
is
ac?vely
involved
with
the
local
community
and
all
levels
of
 government
to
ensure
the
project
delivers
enduring
benefits
to
the
people
of
 Guatemala,
as
well
as
benefits
for
all
stakeholders.”


 hVp://www.hudbayminerals.com/English/Media‐Centre/Media‐Statements/El‐

Estor‐Guatemala/default.aspx



different
approaches


 in
2007,
advisory
group
set
up
by
federal
(Liberal)
government


recommended
that
Canadian
government:



 develop
standards
and
a
repor?ng
mechanism
for
companies
on
their


economic,
social,
and
environmental
performance
abroad;


 set
up
an
independent
ombudsman
to
advise
companies
and
inves?gate


complaints;


 establish
tripar?te
review
commiVee
to
follow
up
on
ombudsman’s


findings;
and


 in
case
of
serious
and
con?nuing
non‐compliance,
government
support
of


• ffending
company
could
be
withdrawn.




 federal
(Conserva?ve)
government
rejected
these
recommenda?ons:


 appointed
a
new
counselor,
repor?ng
to
Minister
of
Interna?onal
Trade,
to


advise
companies
and
inves?gate
complaints
(as
long
as
all
par?es
to
the
 dispute
agree
on
the
need
for
an
inves?ga?on).



Drohan,
M.
Regula?ng
Canadian
mining
companies
abroad:
the
10‐year
search
for
a
solu?on.
OVawa:
 University
of
OVawa,
Centre
for
Interna?onal
Policy
Studies,
Policy
Brief
No.
7,
January
2010.



Bill
C‐300


 private
members
bill
(Bill
C‐300)
introduced
in
parliament,
would


have
given
government
power
to
inves?gate
and
withdraw
support
 from
Canadian
mining
companies
that
operate
in
an
 environmentally
or
socially
unethical
fashion.



 Bill
C‐300
was
defeated
in
a
close
(140‐134)
vote
in
late
2010.
  Canadian
mining
companies
expressed
relief
that
the
bill
was
defeated,


arguing
that
it
“would
not
have
enhanced
corporate
social
 responsibility”
and
undermined
the
compe??veness
of
Canadian
 mining
firms.







Hill,
L.
2010.
Canadian
lawmakers
vote
down
controversial
Bill
C‐300.
Creamer
Media’s
Mining
Weekly,

 28
October.

hVp://www.miningweekly.com/ar?cle/canadian‐mps‐vote‐against‐bill‐c‐300‐2010‐10‐28


rethinking
development


 as
a
challenge
of
"rethinking
development"
–
which
in
some
ways
means


seeing
development
issues
at
different
scales
and
in
different
parts
of
the
 world
as
interconnected
–
scholars
and
ac?vists
are
urging
a
beVer
 understanding
of
"development"
issues
in
both
the
Global
South
and
the
 Global
North.



 in
Rethinking
Development
Geographies,
Marcus
Power
(2003,
65)
argues


that
"geographers
interested
in
development
must
move
to
encompass
 issues
and
policies
of
development
wherever
they
occur.”



 explore
the
linkages
between
the
Global
South
and
the
Global
North,


between
Canada
(e.g.,
Prosperity
mine)
and
Guatemala
(e.g.,
El
Estor
 mine).



 what
are
the
similari?es?
  what
are
the
differences?



neoliberaliza?on
and
democracy


 Bebbington
et
al.
(2008,
896‐897)
write
about
the
realpoli?k
of
the


extrac?ve
sector:


 “This
realpoli?k
is
driven
by
an
intense
pressure
to
con?nue,
indeed
expand,


investment
in
extrac?ve
industry.”




 Wri?ng
of
cases
where
there
has
been
unified
local
opposi?on
to
mining,


Bebbington
et
al.
(2008,
906)
note:






“These
are
cases
in
which
popula?ons
have
argued
that
they
should
be
able
to
 determine
the
broad
contours
of
development
in
their
territories
and
that
their
 majority
view
should
carry
more
weight
than
the
private
property
rights
of
 mining
corpora?ons
or
the
policy
preferences
of
central
ministries
commiVed
 to
growth
models
based
on
market
reforms
and
foreign
direct
investment.”


Fish
Lake
/
Teztan
Biny.
(Photo
credit:
hVp://fonv.ca/wildhorses/photosfishlake/)