Community Development - Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal - page 627

TABLE 15.6
Grievance Resolution Strategies (World Bank 2004) - In practical terms, disputes require a 'basket' of different grievance management approaches, for
example, redirecting historical grievances to the relevant government authorities, but dealing with more readily resolvable issues through consensus-based negotiations

Do nothing - adopt this strategy when, for example, the current effect of the dispute on the business or communities is minor and not expected to escalate
rapidly, and when the existing business management processes for engaging with the aggrieved parties (e.g. environmental impact assessment, on-going
stakeholder consultation, social investment and partnerships) are effective. (cost - low, risk - low)

Information disclosure and consultation - adopt when specifi c issues arise that seem to be based on wrong perceptions about an operation, project or project
impact, and where these fears can be readily allayed through the exchange of information and/or face-to-face consultation. (cost - low, risk - moderate)

Formal complaints procedures - where grieving parties seek redress through the mining company's formal complaints procedure. Adopt when there is
distrust of verbal communication and when a written record of exchanges would help focus minds on 'fact' rather than 'perception' (cost - low; risk - high)

Government/regulator procedures - in cases where a grievance is clearly not the responsibility of the mining company, consider redirecting to the relevant
government authority (cost - low; risk - high)

Arbitration - where a third party hears the views of the different parties and then makes a binding decision. Often applied to employer-employee issues,
but may be appropriate to apply to company community grievances, especially when an agreement is potentially close but trust has broken down (cost - high;
risk - moderate/high).

Courts - adopt this course as a last resort. Regardless of the merits and strength of the case of the company, community member, NGO or government
agency, a judicial approach is often perceived as bullying and is therefore likely to alienate the community, including those not involved in the dispute.
(cost - high; risk - high).

Consensus-based negotiation - (with or without a third-party impartial facilitator or mediator) is likely to be the best course of action where the need to
maintain good stakeholder relations is paramount, where the underlying interests of the grieving parties are legitimate (i.e. 'grievance' rather than 'greed'),
and where there are resources within the mining company, local communities, local government authorities and other civil societies available to contribute
to a resolution - (cost - moderate; risk low)

Customary approaches - some local (particularly indigenous) communities fi nd many of the above approaches alien and inaccessible. In these cases the
customary ways in which such communities resolve their own disputes should be considered, with possible adoption of these or 'hybrid' approaches that afford
confi dence to all parties. (cost - moderate; risk - moderate)

dispute resolution have failed. Cost and risks are high. In practical terms, disputes require
a 'basket' of different grievance management approaches, for example, redirecting his-
torical grievances to the relevant government authorities, but dealing with more readily
resolvable issues through consensus-based negotiations.
A formal grievance mechanism, a requirement of the IFC Performance Standards (IFC
2006) and the Equator Principles (EP), constitutes a partnership agreement. It enables
affected community members to raise concerns and grievances about the project's social and
environmental performance, and it provides a mutually agreed mechanism for resolution.
EP 6 requires that communities have been informed about the grievance mechanism, and
embedded procedures for conl ict resolution. This is the case if communities have partici-
pated in developing the grievance mechanism. An informal practice to grievance resolution
may prove to be successful, but a formal and well-communicated grievance mechanism in
the form of a partnership agreement will strengthen the CD programme cycle.
The outcome of any grievance resolution is likely to be in the form of a compromise
with trade-offs from both parties ( Figure 15.6 ) . Preferably, the outcome falls in the upper
right corner of Figure 15.6 . If the stakes are low a party may decide to accommodate its
partners' interests. However if the stakes are high, either the community or the mining
company may attempt to resolve conl ict by force. Community members may block mine

The outcome of any grievance
resolution is likely to be in the
form of a compromise with
trade-offs from both parties.