The signing of an agreement between the mining company and the community does not necessarily solve the social conflicts, but, in many cases, makes them recurrent, said Carlos Casas, Director of UP Center for Mining and Sustainability Studies, in his presentation in the 12th International Gold and Silver Symposium.

This conclusion arose from the analysis of the social conflicts reported by the Office of the Ombudsman between 2006 and 2013. Thus, Universidad del Pacífico studied the results with the purpose of estimating the factors that impact the most in the recurrence of social conflicts.

"Signing an agreement with the community does not necessarily solve the problem, only postpones it. What our studies showed was that conflict escalated" said Casas during his presentation. What happens is that once the agreement has been signed, there's no follow-up, and after a time, the goals are not achieved and the conflict ends up growing, explains the professor. 

The analysis of the reports from the Office of the Ombudsman carried out by the university aims to know the factors that impact on the higher recurrence of social conflicts in certain districts.

"A first factor is poverty. The more poverty there is in a district, the more likely it is for a social conflict to arise" said Casas. Another factor related to poverty is inequality, not only the one brought by the arrival of the mining company in the community, but the preexisting one.

​A third factor mentioned by Casas has to do with the municipality income. The more income it has, the more investment in the community the citizen expects. When this does not happen, social conflicts start.