Abstract
Sustainable development and mining recovery are two objectives of the Bolivian government today. These objectives, however, cancel one another out when they are combined with the Bolivian privatization plan. We illustrate this phenomenon by analyzing how the government managed a case in which antimony concentrates were denounced as hazardous in July of 1994. From the facts of this case, wefound three misconceptions underlying the conflict between sustainable development and the recovery of the mining industry: poverty versus clean environment, mining investment versus environmental protection, and competitiveness versus environmental costs. We show that these misconceptions are manifested in the long-term environmental action plan of the Secretariat of Environment, and we contrast this approach with that of the Thai government.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.