Corporate attempt to capture the churches by the mining sector

The first “Day of Reflection” initiative was held at the Vatican on September 7, 2013. In response to the request of the mining companies, the then Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace called a meeting that brought together 19 representatives of the mining sector (presidents and CEOs 1 ) and 15 other people representing church groups and an NGO, Oxfam America 2 .

The second activity of this “Day of Reflection” was jointly called by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the President of the Methodist Conference, in 2014, and was held in London at Lambeth Palace. Participants included church leaders, CEOs of mining companies, academics and NGO representatives. On this occasion, perspectives and reflections were shared on the mining sector and its impacts on society and the environment.

The third activity, in the context of the “Day of Reflection”, which coincided with the second meeting with the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, with the theme “Creating a new future, reimagining the future of mining”, took place on September 19, 2015. At that meeting, it was agreed that there was enough trust to build something more formal, planned and long-term. “The main actions included: i) establishing a common vision, ii) establishing more defined outcomes, iii) combining global dialogue with local action, iv) developing a more formal structure”. 3

Simultaneously, since 2014, as a result of this process of rapprochement, the mining sector has organized several guided visits to extraction sites, involving participants from various churches and companies. There were 18 visits to mines in 7 countries in 2014, 2015 and 2017. 4 It is clear that, from 2016 onwards, this process of rapprochement directed its focus towards the formalization of activities at a global level.

From this path of the “Days of Reflection”, in addition to the guided tours of the mining companies to the mining sites, a joint project proposal also emerged, called “Mining in Partnership” and an articulation of church leaders and executive directors of mining companies, called “Mining and Faith Reflections Initiative” (MFRI).

On May 2 and 3, 2019, another “Days of Reflection” activity was held at the now Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Integral Development, in the Vatican. This time, together with the Anglican and Methodist Churches. It was a twoday meeting. On the first day, there was a meeting with “representatives from various Catholic agencies and Episcopal commissions to share their experiences, concerns, expectations, ideas and suggestions that help improve the business and its relationship with the communities”. 5 On the second day, about 30 executives from the mining and related services industry joined the first day’s group.

In 2012, a diverse group of world leaders gathered at a conference promoted by Kellogg Innovation Network (KIN) Catalyst 6 in Brazil in Belo Horizonte (MG). Representatives from companies, academic institutions, non-profit organizations and the government participated in this event. On this occasion, the group discussed the urgency of changes in mining companies and what a “Mining Company of the Future” should look like.

Mark Cutifani (CEO of Anglo American), Ray Off enheiser (president of Oxfam America) and Peter Bryant (Senior Fellow of Kellogg Innovation Network) presided over the discussions. Representatives from entities such as Vale, AngloGold Ashanti, The Ford Foundation, Harvard University, Global Indigenous Solutions and others were also present.

These entities identifi ed a set of priorities that they believe could help change the mining sector. The consensus was that mining needs change and a proactive approach to design its own destiny.

In the analysis of the sector, presented at this conference, it was stated that mining companies face a complexity of problems. They mentioned some of the problems they face, such as spiraling costs, government intervention, deepening of mining pit, lower ore levels, and declining productivity. The participating organizations made clear that communities do not trust mining, and that this creates additional uncertainties for their businesses. They felt that it was more difficult for the sector to find and start a mine and that, combined with this, there would be an unfavorable capital environment and difficult commodity prices, which amplifies the problems of the companies.

In the publication “Reinventing Mining: Creating Sustainable Value” we read:

One of the early outcomes of the KIN Catalyst work has been to spark an important dialog between the industry and faith-based organizations. This process began in Sept 2013 at the Vatican where more than twenty CEOs and Chairpersons were hosted by Cardinal Peter Turkson, the President of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, for a Day of Reflection. This was followed by a similar session in October 2014 hosted by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the Methodist Church. The initiative has inspired a new conversation and a new way of thinking about mining as a catalyst for broader social and community development.

Behind the proposal of the so-called “dialogue” with the churches is a strategy of the corporations. In the documents where they present this strategy, one reads:

The industry has made solid strides in the way it interacts with communities and the way it tackles myriad societal and environmental issues. Indeed, its responses are now among the more sophisticated of any heavy industrial sector. It is, for example, the only business sector whose peak industry association has a clear commitment to Free, Prior and Informed Consent for Indigenous Peoples. However, despite significant investment, good intent and a myriad of initiatives, the industry, as one mining CEO remarked, ‘is simply missing the mark.’

