Download full paper

Multi-participatory construction of Social
Dialogue in Colombia: Perspectives from the
Mining Sector
Research Funded by the Ministry of Mining and Energy - Colombia and The Government
of Canada
(Draft Paper)
Angela Pinilla Urzola
Assistant Professor
Interdisciplinary Center for Development Studies (CIDER)
Los Andes University – Colombia
What is Social Dialogue?
Social dialogue, defined as “all types of negotiation, consultation,
or exchange of information between representatives of employers,
employees, and governments on issues of common interest,” ILO
This interpretation is derived from international conventions.
“Social dialogue is a powerful tool that has helped solve difficult
problems and foster social cohesion. But it cannot be taken for
granted. Developing a reflex for consultation and negotiation takes
time and commitment. It also needs social partners that have the
capacity and will to engage in the process responsibly, and the
strength and flexibility to adjust to contemporary circumstances
and exploit new opportunities” ILO
No two countries have similar histories of social dialogue and it
has been important to look at the political history and evolution of
countries to see how Social Dialogue has reached where it has
today.
Colombia: The Basis
Population: 46,039,000 million people
GDP per Capita: USD $6,100
A nearly five-decade long conflict between government forces and antigovernment insurgent groups, principally the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC)
Large areas of the countryside are under guerrilla influence or are contested
by security forces.
In November 2012, the Colombian Government started formal peace
negotiations with the FARC aimed at reaching a definitive bilateral ceasefire
and incorporating demobilized FARC members into mainstream society and
politics.
Social Dialogue in Colombia
In Colombia, Social Dialogue has been historically influenced by
the dynamics of violent and non-violent conflicts which have
existed in the relationships between employers, the government
and the employees.
Bi-partita – “common”
Tripartita – almost non-existent
Tripartita - plus : non existent
Social Dialogue in Colombia
Historically, the voice and participation of workers on
economic, social and labor themes have been repressed
by the government and the employers and as a
consequence, extralegal means such as strikes and
manifestations which affect public order have been the
most effective mechanisms to initiate a dialog process
(Fashoyin, 2003)
Social Dialogue in Colombia
• Traditionally, there has been a reluctance shown by
government to participate in Social Dialogue and
this has only been resorted to in instances where
there is a crisis in economic affairs (Fashoyin,
2003).
• At the same time, there is a lack of political will on
the part of the workers, employers and the
government so that Social Dialog produces social
transformations (see Fashoyin, 2003, p.369).
Social Dialogue in Colombia
• The workers, for example, have little capability for
discussion and negotiation (see Vidal, 2012);
• There is a high level of politicizing by the labor
representatives (see Dombois, 2012), through ideologies
and personal interests which undermine the possibility of
transforming social realities (see Vidal, 2012)
• The lack of political will is reflected in the high rates of
labor and subcontracting informality (see Vidal, 2012;
Dejusticia, 2012; Vasquez, 2008).
Social Dialogue in Colombia
• When Social Dialogue is carried out, it is done with
particular interest being placed on improving salary
conditions (Farné, 2012).
• Furthermore, there is a low rate of worker organization,
even when it is legal and legitimized in the Colombian
National Constitution (Vasquez, 2008).
• “Social Dialogue” has not catalyzed democratic
processes that transform social and political realities (See
Vidal, 2012).
Social Dialogue in the Mining Context: Moving
toward a transformation?
Since the year 2014, the term “Social Dialogue” has
been used by the State bodies which govern mineral
resources in the Colombian territory.
Social Dialog in the Mining Context: Moving toward
a transformation?
In the current state of affairs of the country, in the
context of the peace negotiations, the term “Social
Dialog”, has gained acceptance. For the Office of the
Peace Commissioner, it is necessary to prepare the
local areas for peace and therefore agreements must be
made between the differing actors residing there.
Social Dialogue in the Mining Context: Moving toward a
transformation?
Paffenholz (2010), Donais (2001) and Lederach (1997) stress that
social participation and local appropriation within a peacebuilding process from the societal bases are necessary elements for
reaching peace and conflict transformation.
Sources of Conflict related to Mining:
The disputes over territories for the right to carry out determined
economic activities—mining or agriculture--, unleash new
conflicts and the prolonging of older conflicts in the mining
context (see Garay; Kemp; Owen, Gotzmann, and Bond, 2011).
