De Echave's remarks came during a conference held by Oxfam America and the Revenue Watch Institute in Washington, DC titled "From Conflict to Consensus: Extractive Industry Transparency in Latin America." The conference included speakers from citizen organizations in Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru, as well as the Peruvian Ambassador to the US Luis Valdivieso and Anwar Ravat, the World Bank’s manager of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative.

Patricia Diaz, Oxfam America's program officer in South America following the hydrocarbon industry, says conflicts erupt in Peru and other countries as “communities express frustration with what they perceive to be significant social and environmental costs associated with extractive industries, and only limited social benefits. These conflicts not only destabilize Peru but create a difficult operating environment for American and other companies.” She also said that conflicts flare up when mines and pipelines are set up without the free, prior, and informed consent of local people.

Oxfam America and Revenue Watch Institute are advocating for governments and companies to disclose payments made for oil, gas, and mining projects as a means to build trust and reduce conflicts. Citizens would be able to see how much money their government receives from companies, and if they are getting a fair share of revenue devoted to their communities. Diaz says this information would help avoid conflicts such as the one seen in the Tacna and Moquegua regions of Peru last year, when the government altered mining royalty payments, setting off protests by 20,000 people resulting in three deaths.  “More information on the mining revenues that each region would be receiving could have helped to avert this conflict,” she said.

A few days after the Washington event, and after months of pressure from Oxfam America and others, the Inter-American Development Bank formally endorsed EITI. In the U.S. Congress, Diaz and others also held a briefing to urge action on proposed legislation to require extractive industry revenue disclosure. If enacted, the law would require companies subject to US Securities and Exchange Commission rules to disclose payments to governments. “Civil society in Peru would have a key tool for ensuring that these payments ultimately benefit the local communities most affected by mining and hydrocarbon projects,” Diaz said in Washington. “And US companies and consumers would benefit through better operating environments and steady access to the raw materials you depend on.”

Download all the presentations delivered at the conference here.

Newmont, the largest US-based mining company, agreed to the review in 2007 following allegations of serious rights abuses by police and private security forces hired to protect the mine. Among other recommendations, the review calls on the company to more rigorously investigate human rights abuses, disclose contracts with police forces, consider severing ties with a private security contractor, and promote greater dialogue with local communities.

"This report contains a number of important recommendations for addressing ongoing human rights problems at Yanacocha," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "Given the current tensions around mining projects in Peru, we urge Newmont to take immediate action to implement these recommendations."

The report is the result of a two-year mediation process between Newmont and Oxfam America under the auspices of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, a global initiative bringing together mining and oil companies, governments, and nongovernmental groups. Newmont and Oxfam entered the mediation after Oxfam filed a complaint over abuses by security forces at Yanacocha in three separate incidents throughout 2006-2007. These included the fatal shooting of a local farmer involved in protests at the mine and the surveillance and harassment of members of a local human rights and environmental group.

Peru has been hit by a recent wave of protests around mining and oil projects. According to government estimates, there are more than 70 active conflicts at mine sites in various parts of the country, some of which have turned violent. Tensions reached a boiling point in early June when actions by the national police to quell protests by indigenous peoples in the Peruvian Amazon, who were protesting government decrees designed to open up more land to mining and oil operations, resulted in a tragic loss of lives and a large number of wounded police officers and indigenous peoples.

"Newmont can help reduce the level conflict in Peru by implementing these recommendations," said Keith Slack, extractive industries program manager at Oxfam America. "Doing so would be an important confidence building measure among local community members affected by mining operations."

The report recommends that Newmont more vigorously implement the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, which include ensuring that security forces employed by companies do not have a history of human rights abuse. The report further calls on the company to review the results of psychological examinations of all security personnel before employing them at the mine.

"This is a critical first test of the complaints mechanism of the voluntary principles," noted Slack. "Newmont's compliance with these recommendations is important for the continued credibility of the initiative."

This report follows a previous independent review of Newmont's community relationship management practices, the results of which were released in March. Oxfam encourages Newmont to continue taking leadership in this type of review process and to fully implement the resulting recommendations to improve relationships with local communities near mining projects.

At least 30 people have been killed in recent weeks in violent confrontations between indigenous protestors and police. The overturn of these decrees now sets the stage for dialogue. Shortly after congress rescinded them, President Alan Garcia delivered a speech in which he said that his government should have included indigenous people in discussions about the decrees before he issued them.

