Here’s what subscribers read on Sunday about Bear Creek Mining (BCM.v) and its lawsuit with the government of Peru over the Santa Ana project, plus an update on how the run-off election for governor of Puno region, set for a December 7th vote, is going.
You get to read it Tuesday morning.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peru: More on the
Bear Creek Santa Ana developments
Bear Creek Santa Ana developments
On the blog Friday I reported the development in the Bear
Creek (BCM.v) Santa Ana vs Peru government case, in which the company had
reportedly dropped its court action against the State (33). It turns out to be
true, but the reason behind the BCM.v is more straightforward than first met
the eye. Even though local anti-Santa Ana leaders in the Puno region were quick
to claim a victory on the back of the move (34) it turns out that the dropping
of the case in the national courtrooms was a requirement for the case to
continue and be heard in the International CIADI/ICSID tribunal (the body attached to the World Bank that
hears international arbitration cases and gives unappealable verdicts). In
the words of this report in local Puno media Pachamama (35) on Friday evening
(translated) “…a spokesperson for the
Canadian mining company told Pachamama Radio that under the Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) between Peru and Canada, the company had taken its case to the
CIADI tribunal in order to resolve the controversy”. However, the
spokesperson said that in order to hear that case at this international court,
all judicial processes in Peru had to be stopped, which is why the company
asked for the case it had brought in 2012 against the Mining and Energy Ministry, The Defence Ministry and the National Executive of Peru to be stood
down.
Creek (BCM.v) Santa Ana vs Peru government case, in which the company had
reportedly dropped its court action against the State (33). It turns out to be
true, but the reason behind the BCM.v is more straightforward than first met
the eye. Even though local anti-Santa Ana leaders in the Puno region were quick
to claim a victory on the back of the move (34) it turns out that the dropping
of the case in the national courtrooms was a requirement for the case to
continue and be heard in the International CIADI/ICSID tribunal (the body attached to the World Bank that
hears international arbitration cases and gives unappealable verdicts). In
the words of this report in local Puno media Pachamama (35) on Friday evening
(translated) “…a spokesperson for the
Canadian mining company told Pachamama Radio that under the Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) between Peru and Canada, the company had taken its case to the
CIADI tribunal in order to resolve the controversy”. However, the
spokesperson said that in order to hear that case at this international court,
all judicial processes in Peru had to be stopped, which is why the company
asked for the case it had brought in 2012 against the Mining and Energy Ministry, The Defence Ministry and the National Executive of Peru to be stood
down.
To my surprise BCM didn’t make any sort of announcement
about this material event last week. It should do soon (unless the Canadian
authorities are even more lax than I suspect) and when it does, we should
expect them to state that they are now concentrating 100% on the international
arbitration body (as well as their absolute confidence in winning etc etc).
Although the shelving of the Peru court case doesn’t preclude an out of court
settlement between the two parties, we should now expect the dispute to go the
full distance at CIADI/ICSID and that’s a question of perhaps a couple of years
in realistic terms before a verdict is reached (though a judgment in 2015 isn’t
out of the question). Bottom line: Santa Ana BCM vs Peru continues, but don’t
hold your breath.
about this material event last week. It should do soon (unless the Canadian
authorities are even more lax than I suspect) and when it does, we should
expect them to state that they are now concentrating 100% on the international
arbitration body (as well as their absolute confidence in winning etc etc).
Although the shelving of the Peru court case doesn’t preclude an out of court
settlement between the two parties, we should now expect the dispute to go the
full distance at CIADI/ICSID and that’s a question of perhaps a couple of years
in realistic terms before a verdict is reached (though a judgment in 2015 isn’t
out of the question). Bottom line: Santa Ana BCM vs Peru continues, but don’t
hold your breath.
In other news, polling in Puno region has Luque on 54% and
Aduviri on 46% for the December 7th run-off vote. That’s closer than
I expected (though the polls are not particularly reliable in Puno region), but
fits with word received that Luque has been keeping a low public declarations
profile and allowing Walter Aduviri to make more of local media channels to
promote his cause and detract from that of his rival, as he’s been using plenty
of negative attacks. The two candidates will meet next Sunday evening November
30th in live debate, at which point we’ll have a clearer picture.
Aduviri on 46% for the December 7th run-off vote. That’s closer than
I expected (though the polls are not particularly reliable in Puno region), but
fits with word received that Luque has been keeping a low public declarations
profile and allowing Walter Aduviri to make more of local media channels to
promote his cause and detract from that of his rival, as he’s been using plenty
of negative attacks. The two candidates will meet next Sunday evening November
30th in live debate, at which point we’ll have a clearer picture.