SIPA-14-0006.0 This case traces the evolution of a resettlement scheme in Peru that has the potential both to benefit corporate interests and better the lot of the local community. In January 2012, Fred Goytendía Matos becomes technical secretary for a Dialogue Table created to reconcile the interests of Chinalco, a Chinese-owned mine in Peru, multi-level government interests, and the residents of Morococha, a town that Chinalco wants to resettle to better exploit the mine’s potential. Goytendía Matos, in particular, dreams of a project that will be a model for communities worldwide experiencing similar challenges.

By August, the Table completes a draft of a Unified Framework Agreement (UFA) that begins to address the economic, social and environmental impact of the mine for decades to come. But many Table members decide they need advice from outside experts—which will cost money. In September, Goytendía Matos discovers that he is caught between the competing interests of various members of the Dialogue Table. Some, including the archbishop, ask him to resign. He has to decide whether to stay and fight back, or leave and preserve the peace. Goytendía Matos believes in the process, but is no longer clear how to win the necessary political backing to advance the UFA.

This case provides the basis for class discussion about whether it is possible to reach policy and project agreements that benefit all stakeholders. It sets a scene that pits corporate and political interests against environmental and community benefits. What mechanisms might unify the parties? How can a leader meet the challenges of negotiation when some partners are powerful and others weak? When is the international legal framework useful and when insufficient? Does it matter whether corporate interests are domestic or foreign?

Use this case in a course/class about sustainable development, environmental affairs, negotiations or community empowerment.

Note: this case has NO Epilogue and NO Teaching Note.