The government of Peru is now initiating a commission to start a dialogue with indigenous people, and will include Oxfam's partner AIDESEP, which represents a highly diverse group of indigenous organizations from all over the Amazon region.

"Oxfam hopes this dialogue initiative will be an important first step toward lasting solutions based on indigenous peoples rights and ensuring strong environmental regulation of extractive activities in the Amazon," said Frank Boeren, Oxfam America's Deputy Director in South America.

With some champions in Congress and support from the White House, we're hoping to see domestic legislation that not only fines companies who pollute, but also uses some of these funds to help affected communities build their resilience. If we are successful domestically, we can lay the groundwork for a global deal at the UN Climate Change Conference this December—an agreement that will create a more hospitable climate for us all.

Also in this issue: A force of peace in Peru; Rebuilding in Bangladesh; Oxfam America's new role in Darfur.

Last month, Newmont released the results of an independent review, which provides information about the company's community relationships and important recommendations for improving operations on the ground. The review, the first of its kind by a major mining company, came at the request of shareholders, led by New York-based Christian Brothers Investment Services, concerned about protests and environmental problems at Newmont's mining projects around the world. The company will formally present the results of the report to shareholders at the annual meeting.

"We commend Newmont for conducting a critical assessment of their community relationships. As shareholders gather this week, plans for urgent action to improve relations with the communities living near its operations should be at the top of the agenda," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America.

Recommendations from the report include handling community conflicts at an earlier stage, holding management accountable for community relations, and establishing effective grievance processes at all sites. The report indentifies problems with Newmont's community interaction at several locations, including sites in Ghana and Peru.

Nearly 10,000 villagers, mainly poor farmers, were displaced by the Newmont's Ahafo mine in Ghana. The report identified the long-term success of the resettlement as one of the greatest risks confronting the project and called on Newmont to actively monitor the implementation of resettlement. Newmont and the World Bank (IFC) will be conducting an audit of the resettlement program this year. Oxfam urges Newmont to make the audit process transparent and participatory.

Newmont's Yanacocha mine in Peru has been the site of repeated protests and violence in recent years. In 2007, local mining activists were the targets of harassments and death threats.

"The report identified an atmosphere of fear and intimidation among local residents at the Yanacocha mine, who worry about speaking out against the company out of fear of harassment by the mine's security forces," said Offenheiser. "It is very troubling that people are afraid to peacefully express their concerns. Newmont must address this situation immediately."

Communities affected by mining projects should have a role in decision-making about how the project will affect their lands and livelihoods. The report recommends an action plan that includes clarification of Newmont's commitment to the principle of free, prior and informed consent for communities.

"Newmont's endorsement of the principle of free, prior and informed consent for communities would be an important step forward," said Offenheiser. "The key now is to engage with local communities and apply this principle to company practice. We are pleased that Newmont's board of directors has accepted the report's analysis and recommendations and directed management to engage with affected communities on the report's findings."

The Newmont report also highlighted community concern about lack of access to information about the revenues the company pays to local and national governments, leaving communities unable to hold their governments accountable for how mining revenues are used.

"Newmont has been a leader in committing to greater transparency and can help address community concerns about revenue sharing by recommitting to disclose all payments made to host governments," said Offenheiser. "Endorsing mandatory public disclosure policies like the Extractive Industries Transparency Disclosure Act would be an important first step."

Oxfam advocated passage of the Extractive Industries Transparency Disclosure Act, legislation that would require all mining, oil, and gas companies registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission to disclose the payments made to foreign governments. The bill, which was introduced by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) in the 110th Congress, is expected to be reintroduced shortly.

In the arid north of the country, where the government has prioritized copper mining, farmers and copper mines struggle to co-exist. Both need water, but the major copper mines, with support from the government and plenty of capital, are buying up the water rights. Farmers, many poor and without powerful friends in the government, are seeing their rivers and streams dry up—or worse, become so polluted they can't use the water.

In 2004, the 2,000 residents of Caimanes, a remote town in Chile's IV Region, faced an additional challenge: a massive tailings dam Pelambres Mining Company built on their doorstep. The dam, which collects waste rock from dissolved copper, would allow the Las Pelambres mine to continue operating for an additional 28 years. And the new tailings dam, when full, will hold 1.7 billion tons of waste.

