30 and mining companies. Additionally, because these regions are rural, the local population often lacks the technical and legal knowledge to broker a deal that is optimal for them. Thus, the local communities are prone to exploitation and lack of fair compensation when agreeing to mining operations on their land. For instance, Minera Exar, a mining company operating in the Atacama region in Argentina, made agreements with six indigenous communities to make annual payments between $9000 and $60,000 for their lithium mining project. Local testimonies, however, indicate that this agreement has not been respected by Minera Exar. These communities lack the resources or the knowledge to challenge such practices, resulting in some not even speaking out. Likewise, some communities claim that the agreed-on compensation is unfair, as the company initiallymisrepresented their expected revenues and impact on the local environment (Frankel & Whoriskey, 2016). Argentine mining laws are too vague and do not offer proper safeguards for indigenous communities in their current state. A clear legal procedure should be installed on a federal level to ensure fair negotiations between all parties involved in a mining project. Furthermore, the government should provide adequate legal resources to these communities to ensure adequate representation during initial negotiations and possible later legal challenges they might want to bring against mining companies. Through legislation, Argentina needs to establish fair representation for local communities to safeguard them from possible exploitation. Any entity seeking an EP must go through a complex procedure that has been described as impractical by various foreign investors and law reviews (“The White Gold Rush,” 2017). The complexity of the procedure itself could serve as a barrier to entry for smaller and local enterprises that lack the resources bigger, multinational enterprises might possess. Complicated mining laws can lead to local entities not being able to acquire necessary mining rights and thereafter not being able to establish mining organizations that are better suited to serve the needs of the local people. It is imperative to push for accessible mining rights to facilitate local mining entities to carry out the extraction activities in a way that can lead to the most optimal outcome for the communities living close to such activities. This is especially true for lithium mining due to the potential for especially harmful effects on surrounding communities. Mining rights in Argentina currently are granted on a first-come, first-served basis. Argentina should facilitate a healthy competition between all entities so that the most economically optimal proposal for the local inhabitants is granted an MC. Additionally, the long-term positive effects like employment opportunities and economic growth should be compared with the negative effects like harm to the local environment and compensation (or lack thereof) toward any local indigenous population before an MC is awarded to any entity. Hence, the Secretariat of Mining should consider all these factors closelywhen approving EPs and MCs instead of awarding them using a naïve first-come, first-served approach. This alternative would be the most optimal option to ensure positive societal effects. NCOM entails a robust set of rules to ensure minimal environmental impact from mining activities on local communities. Any prospective mining entity must go through three separate stages of approval. Prior to beginning work, the applicant must obtain approval from a competent authority, which varies depending on the province, through an Environmental Impact Declaration (EID), and this EID must be updated every two years through an Environmental Impact Assessment. Then, the applicant must call a public hearing where they present their proposed project and its expected environmental impact to the local community. Finally, the proposed project must follow national, provincial, and any other environmental regulations that might be applicable to the designated location or the nature of the project itself (Lucero, 2020). The major problem is that an EID needs to be updated only every two years, meaning these projects lack regular oversight on their continuous environmental impact. Consequently, any project could be silently harming the environment for two years or more. Even minimal short-run environmental harm could have unforeseen long-term
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==