The primary aim of the report is to understand the mechanisms and instruments that governments are using to manage resettlement risks in the mining sector. Key findings show that the existing international standards have been unevenly incorporated into national frameworks.
The study authors compare legally binding instruments related to mining induced displacement and resettlement (MIDR) across six mining jurisdictions – Botswana, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Papua New Guinea and Peru – and benchmark these against requirements from the international lender community. Examining the extent to which national-level systems are responding to pressure from the international lender community is important for two reasons: first, these developments indicate the level of alignment between lenders and sovereign governments on the importance of codifying safeguard standards and procedures into national law and regulation; and second, the extent to which national-level instruments align with global safeguard frameworks provides valuable insight into the likely difficulties that lenders, companies, governments and local citizens will face when negotiating how resettlement events are designed, planned, and implemented.
This report was supported by research funds provided by The University of Queensland’s Vice Chancellor’s strategic fund, core operating funds from the Sustainable Minerals Institute (SMI) and pooled contributions of five mining companies: Anglo American, Newcrest, Newmont, MMG and Rio Tinto. These parties participate in the Mining, Resettlement and Livelihoods: Research and Practice Consortium, which is hosted by the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM), part of the SMI.