Mining faces unique challenges because of its need to be where the ore bodies are; the fact that it develops non-renewable resources; the reliance on cooperation and support from the host communities; and the high level of dependence on governments with respect to licensing, fiscal regimes, energy, infrastructure and other enablers. These factors leave mining companies overly vulnerable to community and government interventions.

It is clear that the strategy of the companies is to seek ways to continue their ventures, in an economically unfavorable situation and in an environment that is adverse to their business, with the opposition of the communities aff ected by the socio-environmental violations caused by mining activities.

What is considered from a lot of information on official websites of mining companies and publications in this sector on the subject, is that corporations want to create a new narrative. This new narrative is being developed by the mining sector, with the aim of presenting mining as a more socially and environmentally responsible activity. The history of this process is born from the following vision:

The idea for first KIN Catalyst grew out of conversation at KIN Global 2011 between Anglo American’s Mark Cutifani and KIN Senior Fellow Peter Bryant. Mining was in trouble on a variety of fronts. A chronic lack of investment in innovation had led to reduced productivity, higher costs and subpar returns on capital. At the same time, a legacy environmental, health and safety issues had cost the industry its social license to operate in many communities.

During this period, the challenge for mining companies was to maintain their business in a context of changing growth and interruption in the process of acceleration of the sector, with increasing social tensions.

These dynamics, according to them, demanded as a response the reformulation of the business environment and the rethinking of where and how to compete. To this end, it became essential to develop a kind of new social pact for the mining business. The strategy was to involve organizations and individuals from within and outside the mining sector, such as church organizations, academia, communities, non-governmental organizations, indigenous peoples, governments, investors, mining companies, workers (see illustration 1).

It is noted that the so-called “Mining Company of the Future” needs less tension between companies and communities. The growing resistance and struggles of those aff ected, their communities, organizations and movements are reactions to the impacts of mining companies and human rights violations in various parts of the world. These reactions demonstrate dissatisfaction with mining companies. This, according to this analysis, has affected the licensing processes, causing delays, from the perspective of the companies, which have resulted in great economic losses for the mining companies.

The Kellogg Innovation Network developed a model for the Mining Company of the Future that incorporates all stakeholders in a mining operation image 1

The mining sector sees the conflicts between communities and companies within a business perspective. Problems and delays in processes, such as licensing, mean additional costs. A research report on “Costs of Community-Industry Conflict in the Extractive Sector”, conducted in 2014 by the “Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative” (CSRI) of the Harvard Kennedy School and the Center for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) of the Sustainable Minerals Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia, revealed that the costs of communityindustry conflict in the extractive sector translate into huge losses for companies:

Loss of productivity in the form of temporary delays in operations was the most frequent cost mentioned by all interviewees. A major worldclass mining project, with capital expenditures between $3-5 billion, will suff er costs of around $20 million per week from delayed production in terms of Net Present Value (NPV), largely due to loss of sales.

For example, at a Latin American mine, a nine-month delay during construction in 2010 resulted in $750 million in additional project costs. Conflict in the community in one country led to shutdowns and downtime, which cost another project about $100 million per year. In another case, community conflict that paralyzed some command lines brought an entire operation to a halt, at a cost of $750,000 per day. A seven-day blockade of a power project’s supply route to a Middle Eastern country that halted operations cost $20,000 per day.

In at least one case, such costs were included in the “construction costs” in the project budget, which included a 50% margin to cover delays due to community conflicts 7.

As described above, during this process of “Days of Reflection” of representatives of mining companies with church leaders, two proposals emerged. The first took place after the meeting in London, which launched a joint project called “Mining in Partnership”. The second was the articulation of church leaders and executive directors of mining companies, called the “Mining and Faith Reflections Initiative” (MFRI).