Sources of Conflict related to Decent Work:
• Culture of infomal jobs (see Patiño, 2014)
• A negative perspective by the part of the employers and
civil society toward the organizations of workers
(Unions) (see Patiño, 2014).
• Dynamics in the relations between actors –workers and
employees- who put personal ideologies and interests
before the common good (see Patiño, 2014).
• Use of violence to silence the voice of the worker (see
Patiño, 2014)
Social Dialogue in the Mining Context: Moving
toward a transformation?
• The term “Social Dialogue” is being encouraged by
multiple actors that govern the mineral resources in
the territory (2014)
• All this framed in the peace-building processes being
carried out in the territory and set in motion by the
government of Juan Manuel Santos.
Motivation of Research and Objective
• This research was started, precisely, to understand
how “Social Dialogue” is constructed in the mining
context in Colombia, its difficulties and
opportunities within the context of peace-building.
Research Method
•
Initial non-structured, face to face interviews with Ministry of Mines
and Energy, the Ministry of Labor and the National Association of
Industry;
•
70 Semi-structured Interviews in the field;
•
Focus Groups for data validation;
•
Visits to remote regions in the territory - Choco, Guajira, Cesar,
Tolima and Northeast Antioquia;
Research Method
•
The organizations interviewed for this research were classified as: (1) Central
Governmental Organizations; (2) Regional Governmental Organizations; (3) Local
Governmental Organizations; (4) Non-governmental Organizations working on diverse
themes such as human rights, environment peace-building, conflict and social
development.
•
Individuals from the communities, farmers, women, indigenous people, AfricanColombians and young people;
•
Trade Union members;
•
Large Mining Companies;
•
Small Miners;
•
Traditional miners;
Research Method
Qualitative data analysis uses the methodology of content
analysis. Two researchers realize the coding of the interviews
using Nvivo qualitative data analysis software. The coding of the
interviews is done based on various analytical categories. For this
analysis, a sample of 30 interviews out of the universe of 70 total
interviews are taken.
Results
How Social Dialogue is understood?
Government
“Social Dialogue” as an instrument that allows for fostering economic
stability of a region in which mining activities are essential.
These organizations perceive “Social Dialogue” processes of
information, consultancy and negotiation.
Some of these organizations identify “Social Dialogue” as a tool for
negotiation between national governmental organizations and local
communities and miners to reach agreements and construct objectives
with the parties involved with respect to the design of public policy
for the mining sector, decent working conditions and to discuss the
incentives needed to legitimize the activity of mining in the territory.
• “Social Dialogue” as a tool which can transform a
violent or non-violent conflict—such as situations
of armed strikes and community protests—which
are going on in the territory.
• Local governmental organizations have a different
perspective on “Social Dialogue. As one interviewee
indicated: “Social Dialogue help to have a
comprehensive look [governance] at the territory
level”.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
As stated by one NGO, these are “mechanisms to
arrive at agreements as to the future [development] of
territories”.
Large mining companies
• “indispensable element to be used in the mining
regions since it is essential to successfully carrying
out the cycle of mining [production]”.
• a necessary mechanism to be able to get close to the
communities and to understand their needs.
• on issues such as relating with communities, decent
work, human, environmental and social rights,
among others.
the small and medium-sized mining companies
• Mechanism for searching for better standards of
living—in economic terms, most importantly, and in
decent work conditions, the legitimization of the
mining activity and the exploration of alternatives to
the problems experienced in the mining territories..
The communities
For the mining workers, “Social Dialogue” is a
mechanism for resolving conflicts and for building
alternatives to social problems—of conditions of life,
of decent work and the health problematic as well as
the environment---that afflict workers or the
community in general.
• The groups unions and other mining associations—define
Social Dialogue as “the capability to generate decent working
conditions to small towns and workers”.
• In the local communities, two perspectives can be observed.
For some, it is the space where the participation of all the
community that inhabits a territory exists—including groups
outside the law—to solve a conflict or problem with the mining
activity.
There are communities that think of “Social Dialogue” as those
“spaces where large mining companies bring people together to
impose their will”.
Challenges of Social Dialogue
Government
• Negative myths and beliefs regarding mining
activities;
• Strong lack of confidence in the government and
institutions of mining.