Despite this huge new source of pollution to their water sources, local people had few outlets to defend their rights. Chile has no provisions in its laws on mining that require any citizen participation in approving or authorizing any expansion of existing mining operations.

But farmers in Caimanes and several other villages continued to voice their concerns that the dam would destroy an entire valley and cut off their supply of water. They said that acid will drain out of the dam, polluting what water that remains, and endangering the one stream that provides their town with water. Tailings dams are also usually a source of dust particles containing heavy metals—these can blow into town and poison people and their animals.

Caimanes is in the poorest region of Chile. Farmers there are concerned about their ability to continue to earn a living, but are also aware that a major earthquake could collapse the dam. This has happened before: In 1965 an earthquake spilled 10 million cubic meters (350 million cubic feet) of mine waste out of a similar holding area and killed 200 people.

Community response

In 2004 community members in Caimanes began working with the Environmental Oversight Office (the Fiscalía del Medio Ambiente or FIMA, a Chilean NGO). They gathered signatures on petitions and filed them in legal courts and requested an injunction to halt construction of the tailings dam. In 2005 the Caimanes community group representing farmers in the area alleged that the permit process for the dam had not been followed properly and that there were archeological sites that were being damaged in the construction. In 2007 a local court in the nearby city of Los Vilos ordered that the mine company halt construction of the tailings dam.

Government and company response

The Las Pelambres mine company appealed the 2007 court order, and the decision put responsibility on a government water commission. This commission had already approved a permit for the construction of the tailings dam, with limited participation from local farmers, so it allowed construction to continue. In 2008 the Chile's supreme court ruled that the right to water for the farmers affected by the tailings dam was being violated, and awarded each of the farmers $40,000. In December 2008 the company announced that it had finished the tailings dam.

Oxfam involvement

Oxfam America provided grant funding for FIMA to help the citizens of Caimanes to defend their rights in court, and raise awareness about their situation among people in Chile. FIMA advocated for a hearing at the Latin American Water Tribunal in 2007, which issued a statement calling for the dam construction to be stopped and the citizens compensated. FIMA has also published reports about the situation in Caimanes and prompted considerable coverage of this case in the international media.

Although the citizens of Caimanes did win compensation and a favorable judgment in court, they did not succeed in blocking the dam construction. "Unfortunately for the people, there are no winners," says a report published by FIMA, The Battle for Water in the Pupío Valley. "This compensation will not make up for the destruction of the quality of life in the valley." FIMA says in the report that the people achieved a "legal and economic victory, but a social and environmental defeat."

Nevertheless, the case sets an important precedent and provides an example to the global mining industry of how responsible companies should not operate.

"While Peru's macroeconomic indicators are improving, individuals feel frustrated because they do not perceive their income to be increasing as a result of the country's economic growth," Baca said. "Grupo Propuesta Ciudadana recommends that the government implement policies that increase the benefits of economic growth to excluded populations, improve the efficiency of social programs, and improve the quality of education and health services."

Baca spoke at a panel discussion at Oxfam America's headquarters in Washington titled "Peru's Windfall—The Challenge of Harnessing Extractive Industries Revenues for Poverty Reduction." He said that while the extractive industries such as gold and silver mines and natural gas pipelines are leading Peru's booming economy and contributing more than $2 billion per year to government accounts, half the country still lives in poverty, and Peru is not converting its resource wealth into benefits for its poorest citizens.

One example is the municipality of Echarate, in the Urubamba River valley in the department of Cusco. This area has recently seen rapid development of the Camisea gas pipeline, which is expected to bring Peru $10.8 billion over the 30-year life of the project. The pipeline is being run by an international consortium, and partly funded by $135 million from the Inter-American Development Bank.

Research by Baca and Grupo Propuesta Ciudadana shows that while Echarate's budget for infrastructure projects was less than $700,000 in 2003, by 2007 it was more than $65 million as a result of Camisea royalties. Although the municipality has constructed a new office building, indigenous people in outlying villages report limited presence of government representatives in their communities.

"While indigenous communities have suffered from the negative effects of the gas project—including pipeline spills, decline in fish populations and environmental degradation—they have not significantly benefited from this municipal government windfall nor do they have adequate influence in determining how this money should be spent," says Emily Greenspan, policy advisor for Oxfam America in Washington, who recently returned from a visit to the Camisea project zone in the Peruvian Amazon.

