cao_cajamarca-303b4bb350911571.pdf

This report by Friends of the Earth International and GRUFIDES analyzes the failure of the CAO Roundtable Dialogue in Cajamarca, Peru, to resolve conflicts between the Yanacocha Mine and local communities. It argues that the dialogue mechanism was manipulated by the mining company to serve as a public relations tool, ultimately losing legitimacy and contributing to social polarization.

• The CAO Roundtable Dialogue, established in October 2001 by the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) of the World Bank's IFC, failed to achieve its goal of resolving conflicts between the Yanacocha Mine and the Cajamarca community. By 2005, it was viewed as a tool for the mining company to subdue and manipulate institutional spaces used by civil society.
• The dialogue process suffered from a lack of legitimacy because it was perceived as a parallel process that undermined local and national efforts. The CAO's close relationship with the IFC, a shareholder in the Yanacocha Mine, led many to doubt its independence as an Ombudsman.
• Yanacocha Mine systematically denied the existence of social and environmental conflicts, using coercion, deceit, and threats to purchase land at low prices. This corporate policy was imposed on the members of the CAO Roundtable Dialogue, preventing it from functioning as a genuine conflict resolution mechanism.
• The independence of the dialogue process was compromised as the mining company entered into institutional cooperation agreements and personal employment contracts with key participants, including representatives from the National University of Cajamarca and the Catholic Church.
• The CAO Roundtable Dialogue contributed to social polarization by dividing the community into those who supported mining, labeled as “lfriends of development and progress,” and those who questioned it, labeled as “enemies of development.” This tension contributed to the 2004 Quilish crisis.
• A hydrology study by Stratus Consulting found severe long-term abnormalities in water quality and quantity due to mining activities. However, the results were trivialized by the CAO Roundtable Dialogue and used by Yanacocha to claim that peasants were the primary polluters due to poor sanitary habits.
• In October 2005, the CAO published water monitoring results showing heavy metals exceeding maximum limits in canals serving multiple communities. Despite this, the CAO later contradicted its own findings by arguing the water was only for irrigation and posed no risk to the population.

APA

Friends of the Earth International (n.d.). cao_cajamarca-303b4bb350911571.pdf. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cao_cajamarca.pdf

Chicago

Friends of the Earth International. cao_cajamarca-303b4bb350911571.pdf. n.d. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cao_cajamarca.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Friends of the Earth International |title=cao_cajamarca-303b4bb350911571.pdf |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cao_cajamarca.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{friendsoftheearthinternationalndcaocajamarca303b4bb350911571pdf, author = {{Friends of the Earth International}}, title = {{cao\_cajamarca-303b4bb350911571.pdf}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cao_cajamarca.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }