The headline of the special report of December 19, “Energy under siege”, from the supplement “Day 1″ of El Comercio points out that mining is no longer the main focus of social conflicts in Peru.

The review of the article indicates, however, that this is not due to a decrease in reported social conflicts that disappear in the mining sector (94 of the 221 conflicts reported by the Ombudsman’s Office up to November), but rather to an increase in absolute terms of all the conflicts and, in relative terms, to a higher recent incidence of affectations to critical assets of other sectors beyond mining.

The sources consulted for the report infer that there is organized planning that seeks to affect critical assets to generate greater political impact.

Another report made by the Data Journalism Unit (ECData) of El Comercio should be highlighted. He points out that during the last governments it has only been possible to solve conflicts that are equivalent to approximately one third of all new conflicts. The fraction that can be solved is achieved slowly and ineffectively, which leads to the number of conflicts to be solved continue to increase gallopingly.

On another occasion we will refer to the particular situation of the ‘in crescendo’ deficit of commitments to be fulfilled and conflicts to be resolved. Although dialogue and consensus are very important, they are not ‘a priori’ the most critical factors to address the numerical and management problem that means being overwhelmed by more and more commitments that cannot be fulfilled. But here it is important to work on the determining factors of social conflicts in the mining, energy and hydrocarbon sectors in Peru. These are three internal variables to the companies and three external ones. The first of the external ones is that of the participation of groups opposed to development.

According to a review of the academic bibliography, it could also be seen that some facts of the Peruvian reality can be explained by the theory.

Regarding the participation of anti-extractivist groups, this variable is linked to the concept of anti-extractivism, according to the reports and case studies in this regard. This concept is related to the struggles for natural resources, territory and coexistence with ancestral cultures.

Although there are different perspectives on this concept, in general anti-extractivism refers to the critical and mainly negative perspective of extractive activities, the policies and ideologies that promote them, their socio-environmental effects and, in a more propositional way, the forms of resistance social they provoke.

These activities are related to conflicts between companies and stakeholders, since extractive operations can manifest as conflicts over water, soil or subsoil.

In the case of mining, where companies cannot choose when they are optimal from social, environmental or political considerations, appropriate or “friendly”, companies have a high probability of facing conflicts with local communities. For some researchers, protest groups may have less altruistic fines and seek more political notoriety.

Understanding the context in which anti-mining activism takes place is relevant for a better understanding of activists’ motives, strategies and actions. And this understanding presents reflections and contributions of interest to the triad of legislators, executives and academics that will be related to the interface between mining and civil society.

There is agreement that all the groups use similar resistance strategies, such as outreach activities, protests, blockades, and sometimes violence.