Partnerships and agreements: A trend in mining of opposing sides coming together

From the Writers Series: Part I, Dr. Chris Anderson on the Extractives Sector “This is the first article in Mediators Beyond Borders’ six-part series answering, “What would your company/industry/field, and region, look like if adversarial decision-making systems were replaced by collaborative ones?” Link - https://mediatorsbeyondborders.org/writersseries-collaboration-part/

Nelson Mandela once commented: “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” This has been never more true than in the relationships of mining companies to ‘the other side’ of civil society and communities.

Twenty years ago, all around the world, mining companies and civil society organizations (NGOs) were definitely not friends. Suspicion and hostility were deep and rife on both sides. That feeling lingers on in some quarters today. However, many people on both sides slowly realized that there often existed overlapping agendas, particularly around environmental protection and community development. In fact, now, an entire body of practice has emerged around ‘partnerships’.

In a similar vein, miners and communities were very often at odds over projects, at times implacably so. Multi-million dollar mining projects have been stymied, delayed or cancelled due to local social issues. Often, too, NGOs would line up with communities against miners; construction stalemates ensued, production inhibited and at time, violence occurred.

I paint a picture of an almost binary, black and white opposition from some years back (and, I have to admit, that this is still the case with some companies and some activist organizations and communities). There are, however, glimmers of optimism here and there that things can be different for mutual benefit.

My experience of almost thirty years working at the interface between companies and the world ‘outside the mine fence’, convinces me that there has been a growing convergence of approaches, especially around community engagement and development. Partnerships between entities that previously were at each other’s’ throats, often very publicly, now abound both at global and local levels. Examples include: Anglo American and Fauna & Flora International on global biodiversity; and with Care International on HIV/AIDS at a local level in Zimbabwe; Barrick Mining and the White Ribbon NGO on gender-based violence prevention in Papua New Guinea; Newmont and Project C.U.R.E on medical supplies and health training in Ghana, Peru, Indonesia and Suriname. Newmont’s Ahafo Operations in Ghana provides what is almost a textbook case of this partnership trend: the company has worked with, among many others, Opportunities Industrialization Centers International; Guards of the Earth and the Vulnerable; Conservation International; International SOS; Nature Conservation Research Centre; Earthwatch; as well as joint projects with government at local and national levels (Ministry of Social Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture, Ghana health Service and others).

These partnering projects were not ‘greenwash’ or philanthropy. They all addressed a problem and the partners brought funds, skills, experience and labor to bear on them. Such things were made possible not really by any kind of mediation at all, but rather through a slow process of communication, relationship and trust-building and the bonds that developed between key individuals in each organization.

Some of the widely accepted requirements for successful partners between what could be seen as ‘strange bedfellows’ include: good preparation; the creation of a shared vision; open and transparent understanding and communication between partners, and particularly between key individuals on both sides; being clear on risks and rewards; having an open and rational decision-making process; transparent communication, monitoring and reporting; leadership, adequate resources; and building trust as a core value.

Modern mining has also seen another trend that brings previously opposed bodies together: the growing practice of company-community agreement-making. Australia is a particularly apt case. The Agreements, Treaties and Negotiated Settlements database (ATNS - http://www.atns.net.au) at the University of Melbourne provides details on, among other things, hundreds of agreements between extractive companies and Indigenous communities. The detailed analyses done by Professor Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh in many studies (see for example at: http://caepr.anu.edu.au/Authors/CiaranO%E2%80%99Faircheallaigh) reveals the extent of this movement. Agreement-making has now become common in other parts of the mining world too: Newmont in Ghana (e.g. see http://www.sdsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ahafo-Social-Responsibility-Agreement.pdf) and Rio Tinto in Mongolia ( see http://ot.mn/oyu-tolgoi-signs-cooperation-agreement-withumnugobi-communities/). Rio Tinto has even produced a major publication, ‘Why Agreements Matter’, (http://www.riotinto.com/documents/Rio_Tinto_Why_Agreements_Matter.pdf), driven by senior corporate leadership including Bruce Harvey and his team.

These agreements are not just about money and payment benefits, though that may be included. More generally and more importantly, they are about a process of coming together and building trust such that the agreement is an outcome of the relationship, not a legal document prescribing or dictating one. Formal mediation has sometimes been an important part of the processes ending up in these agreements, but building a relationship cannot be outsourced. It requires hard work, good communication and good will on both sides. It is perhaps, surprising, that the extractive sector should be leading the way in previous ‘enemies’ coming together for broader social good!