Experts on critical minerals discuss questions about how mining companies, governments, and local communities can collaborate to create equitable outcomes for critical mineral mining projects.
Critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel have become increasingly important in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, critical minerals can support emissions reductions in the transportation sector, because these minerals are essential to the manufacture of electric vehicle batteries.
Yet some communities that are located near deposits of critical minerals oppose mining, citing the environmental and socioeconomic risks that are associated with the industry. So, how can mining companies and communities find solutions that will enable the production of minerals in support of a global transition to clean energy, while mitigating environmental damages and providing fair compensation to communities that are affected by mining?
In this Q&A, experts respond to questions about critical minerals and community engagement that were submitted by viewers of a webinar hosted by Resources for the Future (RFF) that featured a panel discussion on the topic. Beia Spiller, a fellow at RFF and director of RFF’s Transportation Program, moderated the discussion; Aaron Malone, a research assistant professor at the Colorado School of Mines, and Jason Prno, an independent sustainability consultant, were panelists in the webinar.
Has community opposition to a mine ever been strong and vocal, yet the negotiations between a mining company and a local community ultimately led to the successful development of a mine that has gained the approval of the community? If so, what needed to happen to enable success?
Beia Spiller, Aaron Malone, and Jason Prno: Meaningful engagement certainly has reduced the level of concern and opposition from communities in various projects over time. The resolution of concern and opposition is more likely when sufficient time is allowed for dialogue and relationship-building between a project developer and a community, community concerns are meaningfully addressed, and opportunities for local benefits are better understood and maximized. For example, the Stillwater Mine in Montana faced opposition and litigation from local communities, but the company and community organizations were able to reach agreements and formalize them in a contract called the Good Neighbor Agreement, which has lasted 25 years.
However, for various reasons, some projects never seem to overcome the opposition they encounter. Research has highlighted that different types of conflicts require different approaches to be resolved and that some differing perspectives or interests are irreconcilable.
Additionally, all stakeholders must keep in mind that community approval typically is one of many factors considered by decisionmakers. Other important considerations include economic benefits generated at broader economic scales (e.g., regional or national), a need in society for the outputs of mining (which is particularly relevant for critical minerals and other mining products that are needed to support a transition to a greener economy), and whether environmental issues have been reasonably addressed.
How frequently do national advocacy organizations that are opposed to mining succeed at blocking the development of mines, and how can mining companies navigate input on mining projects from local stakeholders and nonlocal advocacy organizations?
Yes, such advocacy organizations, which aren’t limited to the national stage (some organizations operate internationally, while others have a more local focus, and these boundaries often are difficult to draw) have sought to influence processes for approving mines in many instances. National organizations often have their own agenda and objectives, and these organizations can insert themselves into debates over specific projects.
So, the assumption that communities and nongovernmental organizations always are aligned in their thinking is a fallacy; in some cases, communities and nongovernmental organizations can be opposed to each other. But community members who feel outmatched and out-financed by mining companies (who themselves are almost always outsiders) may reach out to larger organizations to try to level the playing field.
Credit: Underawesternsky / Shutterstock
Rather than linking the legitimacy of certain voices to their location, understanding and addressing the root perspectives and interests behind each voice can be more productive. Both mining companies and opponents to mining often are guilty of calling a group or organization “outsiders” to try to delegitimize particular views. For companies, a more productive approach is to work to understand all perspectives that are being shared and meaningfully address pertinent concerns.
How can community benefits agreements be structured to effectively reduce the environmental risk of a mining project to surrounding communities and share the economic benefits of the project? Do approaches differ depending on the stringency of the environmental regulations and the strength of governance in the jurisdiction where a mine is located?
To be meaningful, community benefits agreements must go beyond (or address issues not covered by) local regulatory standards; otherwise, these agreements would have no point. While the agreements often include standard provisions pertaining to local employment, business, and economic benefits, they also can include environmental commitments or address requirements for community engagement and long-term monitoring of environmental damages. These provisions often come in addition to existing regulatory measures or are included to address what communities perceive as gaps in regulations.
The issues covered in a community benefits agreement will vary due to the differences in context across mining locations. But this variance is a real strength of these types of agreements, aside from their legal and contractual enforceability: the signatories have the flexibility to include in an agreement whatever the signatories see fit. One key for achieving successful community benefits agreements is to ensure that community members and organizations have access to trusted experts who can help them make sense of complex and technical topics and effectively advance their interests. Funding mechanisms could be established to provide technical advisors for disadvantaged communities, which often lack the resources to hire such consultants.
How do international organizations like the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) contribute to successful engagement between the companies that mine critical minerals and the communities near those minerals?
Third-party certification schemes such as IRMA, when properly designed and resourced, can serve as another approach to facilitate the achievement of sustainable outcomes for critical mineral development. The best-practice standards that companies typically are required to follow (and be audited against) when they sign up for third-party verification schemes can motivate improvements in corporate performance related to sustainability objectives, assure stakeholders that sustainability is being taken seriously, and even help address relevant concerns about governance (e.g., in jurisdictions with weak or nonexistent mining regulations).
Initiatives like IRMA also can help promote high standards and transparency throughout the global mining industry, which operates in many jurisdictions and has to navigate varying regulations. That IRMA emphasizes community engagement is particularly important. IRMA can serve as a counterbalance to organizations aligned with the mining industry that may prioritize the interests of the industry over community interests. IRMA also helps in contexts where governments struggle to balance dependence on taxes and revenues from mining with responsibilities to citizens. However, voluntary standards are inherently limited and should not be seen as a substitute for better global governance of mining standards, as the leader of IRMA has emphasized.
What does effective and equitable community engagement look like once a mine begins operating or closes after a period of operation? What are the best practices for including issues that arise after minerals are extracted, such as cleanup or additional compensation, into a community benefits agreement?
The hard work of community engagement doesn’t end once a mine is approved and begins operating; in many ways, this work has just begun! Previous commitments from mining companies must be implemented, unanticipated issues will need to be addressed, and longer-term planning initiatives (e.g., the closure of a mine) also may need to advance with stakeholder input. Mines have a finite lifespan, so ensuring that plans for closure address issues related to the potential loss of local jobs is important; enabling local benefits to persist after a mine ceases operations and addressing pertinent environmental issues over the long term are important, as well. The socioeconomic dimensions of closing a mine increasingly are becoming a focus of this planning process.
What are some promising options to include more communities that are affected by mining in wider policy dialogues around community engagement in mining development?
The research that RFF currently is doing on community engagement and critical mineral mining is a great start to facilitating more community participation, and this research can help identify emerging best practices, important issues to consider, and future directions for research.
But let’s remember: Each mine and community are unique and will have their own set of circumstances that need to be considered. In this sense, best practices are helpful but may only take a mining company or other stakeholders so far. Attention to local contexts and preferences for engagement always are necessary.