Some extracts from the “Mining in Partnership” project show very well the intention of these corporations and how far they intend to go, as well as the risks that this type of “dialogue” entails, in terms of co-optation. In summary, this project is defined as an “Agenda of Empowerment”, the result of the “Days of Reflection” in the Vatican (October 2013) and in the Lambeth Palace (October 2014). It off ers the following definition:

Mining Partnership: An Empowerment Agenda aims to assist theological seminaries and similar institutions around the world bett er to equip pastors and church leaders to serve communities aff ected by mining projects 8.

The objectives, called “benefits” of the project, are described for both the mining companies and the churches:

At the end of the document analyzed, we read:

Mining in Partnership: An Empowerment Agenda is committed to a holistic understanding of the Christian Gospel. The churches’ experience of God is a whole-life experience. Proclamation of the gospel of Christ includes concerns about survival, nourishment, education, justice and truth. May God’s Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven!

We will present some criticisms of this project “Mining in Partnership” in the next item of this text.

If we consider “Mining in Partnership” as the “Empowerment Agenda” within the churches, the “Mining and Faith” initiative (MFRI) seems to us to be its immediate evolution.

MFRI held a meeting of church leaders and mining company CEOs in May 2017 in Barcelona, Spain. On the document from this meeting is commented:

The Mining and Faith Reflections Initiative (MFRI) aims to enable and support a dialogue and relationship between the churches and mining companies. The MFRI consists of highlevel dialogues between mining executives and church leaders (Days of Reflection), supported by mine site visits for church participants. The MFRI began when some mining companies approached church leaders to begin a dialogue. Church leaders subsequently organised events which enabled participants to discuss how mining can best contribute to the Common Good.

MFRI’s objectives are described as follows:

The Mining and Faith Reflections Initiative begins with an acknowledgement of our common humanity. The churches have heard the calls from communities around the world for mining companies to work for the common good. The churches have also heard from some mining companies that mining activity should be of better and wider benefit to society and the environment.

Those involved in the Initiative share a vision for mining to serve the common good better, by enabling those engaged and affected by its activities to lead lives that are fulfilled, just, and reflect human dignity and respect. They do so with regard for both current and future generations.

It is clear from this document that on the part of the mining companies there is a strategy to create an agenda for the churches, advancing both in the religious and spiritual fields, as well as in the field of church relations with the affected communities, in a process of co-opting them for the interests of the mining sector.

After the first meeting of mining corporations with the then Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (CPJP) and, more recently, the “Days of Reflection” with the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, concerns and worries arose from the communities affected by mining, the organizations and the movements fighting in defense of territories mined or subject to the advance of mining.

In 2015, at the request of the “Churches and Mining Network” 9 , the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace held a meeting with representatives of those affected by mining in Rome from July 17-19, with the title: “United with God, we hear a cry”. About thirty representatives of communities affected by mining activities and pastoral agents from 18 countries in Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe attended this meeting: Chile, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Mexico, United States, Canada, Switzerland, Italy, Mozambique, Ghana, Democratic Republic of Congo, India and the Philippines.

Pope Francis’ message for this meeting was very significant. In it, the Pope clearly expressed how the reality imposed by the corporations is very different from the narrative that the mining sector puts into dialogue.

You come from different situations and in various ways you experience the repercussions of mining activities, whether they are conducted by large industrial companies, small enterprises or informal operators. You have chosen to gather in Rome on this day of reflection that recalls a passage from the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (cf. nn. 187-190), to echo the cry of the many people, families and communities who suffer directly and indirectly as a result of the consequences, too often negative, of mining activities. A cry for the lands lost; a cry for the extraction of riches from the soil which paradoxically has not produced wealth for the local populations, who remain poor; a cry of pain in reaction to violence, threats and corruption; a cry of indignation and for help for the violations of human rights, blatantly or discreetly trampled with regard to the health of populations, working conditions, and at times the slavery and human trafficking which feed the tragic phenomenon of prostitution; a cry of sadness and impotence for the pollution of the water, air and land; a cry of incomprehension for the lack of inclusive and supportive processes from civil, local and national authorities, which have the fundamental duty to promote the common good.

Pope Francis also states that the mining sector needs a radical paradigm shift. 10

With this meeting, the CPJP had the “intention to give more visibility to the situations of violence and intimidation, illegality and corruption, pollution and human rights violations related to mining, by calling on political leaders, governments, businessmen, investors and intergovernmental bodies to listen to the cry of the oppressed and the cry of the earth, and to act with diligence and responsibility in the service of the common good, justice and human dignity.”

