Tools for the Disempowered? Indigenous Leverage Over Mining Companies

Abstract

Rather than passively accepting development, some Indigenous communities have forced their demands into corporate decision-making. Accordingly, recognising and responding to community expectations becomes a matter of prudent strategy and 'enlightened self-interest'. This paper examines the case of Century Zinc Mine in Queensland's Gulf of Carpentaria where the miner undertook negotiations and reached agreement with local Indigenous communities. It was later held to account by communities concerned about insufficient implementation of this agreement. Discussion then explores the campaign against Jabiluka uranium mine in Australia's Northern Territory, especially why multinational miner Rio Tinto deferred to local community wishes surrounding development. These experiences show that Indigenous communities are most effective in bringing leverage over mining companies when they impact upon profit or future profit (often related to reputation with specific audiences). The parameters and consequent limitations of a company's responsiveness to community demands reinforce fundamental roles for the state as ultimate regulator and provider.

Accountability in Transnational Relations: How Distinctive Is It?

“…For instance, the Multilateral Effectiveness Framework Queensland's Gulf of Carpentaria (Trebeck 2007). In such cases, investors may not act with the goal of changing a company's behaviour towards affected communities.…”

Refining the preconditions of a social licence to operate (SLO): reflections on citizens’ attitudes towards mining in two Finnish regions

“…In the last 20 years the mining industry has been under pressure to contribute more positively to regional development (IIED 2002, 4;Gibson 2006, 334;Slack 2009, 83;Tuusjärvi 2013, 11). The global image of mining has been negative, with concerns raised in particular about the ability of the industry to manage environmental and social impacts (Clark & Cook Clark 1999;Hilson 2002;Cademartori 2002;Jenkins & Yakovleva 2006;Trebeck 2007;Eerola 2008;Holden & Jacobson 2008;Le Billion & Levin 2009;Taylor 2011;Urkidi 2011;Akiwumi 2012). The mitigation of the environmental impacts of mining has been approached mainly as a technological and engineering challenge (Clark & Cook Clark 1999, 190;Solomon et al 2008, 142;Richards 2009, xxi;Everingham 2012, 92).…”

Increasing the sustainability of a resource development: Aboriginal engagement and negotiated agreements

“…Timing and leverage, including the bargaining power of each party, varies significantly based on the potentially affected Aboriginal groups' relationship with the Crown, regulatory specifics, and issuance of permits (Trebeck 2007). Positive actions that mining companies take early on to demonstrate respect for Aboriginal culture and decision-making bodies help lay the foundation for a partnership that is sensitive to both parties' short-and long-term goals.…”