GOAL 11: MAKE CITIES AND HUMAN SETTLEMENTS INCLUSIVE, SAFE, RESILIENT, AND SUSTAINABLE

Oleh: Laura Gracia Jaramillo

1. IMPACTS OF MINING ON SDG 11

a. Natural Synergies and Positive Impacts
Mining indirectly contributes to making cities and settlements inclusive, safe, resilient
and sustainable by producing many of the raw materials used in construction and for the
energy transition to cleaner power generation; by creating jobs and contributing to creating
an enabling environment for businesses; and by paying taxes and royalties that enable
governments to fund social development programs.
The presence of mining projects and operations revitalises the economy through the
mine’s value chain, indirectly helping to transform productive capacities; and the
infrastructure that is built or improved for mining projects and operations can improve
people’s access to the benefits of development, and improve connectivity and access to
public and social services. The construction of a mining project or a mining operation can
also bring more security and contribute to peace-building as there are usually public or
private security forces that provide security to the area of influence.
Stakeholder Engagement, Corporate Social Responsibility and Socio-Economic
Development programs constitute a direct way in which mining could contribute to SDG 11.
When strategically and holistically structured and implemented, these programs could
encourage communities to organise and empower themselves to participate in decision-
making; social investment programs are usually aimed at meeting communities’ most urgent
and basic needs (such as infrastructure, access to public services, health and education
services, among others); and socio-economic development programs may contribute to
inclusiveness and resilience as they are usually focused on capacity and skill-building that
improve access to employment, and are targeted especially on vulnerable groups,
contributing to improve their livelihoods and overcome dependence on only one economic
activity.
Some of the most tangible positive impacts of mining on SDG 11 that can be drawn from
the sustainability reports of the five major companies in 2018*, can be outlined as follows.
b. Sustainable Development and Resilience
Resilient communities have better protection against climate change and environmental
shocks; and they work to reduce risks and prevent crises (whether from manmade or
natural causes).
The natural synergy between mining and climate change relates to the production of the
materials for the energy transition, as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, major mining
companies are moving towards carbon-free operations and creating new technologies to
operate waterless operations and electric fleets. This represents a benefit for the
neighbouring communities that in the future will experience fewer environmental impacts
from mining operations.
Very common and well-established practices in mining, such as safety, health and
environmental risk and impact management and emergency preparedness and response,
could be considered as another natural contribution of mining to sustainable communities,
specifically to resilience and safety, and to the prevention of crisis, although it is related
exclusively to risks created by the specific operation and poses risks that will be further
analysed.
Due to increasing social scrutiny, and to events such as those in Brazil where two tailings
dams have collapsed in the past two years, leading to the loss of more than 200 lives and
large material losses, mining associations and major mining companies are increasing their
efforts to integrate into their risk and impact management systems those that can
potentially affect the local communities, and are implementing methodologies and
strategies to facilitate community’s involvement in the response planning.
According to the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM):
“while industry has a responsibility to be prepared for emergencies through internal
mechanisms, it’s equally important to work with communities living near mine sites to
increase their understanding of potential threats to safety and security. These threats can be
both actual – from direct and indirect exposure to risks – or psychological – caused by fear of
the unknown impacts of a potential incident. Both real and perceived risks damage social
confidence and trust in the industry […] through implementation of a robust emergency
preparedness mechanisms, mining and metals companies are able to responsibly respond to
potential hazards in a way that is timely and sympathetic to the strengths and vulnerabilities
of operations and communities.”
The most robust methodology for the integration and involvement of communities into
risk and impact management is the APELL Process (Awareness and Preparedness for
Emergencies at Local Level), developed by the United Nations Development Program
(UNDP), which:
“aims at creating a cohesive and resilient community in the face of technological or
natural hazards through raising awareness and agreement on roles and responsibilities of all
community stakeholders in potential preparedness and response measures. This is achieved
by assisting decision-makers and technical personnel to increase community awareness and
to prepare coordinated response plans involving industry, government, and the local
community, in the event that unexpected events should endanger life, property or the
environment”
Companies such as Anglo American integrate into their social policy the management of
social impacts, social incidents and community health and safety, in line with the IFC
Performance Standard 4 Community Health, Safety and Security, in an effort that seeks to
identify, assess, prevent and manage risks and impacts on communities with the
involvement of the potentially affected stakeholders. The company has implemented the
APELL methodology in Chile, in partnership with the UNDP, to improve the community’s
ability to react to a potential tailings dam failure or burst.
There is an additional component to SDG 11 related to promoting human security, while
helping address humanitarian, peace-building and longer-term development efforts globally.
Mining has a substantial role to play in this area through the security function and the
implementation of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (VPSHR). In order
to secure their facilities, mining companies usually bring public or private forces. Even
though this poses risks on HR (that will be looked at in another subsection of this chapter),
on the positive side, implementation of VPSHR and the UN Guiding Principles on Business
 and Human Rights helps to protect the right to peaceful assembly, to freedom of expression,
and, when implemented fully, helps the protection of defenders of human rights.
In their sustainability report for 2018, Glencore reports their support of peacebuilding in
Colombia, a country that recently signed a peace accord with the oldest guerrilla group in
the world that concluded in their demobilisation and transformation into a political party.
Glencore expresses it is supportive of the steps taken by the government through:
strengthening local capacities; implementing integrated rural development projects on non-
mining lands; promoting a corporate culture of peace; and responsibly managing its impacts
within the framework of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the
UN Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. This is a very sensitive area that is
not free of risk and conflicts, as will be analysed further in this chapter.
Once again, widespread knowledge and acceptance of their rights present a community
with a significant opportunity for their own development, as it raises levels of awareness
that empower them to organise, to act and to grow in reconciliation.
Through their HR and CSR programs, mining companies also contribute to peace-
building, bringing governance to remote areas normally beyond the scope of local
governments.
c. Inclusiveness