Cardinal Peter KA Turkson, president of the CPJP present at the meeting, recognized how tense and delicate the situation of those affected by mining is, and highlighted the risks they took to att end a meeting that would report on the impacts and human rights violations caused by mining. At that time, the Cardinal denounced the situation suffered by some of the participants in that meeting: “some people att ending the meeting were pressured and intimidated in the last few days, for example, after applying for a passport”. He also said that the CPJP “received testimonies of threats, violence and murders, reprisals”..

This meeting resulted in an “Open letter from the communities affected by mining, received in Rome by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace” 11. The participants in the meeting expressed their concern about the dialogue of the mining sector with the Church:

We also express our concern about the strategy of rapprochement of the large mining corporations to the institutional Church, highlighting the contradictions between the speeches made in Rome by these multinationals and their local practices, which in most cases continue to violate human rights in the territories.

Participants suggested that the CPJP work to overcome the impunity of corporations and companies in cases of human rights violations.

We suggest that the CPJP, in its meeting with the businessmen of large mining companies, confirm in a convincing manner the request of many peoples and organizations of the world: to advance in the definition of the Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights, currently under construction in the United Nations.

We believe that the most appropriate way to manage conflicts between communities claiming their right to territory and companies’ projects, with the endorsement of the states, is through total respect for human rights and existing laws and treaties, as well as the definition of new coherent regulatory, political, legal and economic instruments, both at the national and international level (LS 177); “the local population should have a special place at the table; they are concerned about their own future and that of their children, and can consider goals transcending immediate economic interest.” (LS 183). Communities have the right to say “no” to mining.

In this letter, the participants in the meeting “United with God, we hear a cry” clearly assume a basic principle also in the encyclical Laudato Si’ (LS): in dialogue, especially when there are conflicts and violations of human rights, the protagonists must be those affected, who live in the territories involved.

As for the “Mining in Partnership” project, cited above, a statement issued by the Churches and Mining Network, under the title “The Church is not for sale”,denounced this project as a form of cooptation.

In January 2016, the Churches and Mining Network issued an “Open Letter to the Bishops and Pastors of Latin America". 12 The report expresses concern about the increase in “violence and criminalization of people and entire communities that are in a critical position with respect to mining in Latin America”. In this same letter, the strategy of the mining companies is strongly criticized, because they are incapable of demonstrating that their activities are sustainable; they seek the support of entities that have credibility with the people. The Churches and Mining Network denounced the visits organized and guided by the mining companies in some of their companies. According to the Network, the interest of these companies is to seek legitimacy through a “symbolic approach and alliance with the churches”.

The text of this open letter suggests that each church “should not maintain “neutral” positions in the face of the conflicts generated by mining. Recognizing “the immense dignity of the poor” (LS 158), the Church must continue to take up the cry of those affected and stand with them and with Creation”. He stated that there were no changes after the conversations (Days of Reflection) in Rome and Canterbury and expresses concern “about the possibility of new meetings of the Church with executives of the largest mining companies, at the continental or regional level”. At the end of the letter, it is indicated what would be the most important and urgent dialogue:

In our opinion, the most important dialogue that the bishops and pastors should have is not with businesses, but with all members of the churches, in order to define common positions on these issues. Furthermore, we recommend dialogue with communities, supporting their demands and concrete denunciations. In this way, the Churches contribute to the empowerment of the communities, so that they themselves are the ones who dialogue with the states and the companies.

Mining is a form of capital extraction by expropriation that depends on the exploitation of common goods (natural resources) and, at the same time, occupies territories, affects and expels people, communities and populations. Pope Francis (2015), in the Encyclical Laudato Si’, says that everything is “interconnected”, “interrelated”, that there is a relationship between “nature and the society which lives in it” (LS 139).

Starting with Francis of Assisi, the Pope speaks of “integral ecology”, and tells us that St. Francis “shows us just how inseparable the bond is between concern for nature, justice for the poor, commitment to society, and interior peace” (LS 10). He also affirms: “Francis helps us to see that an integral ecology calls for openness to categories which transcend the language of mathematics and biology, and take us to the heart of what it is to be human” (LS 11). Integral ecology “entails reflection and debate about the conditions required for the life and survival of society, and the honesty needed to question certain models of development, production and consumption”, avoiding “fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information” (LS 138).

