Will Rifkin

Challenges of integrated modelling in mining regions to address social, environmental and economic impacts

Planning in mining regions needs to accommodate the extraction of minerals/energy resources in co-existence with established land uses, such as agriculture and ecological conservation. Here, we first identify six critical aspects of planning in mining regions: i) the temporal nature of mining operations; ii) spatial dimensions of mining operations; iii) irreversible changes that create post-mining landscapes; iv) social dimensions of mining impacts and corporate responsibility; v) cumulative dimensions of impacts; and vi) a need to integrate methods from a range of disciplines. We then illustrate the potential to address these challenges using integrative modelling nested within a participatory approach to allow for clear, transparent, and stakeholder-inclusive decision-making. We describe a 5-step framework that supports a broadening of strategic assessments and offers mining companies forewarning about potential environmental and social conflicts. Case studies are needed to assess and refine the proposed framework and develop guidance for its use. Display Omitted Planning for mining regions needs to accommodate multiple established land uses.Five aspects of mining affect the application of integrated regional modelling.We describe an integrated, multi-disciplinary modelling approach for mining regions.Such modelling and decision making need to be participatory in order to reduce conflict.This framework supports a broadening of strategic assessments for mining.

What makes stakeholder engagement in social licence “meaningful”? Practitioners’ conceptualisations of dialogue

ABSTRACT Social licence to operate (SLO) acknowledges the need for extractive industries to move beyond regulatory requirements into social accountability, which requires engagement between companies and their stakeholders. Engagement efforts point to dialogue as being integral for increasing the inclusivity of, for example, land-use decision-making in rural governance. Since little research explores what constitutes “constructive dialogue”, this research empirically explored how dialogue is conceptualised by expert engagement practitioners in SLO. Practitioners conceptualised constructive dialogue as both a threshold for, and an indicator of, social licence. This finding aligns with academic theorisation of dialogue wherein dialogue represents a collaborative form of engagement core to the development of SLO. Practitioners suggested dialogue is most commonly, and potentially problematically, operationalised as a goal-oriented process, aligning with previous work suggesting a “spectrum of dialogue” from strategic to learning-oriented. Contextual realities, such as time and costs, define where implemented dialogue practice ultimately falls. Analysis of practitioners’ views suggests industry and academia may consider future engagement practice and research in light of the centrality of reciprocal dialogic processes for increasing the inclusivity of SLO processes.