Three Recent Mineral Development Agreements In South America

BACKGROUND Foreign investment has been a major factor in bringing about the substantial mining industries of Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brasil and Guyana. But economic nationalism and sentiment against foreiqn domination of vital national industries grew in the 1960s and most major mining projects were transferred into state owner ship. Among the state mining enterprises formed were CODELCO - Chile, MINERO-PERU/ CENTRCMIN - Peru, CCMIBOL - Bolivia (in 1952), Hierro-PERU, GUY-BAU/BIDCO - Guyana, etc. New investment during that time was discouraged because it was subject to the restrictive conditions of the investment regulations of the Andean-Pact, a grouping of Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and Colombia. The philisophy was that mineral resources were to be developed exclusively by national enterprises. Essential foreign inputs had to be acquired "depackaged" as separate purchases of equipment and technical assistance services. As a result of the worldwide economic recession which hit the mining industries in 1980-1982, many projects that were viable in 1970 were not developed by the new state enterprises due to lack of capital, managerial and technical abilities and due to problems with marketing. As a consequence of the long-term decline of metal prices, governments experienced difficulty in getting investment organized through national or foreign enterprises and have had to face up to the trade-offs between national control and active mineral development. A change has since taken place in governmental policies. The 1981 Peruvian mining law, the 1982 mining law of Uruguay, the 1979/1980 mineral promotion laws of Argentina, all witness the gradual shifting of emphasis from restriction to promotion. The investment rules of the Andean Pact have been progressively softened through national regulation and today are more or less irrelevant. Nationalizations and forced renegotiations have not occurred in the last few years. Countries have gone to great lengths (without much success) to re-attract foreign investment on terms that accommodate the political sensitivities of the South American countries and the practical requirements of investors and financiers. For this analysis, three contracts have been selected which reflect this accommodation in three South American countries, where miner a1 production plays a major role in the national economy. These con tracts reflect both the attitudes and traditions of the individual countries, but also mark the shift in mineral investment policies that has taken place. EL INDIO AGREEMENT The 1977 investment agreement between Chile and St. Joe Minerals marked a dramatic relationship between Chile and foreign mining investor s. In Chile, mining of copper has played a major role in the country's history. Large scale copper mining was initiated and developed by Kennecott and Anaconda. The nationalization of these two companies under the Allende government in July 1971 started a wave of nationalizations of foreign-held mining and petroleum operations since then in many parts of the world. The military government supported the new Chilean state mining companies ((30DELCO and ENMI) , but it also attempted to accelerate mineral development by prom ting foreign private investment, thus reversing the nationalistic policies followed by the Allende and the preceding Frei government. The new policy by the military government is expressed in Decreto-Ley 600 (1974) which governs foreign investment in Chile. Decreto-Ley 600 is