Integral ecology implies reviewing the place of the human being in the world and his relations with reality (LS 15), overcoming an incorrect way of interpreting the Scriptures: “nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures” (LS 67). The narratives in the “symbolic language” of creation, in the book of Genesis, “suggest that human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with the earth itself.” (LS 66). There is no room for a “tyrannical anthropocentrism” (LS 68), because “other living beings have a value of their own in God’s eyes” (LS 69). It is no longer worth saying that “other creatures are completely subordinated to the good of human beings, as if they have no worth in themselves and can be treated as we wish.” (LS 69). The value of “being” is superimposed with the value of “being useful” (LS 69). The extreme injustice against the brother, in the story of Cain and Abel, is a break with God and with the earth: “When all these relationships are neglected, when justice no longer dwells in the land, the Bible tells us that life itself is endangered.” (LS 70).

Therefore, justice presupposes integrality. The hegemonic development model, capitalism, is marked by profound inequalities. Its reproduction is imposed through the technical-economic paradigm, which leads to obsessive consumerism. Those who suffer first from the impacts of this model are those who did not decide for it. “The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries has repercussions on the poorest areas of the world, especially Africa, where a rise in temperature, together with drought, has proved devastating for farming” (LS 51). Therefore, the inequality in power and in the experience of the impacts is evident. Social equity and a healthy environment, the exercise of environmental justice, are necessary. The struggle for environmental justice brings to light the unjust appropriation of the environment as the basis of the social, ecological and cultural problems of the planet, which keeps billions of people in poverty. The impacts of this model affect the excluded, the different species and their ecosystems. “The export of raw materials to satisfy markets in the industrialized north has caused harm locally, as for example in mercury pollution in gold mining or sulphur dioxide pollution in copper mining” (LS 51). Comprehensive, social and environmental justice overcomes the manipulation of the concept of sustainability and affirms the rights of nature.

There is no longer room for camouflage, when analyzing the injustices, the inequalities and the failure of our care for nature.

Recognizing the reasons why a given area is polluted requires a study of the workings of society, its economy, its behavior patterns, and the ways it grasps reality[...] We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature. [...] Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live (LS 139).

Therefore, from the point of view of Integral Ecology and Integral Justice, it is unrealistic to believe that the formal act of sitting at the table and exchanging ideas with corporate representatives is a dialogue. Far from the affected territories, far from the conflicts, the environmental impacts, the human rights violations and far from the dynamics and the paths that the affected people, the groups and movements that accompany them are building, there is a risk of participating in a trap.

The objective of extraction is to obtain the greatest immediate economic and financial benefit; natural systems undergo profound changes in an accelerated and intense manner, with often permanent and irreversible impacts that compromise the quality of natural life and present and future generations; these impacts vary in intensity according to the types and rates of extraction, as well as the location, method, type of extraction activity and waste generated. For all these reasons, it is essential to understand the issue of mining from the territories directly and indirectly affected.

Starting from Integral Ecology, which implies, as we have reflected above, Integral Justice, we can find some bases on which the churches can establish a relationship with the mining companies.

In this sense, we suggest what Pope Francis (2013) emphasizes in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (GS) when it comes to the question of the common good and social peace (GS 217-237). Pope Francis establishes four principles:

“Time is greater than space”; “Unity prevails over conflict”; “Realities are more important than ideas”; “The whole is greater than the part”.

On May 3, 2019, Pope Francis adopted a comprehensive and complete approach, going to the roots of the issue, as he addressed the audience with representatives of the mining sector, participants in the meeting promoted by the Dicastery for the Service of Integral Human Development. He asked, “What does it concretely imply” in reference to the title of the meeting, “Mining for the Common Good”, and said, “Allow me to articulate afew reflections in this regard which could assist you in your dialogue”.

First of all, mining, like all economic activities, should be at the service of the entire human community. As Pope Paul VI wrote: “God intended the Earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. … created goods should flow fairly to all”. It is an essential pillar of the Church’s social teaching. In this perspective, the involvement of local communities is important in every phase of mining projects. “A consensus should always be reached between the different stakeholders, who can offer a variety of approaches, solutions and alternatives. The local population should have a special place at the table; they are concerned about their own future and that of their children, and can consider goals transcending immediate economic interest.” (Laudato Si 183).

