Involving the Public - Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal - page 131

Some stakeholders are not able to effectively participate in decision-making even when
they are the most potentially affected. This may be due to poor language skills, poor self-
esteem, lower educational achievement, lack of participation culture in the host coun-
try, physical handicap or intellectual disability and so on. Many remain unaware of their
opportunity to participate. The Environmental Justice Program of the US EPA attempts
to address these issues requiring 'the decision makers to seek out and facilitate the involve-
ment of those potentially affected' (USEPA 17/11/02). The Equator Principles require the
process will ensure their free, prior and informed consultation (see also IFC PS 1 2006).
It becomes appropriate to ask: Who are the stakeholders in a mining project? They gen-
erally fall in one of the following categories (Zemek 2002, Figure 3.2 ).

Project-Affected People Come First

Local communities near the proposed mine are people whose daily life is likely to be most
affected by the new mining operation. Project-affected people (PAP) deserve the highest
attention in public involvement. They generally want to know what is proposed and what
changes will occur. They are concerned that their values are known and respected, and
that their suggestions are carefully considered. Individuals or groups in the local commu-
nity expect benei ts from a mining project, usually monetary benei ts. When involved in
an open and honest manner local communities are often the best allies against unfounded
opposition. If local communities are not well briefed about a proposal at an early stage, they
may learn about the project at second or third hand, often obtaining distorted information
from anti-mining activists. Since the education level in remote areas is often low miscon-
ceptions can easily develop. Once local communities are manipulated by outsiders it is chal-
lenging for a mining company to regain their trust.
Minority and indigenous groups (IP) need special consideration (see also Chapter
Sixteen). They often represent the weakest members of society such as transitory or
nomadic groups, refugees, old people, or the poor and homeless. Any negative changes
to their environment, even those considered minor, have the potential to cause signii cant
distress and hardship. If multilateral lenders or EPFIs are involved in project i nancing,
consultation with Indigenous Peoples must conform to specii c and detailed requirements
as for example found in IFC Performance Standard 7.

Project-affected people deserve
the highest attention in public
involvement.

CASE 3.2
Opposing Mining as a Matter of Principle

When anti-mining activists talk about the 'mining mafi a'
they generally refer to mine owners, politicians and law
enforcement offi cials, united as they see it in a desire to
keep profi ts fl owing, all too often for their personal benefi t.
Mistrust has led some anti-mining activists to believe that
mining is bad, no matter what the circumstances. They
fail to recognize that the mining industry has
progressed a long way towards the goal of mining
being a truly sustainable economic activity. They also fail

to realize that each mine is different. Both authors have
worked on projects that operate in a manner that should
never have been allowed. On balance, however, there are
many more successes than failures. There have also been,
and will always be, genuine efforts by responsible mining
company directors and mine managers to share the
benefi ts with host communities. It is people, not
companies that plan, develop, and operate a mining
project.