Challenges of Social Dialogue
• Absence and abandon of the State in some mining
territories leads the communities to have erroneous
expectations regarding the reach of the discussions
in the social dialog spaces, the responsibilities of the
governmental organizations that lead such processes
and the demands that can be carried out in such
spaces.
Challenges of Social Dialogue
• Low Law enforcement of mining law and the
generalized informality of the labor conditions in the
mining sector;
• Low operational capacity of the national
governmental organizations in terms of knowledge,
personnel and financial resources and the inadequate
regional and local planning;
Challenges of Social Dialogue
NGOs
• Perceive a lack of confidence of the communities in the
governmental organizations.
• Weakness in the follow up in relation to the agreed upon
pacts between the government and the communities in
the territories.
• They perceive that the instruments of citizen
participation are seen as an obstacle both by the
government as well as by the large mining companies
Challenges of Social Dialogue
• For the NGOs that work in the area of peacebuilding and human rights, there is an unbalance of
community-co.rporation power in the territory
Challenges of Social Dialogue
Private companies
• Adverse spaces under hostile conditions.
• Some companies argue that the communities do not
want to enter into conversations with them and that
they can observe disinformation about technical
aspects and economic, social and environmental
impacts of the activities.
• Existence of weaknesses in the processes of
managing corporate responsibility such as
identifying the interested parties and having clear
communication with them;
• Fragmentation between communities with differing
needs and demands.
Challenges of Social Dialogue
Small and medium-sized miners
They perceive a greater power than the large mining
companies in these spaces which puts their activities at
risk as well as their economic sustainability into the
future.
They also feel that they are truly not included in the
process of establishing public policy for the sector.
Challenges of Social Dialogue
Traditional miners
• share the same perception of the small and mediumsized miners when they feel that there is a very
strong power held by the large companies.
Challenges of Social Dialogue
the communities
Big mining companies do not care about the social,
economic and environmental needs of the
communities;
There is not follow through on the part of the
competent governmental organizations regarding the
commitments made by the business with respect to the
communities.
Challenges of Social Dialogue
the communities
• also make reference to the inequality in the division
of power between the communities and the large
companies in the “Social Dialog” scenarios and they
indicate that they feel marginalized in these
processes.
• There are communities which routinely refuse to sit
at the negotiation table with the large multinational
companies given that they feel these are spaces used
for manipulation since all they want is for the large
mining companies to be out of their territories.
Challenges of Social Dialogue
for the workers (unions),
the theme of personal interests of the politicians and
persons in power in the territory affect the “Social
Dialog” process.
• For another group of workers (unions), the laws and
legislation which applies in the territory favors the
large companies more than the interests of the
communities and this brings about distrust on the
part of the communities.
Social Dialogue in a Peace-building Context
From the office of the High Commission for Peace, the
government of Juan Manuel Santos, the strategy of the
construction of peace, which has been planned, is
based on a transformation of conflicts (see Lederach,
2003) at the local level, in the territory via Social
Dialogue
• Nevertheless, the surveyed people are not completely
aware of the role that Social Dialogue would play at
the local level and in the mining context what would
their role be, as actors, in Peace-building.
Conclusion
• The objective of Social Dialogue is that of constructing a
process of conflict transformation (see Lederach, 2007)
with the purpose of deciding, in a participative and
inclusive form, governance of the local territories.
• Leadership in the design and implementation of Social
Dialogue in the territory, should be a participative process
carried out together with all the actors that inhabit the
territory whether they are the Government, Civil Society,
the Private Sector or the workers and communities.
The challenges to the implementation of Social
Dialogue in the territory are various. It is necessary to
develop the capacity of the governmental
organizations at the national level and in the
territories to bring together the guidelines and
governmental legislation, at the micro and macro
levels with respect to the issues of mining, the
environment, the territorial laws and the social issues
and formalization of work conditions for decent work
including participation of the community.
• it is necessary to coordinate policies and efforts
between the different governmental, private and
civil society actors who live in the territories.
There must be respect for State Rule of Law. The
creation of value for society based on Social
Dialogue will be achieved by converting it into
spaces which create synergy and efforts joined
together to transform social and environmental
conflicts that exist in the mining territories.
• Thanks!