Citizens of Peru already have the right to ask for information about revenues and spending, and companies are required to publish this information. But there is no government office overseeing the information requests, and companies do not always divulge the information requested, says Javier Aroca, an attorney who is Oxfam America's advisor on extractive industries in South America.

Aroca says lack of transparency makes it impossible to determine what companies are contributing to local and national governments. "All transactions related to extractive industries must be clearly defined and described, so that all the information is included in the national budget," he says. "National and international companies must meet international standards of accounting, audit, and publication of accounts. The management and final use of the funds must be published, especially at the regional and local levels. This would help increase trust in public institutions and ensure there is no corruption."

How to spread the wealth

Baca made a number of recommendations about reformulating the laws governing distribution of mining and hydrocarbon revenues. He also recommended systems for fair allocation of the revenues to both producing and non-producing areas, and creating a system that is more transparent, predictable, and equitable.

One way to increase the transparency of extractive industry revenues would be to implement the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI), an international agreement that requires companies to disclose payments to governments so that citizens are aware of what their country's natural resources are worth and where the money is being used. In Peru, the national association for the oil, gas, and mining industry (Sociedad Nacional de Mineria Petroleo y Energia, or SNMPE) has succeeded in having all royalty and gas payments to be published as a lump sum (including all companies together), instead of by each individual company. That makes it hard for people to know how much a specific company is contributing to the government and what portion of that should be coming to the communities that are producing minerals and hydrocarbons.

Complying with the highest standard under EITI would require each company to disclose its tax and royalty payments. Oxfam America is calling on the SNMPE to encourage its member companies and the Ministry of Energy and Mines to support a company-by-company, rather than aggregate, reporting standard for royalty and tax payments as a means to increase transparency of Peru's revenues.

According to published figures, of the individuals qualified to vote in the referendum, there was a turnout of 50.9 percent in Ayabaca; 59.1 percent in Carmen de la Frontera; and 70 percent in Pacaipampa. Consulta Vecinal reported that of 31,388 registered voters, 18,107 cast ballots—a turnout of roughly 60 percent overall. Of these votes, 17,033 said NO to the mining company and 285 said YES. There were 239 blank ballots and 460 disqualified votes.

"Participation has been successful and voluntary," said Fernando Romero, coordinator for Oxfam International. "We believe that the referendum has succeeded in allowing the people of these three districts to voice their opinion regarding the Rio Blanco project."

The referendum has brought to light the issues at the heart of the Majaz case. First, there is a weak or nonexistent state apparatus in Peru for dealing with such issues—making plain the need for an environmental authority capable of regulating and supervising corporate conduct. Second, there is an urgent need for a land-use plan that would identify sites suitable for mining projects.

After explaining that this is a non-binding referendum that would not translate into law, Romero went on to say that "the inhabitants of mining areas are interested in voicing their opinions and being heard by the authorities."

"This is a call for attention and a reminder that these communities are part of the country and should participate when decisions are made that affect their way of life and their future," Romero said.

On December 15th, a delegation of Chiquitano people engaged in a protest on a main road in the area was attacked by an unknown number of people traveling to a meeting in buses. When the bus passengers encountered a road block created by the protestors they attacked them with sticks, stones and some small arms. Fifty people were injured as the indigenous people attempted to defend themselves.

That same day, the offices of indigenous organizations in the towns of Concepcion and San Javier were attacked, and several of their leaders received death threats, causing them to flee their homes. The Indigenous Central Committee of Concepcion said in a press release that 100 people attacked and destroyed the office shared by several indigenous groups there, destroying computers, cameras and other electronics, office furniture, and two motorcycles before burning the office and all files. No one from the indigenous organizations was injured in this attack.

Details of these attacks were released by the Indigenous Central Committee and the Coordinator of Ethnic People of Santa Cruz (CPESC), the Organization of Chiquitano Indigenous People (OICH), and three other organizations. The indigenous groups denounced the organizers of the attacks, mostly political and business leaders from the area objecting to the work of indigenous people's organizations to gain legal title to their ancestral lands.

Oxfam America funds the work of the OICH and CPESC groups, which are organizing the legal titling of indigenous lands in the Monte Verde region of eastern Bolivia and promoting the human rights of the indigenous peoples there.

