Participatory Environmental Monitoring in Mining Contexts: A Practitioner Checklist to Start PEM
Preliminary work to initiate: Consider whether PEM is a fit
Assessing whether PEM is a fit
If PEM will be implemented for the first time, it can be beneficial to consider whether this approach fits the specific context. PEM can be initiated by either a non-governmental organization or NGO, a State agency, the local community group or the mining producer. Whoever takes on the role, the initiator and conveners should devote some time to reflect on the suitability and fit of this type of monitoring to the specific context where it will be implemented. While PEM is sufficiently flexible to be applied in a broad range of situations, the effort must be backed by strong determination.
You can download a worksheet and use it to write down your thoughts about the proposed discussion questions as part of the planning.
First, a minimum of environmental governance should be in place. While it is difficult to provide specific thresholds that PEM will be feasible, the following list provides several topics that should be considered by the initiators when deciding to go forward with PEM:
- The existence of environmental regulations that mining producers need to comply with,
- Responsiveness from State agencies or elected officials that oversee mining,
- Enough personal safety for everyone involved, especially community members,
- Willingness to participate from all relevant parties.
If the conditions above are in place, in Step 1, the Checklist gives ideas on how to introduce and socialize the concept of PEM, bring all parties on board, understand the regulatory context, and assess the production context. If the conditions for PEM are not in place, for example, in situations of violent conflict, other actions that go beyond the scope of PEM can be considered first to improve the governance of the mineral sector and enable stronger public participation:
- Improved planning, earlier on: When governments and other actors engage in long-term, transparent planning, it can help local communities develop sustainably, reduce conflict risk, and help rural communities prepare. Meaningful engagement helps to put conditions in place for the local community to benefit when projects proceed, as part of a broader development plan. This requires governance capacity building at the local level.
- Addressing land ownership issues: In many remote areas, resolving land use and land ownership issues can contribute to reducing the risk of conflict escalating.
- The need for fair distribution of benefits: Ensuring that the benefit distribution system allocates benefits fairly helps to avoid conflict.
- Build capacity for implementing environmental regulations among all actors Environmental degradation and pollution consistently drive social conflicts and tension. Companies and governments adhering to higher environmental standards than legally required can help to mitigate extractive conflicts.
Second, in practical terms, a minimum of resources must be available to make PEM viable. This means:
- Sufficient time to work with communities and conduct monitoring activities,
- Sufficient funds to support the effort. PEM is not necessarily expensive, as the monitoring initiative could vary from sophisticated (e.g., using specialized equipment) to simple (e.g., taking pictures). In Step 3, the Checklist delves into financing PEM and the appropriate equipment.
Third, PEM has limits. This type of initiative will not prevent all potential environmental, social, cultural or spiritual impacts of mining. As identified in a previous report (Pareja et al., 2019), some communities and people disagree with large-scale mining. For them, the problem goes beyond the environmental effects and has more to do with opposing views on how development should occur within their territories. In these cases, a monitoring initiative has no power to eliminate differences. (For other approaches to strengthening environmental governance of mining see four actions above). Mining activities can occur in Indigenous territories and come into conflict with Indigenous world-views. Although monitoring may increase trust and reduce impacts, acceptance of these ventures is not guaranteed.
While monitoring and subsequent action diminish the risk of adverse impacts, there will still be some impacts from mining. For example, families and communities may need to be relocated from a region, creating disruptions in personal livelihoods and community history. Another example is the inevitable impact of the removal of topsoil, landmass movement or the occupation of vast sections of land during mining, even if it will undergo reclamation or remediation later.
Some guiding questions that could be considered when deciding on the suitability of PEM are:
- How well is the concept of environmental monitoring in general, and participatory monitoring specifically, understood in the region or country where it will be implemented?
- Are the three key parties present: mining companies or producers, the State and local communities?
- Is there a trusted party that can take on a facilitating role? Maybe an NGO?
- Is there widespread community opposition to mining operations? If yes, is there ongoing overt conflict (e.g., blockades, protests, security or safety issues) that could affect the PEM effort?
- Would it be safe for community members to participate in an effort like PEM? Is there violent or armed conflict present in local areas?
In conflict affected areas, some additional considerations are:
- Are there currently land conflicts or human rights concerns that would have to be addressed at the early stages of a PEM initiative? What conditions must be in place to ensure PEM can be carried out safely?
- When conflict is present, how can PEM be safely set up as an approach to identify strategies for sustainable remediation of the territory impacted by mining activity? What has been learned from countries who carried out PEM work in conflict settings?
- Read an example of citizen monitoring initiative undertaken as part of an agreement emerging from a conflict resolution dialogue process in the Loreto Department in Peru (Bernuy Arenas, 2019).