In the light of the upcoming Synod on the Amazon, I would like to stress that “it is essential to show special care for indigenous communities and their cultural traditions. They are not merely one minority among others, but should be the principal dialogue partners, especially when large projects affecting their land are proposed” (ibid, 146). These vulnerable communities have a lot to teach us. “For them, land is not a commodity but rather a gift from God and from their ancestors who rest there, a sacred space with which they need to interact if they are to maintain their identity and values… Nevertheless, in various parts of the world, pressure is being put on them to abandon their homelands to make room for […] mining projects which are undertaken without regard for the degradation of nature and culture.” (ibid.). I urge everyone to respect the fundamental human rights and voice of the persons in these beautiful yet fragile communities.

Secondly, mining should be at the service of the human person and not vice versa. As Pope Benedict wrote: “In development programs, the principle of the centrality of the human person, as the subject primarily responsible for development, must be preserved.” Each and every person is precious before God’s eyes and his or her fundamental human rights are sacred and inalienable, irrespective of one’s social or economic status. Attention for the safety and wellbeing of the people involved in mining operations as well as the respect for fundamental human rights of the members of local communities and those who champion their causes are indeed non-negotiable principles. Mere corporate social responsibility is not sufficient. We need to ensure that mining activities lead to the integral human development of each and every person and of the entire community.

Thirdly, we need to encourage the implementation of a circular economy, all the more in the sphere of mining activities. I find the observation that my brother bishops of Latin America made in their recent pastoral letter regarding extractive activities very pertinent. They wrote: “By ‘extractivism’ we understand an unbridled tendency of the economic system to convert the goods of nature into capital. The action of ‘extracting’ the greatest amount of materials in the shortest possible time, converting them into raw materials and inputs that industry will use, that will then be transformed into products and services that others will market, society will consume and then nature itself will receive in the form of polluting waste - that is the consumerist loop that is being generated at ever greater speed and ever greater risk.” 20

For the Pope, the integral solutions point to the need for another lifestyle (LS 203 - 208), which surpasses the techno-scientific paradigm: an “ecological conversion”.

For Laudato Si’, changing one’s lifestyle is part of ecological conversion; not being obsessed with consumption translates into quality of life, joy and peace. “Christian spirituality proposes an alternative way of understanding quality of life, promoting a prophetic and contemplative lifestyle, capable of generating deep joyment without being obsessed with consumption”. (LS 222). The Pope speaks of free and conscious sobriety, simplicity and happiness, of limits to our needs and of healthy health (LS 222-224). “The poverty and austerity of Saint Francis were no mere veneer of asceticism, but something much more radical: a refusal to turn reality into an object simply to be used and controlled” (LS 11).

Ecological conversion implies “a number of attitudes which together foster a spirit of generous care, full of tenderness” (LS 220):
1. gratitude and gratuitousness: the world is a gift received from the love of the Father;
2. loving awareness: to form universal communion with other beings;
3. not look at the world from without but from within;
4. to grow, to develop creativity and enthusiasm to resolve the problems of the world;
5. to assume oneself with serious responsibility stemming from our faith.

The Pastoral Letter of CELAM on Integral Ecology, “Disciples Missionaries Guardians of the Common House: Discernment in the Light of the Encyclical Laudato Si’” (DMGCC), when it speaks of the “responsibility of the companies”, recognizes and welcomes the testimonies coming from the local churches and warns of the strategies of the mining companies:

We have heard numerous testimonies from our priests and pastoral agents that companies – transnational and national, private and state – often do not comply with internationally recognized socio-cultural and environmental standards. There are complaints of corrupt practices, of causing discord among communities adjacent to extractive projects, of intimidation and even serious violations of human rights in pursuit of the company’s goals, at any human, social or environmental cost. We observe that what often prevails is “the only criterion of action is the maximum benefit in production” and not human beings, their just needs or the common good. (DMGCC 53)