This recent wave of well coordinated attacks on indigenous people in eastern Bolivia is just one in a series over the last several years. Bolivia has seen immense disparities between the indigenous majority (close to 80 percent of the population) and tiny elite that controls most of the natural and other resources of the country. The status quo seems likely to change under the current presidency of Evo Morales, who has demonstrated sympathies with the indigenous majority. In the first few months of his administration, he has nationalized the oil and gas industry, removed several obstacles that had slowed down indigenous land claims for decades, and agreed to re-examine fundamental clauses in the national constitution with a particular eye to the way that resources are shared across the population.

"These actions show a complete lack of respect for the human rights of indigenous people," said Gonzalo Delgado, director of Oxfam America's program in South America. "We express our solidarity with our partners in Bolivia, and hope that those responsible for these attacks will be brought to justice."

My grandmother told us that we were many, many Secoyas, between the Rio Napo and Putamayo, near the frontier with Colombia. We must have been over 8,000 there?

At the time of the Spanish conquest many people died from measles and mumps. And even when my grandma was a little girl, she had to escape into the jungle to avoid such terrible diseases. She said that nobody came to help them; people were dying in their houses, like chickens.

Then came the rubber boom. The rubber producers held the Secoyas as slaves. Many Secoyas drank poison to liberate themselves from the indignity of forced labor. Others fled deeper into the jungle.

After all this dislocation the Secoyas regrouped in about 1970. We were only 120 people. And those remaining 120 people, along with their children and grandchildren, were the ones who had to endure the impact of the oil companies. And of those 120, I was one.

This is to contextualize what is happening today. These 120 continue to suffer. Two [just] died of cancer, and eight years ago more people died of cancer. So we wonder, for those 120 native people and their descendants, if our days are numbered too; if some sickness will take us instead of a natural death. This is to say that life is uncertain now.

What has been the impact of oil development on the culture and life of your people?

The oil companies have had a significant cultural impact, especially on our territory. How we used to live—naturally, that is—is no longer natural. We are experiencing the impact of many other cultures, especially from [modern-day migration]. Before we didn't need money because we had everything we needed. There were animals and fish; there was fruit, and medicines. Everything was found in the forest. But now we must go out to buy everything.

We also need to buy notebooks and school supplies. We are now surrounded by school walls in order to learn. The education beforehand for the Secoyas began at four in the morning. The elderly people in the community worked with the young people, teaching them weaving. They also told stories, legends, which taught respect for older people.

Though we agree that education should take place in the classroom, we are not in agreement that the only thing that should be taught is what the government decides should be taught. We see that we are not educating ourselves and our children in the way that our ancestors taught us. In that sense we are losing our culture. Now the youth doesn't know about our legends and our stories and our customs. And this is why now, through our own bilingual education, we are trying to reintegrate our own values, our own cultures, and our own traditions into our education.

Another great impact is on the environment. For example, we no longer have animals because one step behind the oil companies came the colonists. And every time the colonists found an animal they had to shoot it, they had to kill it. [The animals] withdrew farther and farther away. And now we no longer have territories in which we have everything we need around us; in which we can go from one side to the other. Everything has its owner. Now there are other communities—Shuar communities and Kichwa communities—which were ours before. This is a reduction of our territory. Right now we're enclosed and circumscribed by different pacts. There is one pact with the oil company; the African palm company [harvesting hearts of palm]; the colonists; even other indigenous people who have migrated here from their ancestral homes in other provinces.

What has really damaged us is the pollution in the rivers. This is really the worst part, along with the contamination in the air and the earth itself on which we cultivate our plants and our food. These are the terrible effects that have been visited upon us.

Although we talk about remediation, I think it will be difficult to repair what has been damaged. I think perhaps we will never be able to, because even though we might repair the natural environment, modern society is here among us—on our doorstep—and we will never be able to repair that.

We have seen many new sicknesses that we didn't see in our people before. We the Secoyas knew how to cure ourselves when those sicknesses were natural sicknesses. But now, with these unknown diseases, not even the best healer among us knows how to cure them. I think if we don't now have people who really know how to cure those previously unknown diseases, if we don't resolve this case against Texaco, then the very few Secoyas that remain—about 400 of us—will lose our culture and we may be finished off by sickness or disease. Or for other reasons we will disappear bit by bit. This is what I can tell you about the impact of the oil industry on the Secoya people.