There are evident contributions of mining to enabling all groups of people to

contribute to creating opportunities, to sharing in the benefits of development (access to
sustainable livelihoods) and creating productive capacities and employment for all, through
capacity- and skill-building programs, through local procurement and employing members
of local communities, and through identifying and prioritising vulnerable*† and marginalised
groups for this type of program.

For example, Glencore and Rio Tinto‡ have implemented indigenous employment
programs in Australia, Mongolia and Canada; while Anglo American has implemented youth
work-readiness and local workforce development programs, and training plans for non-
mining jobs in developing countries such as Peru and South Africa.

Resettlement and land management could be considered another contribution of

mining to sustainable livelihoods, legal housing and affordable basic services.* When done
in line with international standards, such as the International Financing Corporation (IFC)
Performance Standards, the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM)
recommendations, among other best practices, a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), a
Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP), and even the negotiation process with the affected
community, should represent a holistic improvement in their quality of life, as, according to
the standards, at the end of the process they should be in better conditions than in their
place of origin, should have sustainable livelihoods, should have legal rights over their
houses and land and should not be in a vulnerable condition.

In 2018, the five major mining companies conducted resettlement programs in

different geographies, most of them in developing countries (Brazil, Colombia, Mongolia,
South Africa). Even though all of them report implementing these resettlements in line with
IFC Performance Standard 5 on land acquisition and resettlement, they also report that
these processes are not finished, as many families refuse to move; furthermore, research
shows that this process poses more challenges and risks than benefits, as will be presented
in the next subsection of this chapter.

There are also direct and indirect contributions to equitable land development. As
access to land is critical for mining operations, companies tend to partner with local
governments in order to improve land management according to its potential, and even
make partnerships with local governments to ensure legalisation of land, a critical issue in
developing countries and those with customary land ownership.

Mining operations also contribute to management of project-induced immigration;

this management can have positive spillover effects on local governments’ capacity to
respond to this phenomenon, by the expansion of the local capacity to provide basic social
and public services, improve safety and security and manage risks that otherwise would
have remained in the shadows, such as people trafficking, prostitution, drug and alcohol
abuse, among others.

Another important component of inclusiveness is the ability of communities to

participate in decision-making following the UNDP’s development principle of participation,
non-discrimination and accountability. Regarding mining activities, this can be translated
into the Socio-Political License to Operate (SPLTO).† The social performance standards of
the five major mining companies establish stakeholder engagement as a pillar of their
relationship with local communities, and most of them also have complaints and grievance
mechanisms to ensure a fair interaction with their workforce and external stakeholders.

For instance, in the updated version of their social policy, the Social Way, Anglo
American sets guiding principles for stakeholder engagement – such as dialoguebased,
strategic, proactive, clear and direct, inclusive, ongoing, shared and understood internally –
establishing clear rules for building a mutually beneficial relationship with those affected
and those that can affect an operation. The contribution to SDG 11 of such a practice is, first
and foremost, the recognition that there are affected parties and not only parties that can
affect the operation. Such stakeholder engagement practice can also encourage
communities to organise themselves, or to strengthen their existing organisations in order
to interact with the company in more equal conditions, so they are able to set the terms of
the relationship; this enables them to create win–win agreements and to obtain benefits
from the operations, besides allowing them to be informed in a transparent, well-
communicated and timely manner about the operations, impacts and benefits of a specific
operation.

Additionally, when done in line with international standards and best practices,
stakeholder engagement plans should identify vulnerable stakeholders, indigenous peoples
and other marginalised groups, in order to design specific mechanisms to ensure their voices
are heard, and their opinions and needs are included in social programs.