We want to warn you about the existence of initiatives to reflect on mining and faith, and proposals of carrying out mining operations “in alliance”, in which extractivist companies purport that sectors of the Church are supporters of their megaprojects, in exchange for infrastructure, money, benefits, etc. Fitt ingly, this pastoral letter provides tools for the communities to discern each particular case, without manipulating the principles of faith and the criteria of the Social Doctrine of the Church, but always keeping in mind the common good for the weaker, the abandoned and the mistreated of society, among whom is our “burdened and laid waste” Mother Earth.(LS 2).(DMGCC 54)

There is no room for naivety or insensitivity in the face of the clamor that rises from the territories where the mining companies operate. Under the mask of the term “dialogue”, the mining companies want to maintain or recover their domination and hegemony in the territories, in the face of the defeats, which have been happening in various parts of the world. It is clear from the KIN Catalyst documents that the mining companies recognize the diffi culties they face in relation to the opposition and resistance of the communities. This reality, caused by the reaction of those affected and sectors of society, directly hinders the interests of mining companies in the licensing processes. Behind these oppositions, there are organizations that have been working for years at mining sites, fighting and resisting together with the affected communities.

It is particularly difficult to believe that the strategy of mining corporations that approach churches is really a proposal for honest dialogue. How can we imagine that real dialogue is possible when it is proposed by those who represent companies that, in some cases, commit crimes? How can we accept that real dialogue can be held far from the affected communities, their popular organizations and social movements that struggle in the territories, due to the impacts and violations committ ed by mining companies? How can the presidents and CEOs of companies and leaders of organizations that represent the sector talk about dialogue in the face of great asymmetry?

The power of corporations is enormous, often greater than that of states, and they hide all information about their actions and impacts. In most cases, the activity of mining companies extracts and accumulates wealth at the expense of human rights violations, enormous environmental impacts, criminal negligence and pressure on governments to relax legislation in their favour. What about visits by church representatives to mining sites organised and guided by the companies themselves, ignoring local resistance and isolating the main actors?

It is at least naive and disrespectful for people from outside the context to enter into a complex reality of conflict without knowing and ignoring the actors, facts, agendas of the affected communities and movements involved, but insisting on defining this as a posture of dialogue. The churches and religious groups are not represented only by their leaders, as the corporations want to make understood, but they are present in a capillary way in the diverse territories and communities.

As for the churches, it is necessary to insist on an ecclesiology based on the ministry of communion, as an expression of the faith of the communities, animated by the power of the Holy Spirit. Communion is an exercise of co-responsibility, which is expressed in the protagonism of all; otherwise, clericalism and the centralization of power persist, since communion only takes place through participation. Dialogue is a profound and demanding position, which must take history, local reality, subjectivity and the search for communion seriously. The Churches must create a structure that allows them to listen to and live in communion with the communities. The cries and voices of the communities must be heard and taken on by the churches. The companies’ plan to dictate an agenda for the churches, including with regard to theological, biblical, liturgical and pastoral aspects, is more than cooperation: it is misappropriation.

Building a Church path with the aff ected communities, organizations and movements is the great challenge. This is because dialogue and negotiation are not automatic and out of context realities. It is necessary to give space to local churches, religious groups and communities to build their paths. Centralizing the relationship between churches and mining companies at the top of these organizations, at this time, runs the risk of undermining local roads and weakening the participatory proposals that emerge from the territories. It is necessary to support the construction of a more plural and participatory vision in the churches.

Communities are in conflict with mining and it is imperative that churches walk with them. In general, whether in the struggles to find alternatives and transitions, or in the political construction to safeguard the dignity of people and the environment, there is a search for dialogue and negotiations in the territories. Therefore, different strategies, actions and positions of strength are born in the territories and expand. It is necessary to respect the existing demands and agendas of the affected communities. To do this, it is not enough to create a model, an international dialogue table, much less believe that we will find in market mechanisms the paths towards justice, peace and the integrity of creation.

... it should always be kept in mind that “environmental protection cannot be assured solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces”. Once more, we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals. Is it realistic to hope that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental damage which they will leave behind for future generations? Where profits alone count, there can be no thinking about the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complexity of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention. Moreover, biodiversity is considered at most a deposit of economic resources available for exploitation, with no serious thought for the real value of things, their significance for persons and cultures, or the concerns and needs of the poor. (LS 190).