Can you see a resolution of the Texaco case that could help your people survive?

Yes there is a hope for us, in the way that we have been organizing around Texaco because the Sionas, Secoyas, and Cofanes, we are the ones who have lived here in Sucumbios. We are the original owners of these territories and we have seen all of the damage that has been done here. So we organized through some friendly organizations—they came and told us about human rights—before we knew nothing about human rights. And through friends and allies the Sionas, Secoyas, Cofanes, and Kichwas started to organize in order to bring justice to this case.

We, as one part of the affected people, believe that since we have already waited 10 years [while the case languished in the United States courts]; we could wait and continue another 10 years if necessary. This is our priority. People are saying: "If we don't get this resolved, what are we doing? If we can't drink the water from our traditional sources—then what?"

So we are newly united since the case has been presented in a court here, and now we are just waiting for the judge's decisions. We are assisted by Oxfam America and other people. We feel we are engaging in common work to ensure a future for the people who are in danger of disappearing.

We can't waste time being sorry about what has happened. We have to be able to defend and exercise the same rights as Spanish-speaking mestizo people do in our own territory.

I don't anticipate a lot of difficulties in the judicial inspections phase, except for the financing of the inspections. The evidence provided by the judicial inspections is the fundamental basis for the case. The evidence must be supported scientifically, and this is expensive. If there?s not enough money to carry out these tests, I anticipate serious problems, and we run the risk of losing the case.

With the legal process itself, I don't foresee difficulties because the laws determine the process that should be followed, and the Judge will make a decision based on what the law says. He needs to determine his decision according to the law.

As for the final sentence: I will reserve judgments about what I think might happen. Unfortunately our courts have weaknesses, and there are many examples of corruption and political influence and political pressures on the legal system. For example, at our conference today we just heard the delegate from Ecuador's Ministry of Foreign Commerce say that the US government asked for the Texaco case to be dropped as a condition for negotiating a free trade agreement. Although the government has publicly said they do not accept this position, we are certain that pressure will be applied to the judge to decide in favor of Texaco. And that is very dangerous because for me what is at stake is the dignity of the Ecuadorian Amazon and the dignity of the justice system.

The only thing that I hope for in the Texaco case is that justice can be done. Those of us who live here have a great opportunity to demonstrate to the rest of the country that we are men and women with rights equal to those of others.

Why did you become a lawyer and decide to work with the Amazon Defense Front?

Since I was very small, I was always searching for justice. When I was 14, and my parents migrated from Esmeraldas, where we lived before, here to Sucumbios, I worked in an African palm plantation company for four years. Afterwards I worked for an oil company, also for four years, and in both places I saw great injustices with the workers and the campesinos. I also saw grave destruction of the environment. I shared these concerns with others, and so about six young people (I was just 17 at the time) agreed, we said "we must do something about these problems." Some were colleagues from work, some were friends from school, and others were from a church youth group. So when we got together and started to take actions with protests and complaints or simply pointing out problems and suggesting solutions, I got into trouble. That was the reason they fired me from the African palm plantation company. Then the oil company threw me out for defending the rights of other workers.

And so from this experience came my dream, my idea, to become a professional. A lawyer. To defend those like myself and others who would be denied their rights, especially for rural people.

Fortunately the church supported me for about 12 years. When I was left without work in the companies, the church gave me work so that I could continue with my studies and social service. I worked with the church until about one year ago when I was hired by the Amazon Defense Front.

You had to overcome many obstacles to become a lawyer, didn't you?

The first obstacle and the most important one was the economic obstacle. My parents provided education for me until [eighth grade]. From there on I had to do it on my own—to study and to work. So I worked during the day and studied at night. And when I entered the university, the church helped me by providing more than half of the tuition. That was not easy for them. And it was very difficult for me as I simply didn't have the money. Out of 10 brothers and sisters, I am the only one who finished high school, because of a lack of resources.

The group of friends that I mentioned before also helped me. And I also took other jobs. I worked for the radio doing the news, and as a professor in a distance learning program. I had to study from four until seven in the morning. Then I had to go to work until six at night. The time I had free for lunch midday I dedicated to doing news on the radio. At night I taught high school classes, so my work day was from four in the morning until 11 or 12 at night. That was how I got to this point.