According to the Brjula Minera 2020 study, for the first time in seven years it was possible to change the opinion trend in non-mining municipalities regarding activity, the positive perception going from 56% to 63%. In mining municipalities the index rose from 64% to 68%.
These results are the product of companies' efforts to demonstrate that mining well done is possible, as well as processes of dialogue with communities that are increasingly open, horizontal and constructive. Today there is a better mutual understanding and a debate based on arguments and technical criteria, increasingly away from particular interests.
Although there are still those who try to generate division, I hope that the maturity of the discussion has been leaving them in their rightful place, which is none other than the role that extreme visions play in any democracy. More and more Colombians believe that the coexistence of different sectors is possible and that as more development options exist, there will be more opportunities for employment, well-being and improvement of the quality of life.
Those voices that try to create opposites (water vs. life, or the tourist vocation vs. mining), are irresponsible with the country and with the communities where such projects can be developed. Today we need to add, contribute and build together.
All over the world there are examples of communities where the development of agriculture, tourism and mining produces synergies that end up generating more well-being. The debate should then focus on how to do everything in the best possible way and not on how to condemn a municipality to a single economic activity, alluding to that this is its vocation.
One of the great lessons of the current pandemic is that having all bets on a single activity leaves municipalities very vulnerable and with little room for maneuver in the face of any crisis. In this anachronistic public debate, some try to raise doubts about the management capacity of environmental institutions and the processes of conversation with communities. In these times, more than doubts we should all be focused on how to encourage and improve these processes.
Weakening institutions may be effective in the short term to achieve a particular objective, but it is very costly democratically and it lays the foundations of a dangerous path that we should not travel.
This type of statement ignores the robust regulation that exists in Colombia and the technical capabilities of professionals from environmental authorities and mining companies to evaluate sustainable projects.
The easy way is to put insecurities and uncertainties first. The difficult one, study with judgment, deepen details, understand nuances, listen to arguments, dialogue with various actors and build solutions and consensus.
Welcome the debate, but let's try to do it in a transparent way and let's not disguise it.
Mining should not be discussed with half-truths and unsupported assertions; if not with a dialogue that is more and more honest, technical and far from particular, political or ideological interests.
Juan Camilo Narino
President, Colombian Mining Association.
https://www.portafolio.co/opinion/otros-columnistas-1/debate-minero-necesita-argumentos-y-criterio-tecnico-544277