Due to the increasing scrutiny by civil society of mining companies, they are now
more open and are creating different accountability mechanisms, which gradually create
spaces for locals to participate in decision-making.
 These practices could be a contribution to SDG 11 as they can enable communities
and their social organisations to find common interests, to empower themselves, to raise
their voices when interacting and negotiating with mining companies, and also to ensure the
companies implement culturally and environmentally adequate impact and risk prevention
and mitigation measures. While difficult to measure, this empowering dynamic can facilitate
movement of communities from very basic levels of self-preservation towards a more
inclusive approach and way of living.

Nevertheless, even stakeholder engagement may pose risks to SDG 11, as will now
be presented.

d. Risks And Impacts of Mining For SDG 11

Even though, as already presented, mining projects and operations have natural
synergies with fulfilling SDG 11, and also make contributions to achieving some of the SDG
targets, these potential contributions also pose risks to and have adverse impacts on the
community´s capacity to be or become inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.

Mining-induced displacement and resettlement can be considered one of the

highest socio-cultural and economic impacts of mining, as it affects access to land,
livelihoods, social networks and cultural practices, and the adaptation of communities to
their new environment. Restoration of livelihoods and cultural networks is a long-term
process that might not be fulfilled, due to conditions such as: lack of capacity of the
receiving communities; relocation into less productive land; weak local government that
fails to insert new communities into their public and social services infrastructure and
systems; increased dependency on the mining operation, the LRP and the mine during the
process, among other conditions.

Involuntary resettlement can be triggered by unplanned or unidentified

environmental impacts. Such is the case of the El Hatillo, Boqueron and Plan Bonito
communities in northern Colombia, where a ruling by the Ministry of Environment, Housing
and Development obliged Drummond, Vale and Prodeco to resettle these three
communities due to air pollution caused by the coal dust produced at the three coal mining
operations in the region operated by each of these companies. The ruling was made in 2010,
and, to date, the resettlement has not been completed. The uncertainty around the RAP and
LRP, and around the negotiation process and the responsibilities of the involved parties
(government, companies, communities), has had a psychological effect on the communities
and individuals; it has created conflict and put people’s lives on hold, which has impacted
their resilience and the sustainability of their livelihoods, not to mention the impacts on the
environment and on health, especially of the most vulnerable such as children and the
elderly.

Besides resettlement, mining can impact livelihoods as it can cause inflation. In

tribal societies that do not have a cash-based economy, the payment of wages might seem
to be an economic opportunity but in reality it may have not only a cultural impact but it can
decrease the capacity of employees to have a sustainable livelihood, as it forces them to buy
products instead of producing them independently of the mine.
 Stakeholder engagement strategies and activities, that are intended to create trust
and a fair relationship between companies and communities, also pose risks to, and impact
on, inclusiveness and a community’s ability to make decisions independently, as mining
company’s engagement strategies are usually implemented as one-way information
processes: they tend to involve empowered and powerful stakeholders; are limited when
including vulnerable and marginalised people; and community opinion is not usually
included in a company’s decision-making, leaving communities in a state of frustration, and
discouraging participation and inclusion.

Furthermore, as the interactions are usually with politically weak communities,

which lack social organisation and planning capacities, stakeholder engagement can lead to
conflicts within and between communities, competition for social investment benefits, and
conflict between communities and civil society organisations that are pro or against mining.

Innovation and less environmentally impacting operations can have adverse effects
on sustainable development and resilience. For instance, automation, replacement of fleets
by electric vehicles, the operation of waterless mines and the implementation of other
technologies, can impact community access to land and resources, besides reducing the
needs of the workforce and the number of jobs available to locals. New technologies aim to
increase the productivity of mines, which means longer life for assets, and the capacity to
extract more and different types of minerals in the existing mines, which can mean the
generation of more waste, higher dewatering impacts, higher dust pollution, among other
impacts that are to be identified. Additionally, automation demands different skills that
might not be available locally, reducing the opportunity of access to jobs.

The impact of mining on community safety can also be high.

“In 2018, the 26 members of ICMM recorded a total of 50 fatalities […]. [However],
those numbers are clouded by inconsistencies in how miners report their numbers. For
instance, the ICMM recommends that its members count deaths of employees killed
transporting resources, like truck drivers hauling mine production. However, members
including Anglo American PLC, Barrick Gold Corp., and BHP say they don’t always, for
different reasons”

In some cases, community fatalities are not reported, as they are outside the mining
lease or the direct area or influence of the operation. So, while difficult to measure, as
statistics of the safety risks are not completely reliable, mining poses a risk to community
safety due to increased traffic, waste management, water and air pollution, competition for
resources and emergencies such as tailings, dam collapses and other issues related to the
operations.

Sustainable peace-building has become relevant in various countries and is

especially relevant for SDG 11 and a community’s resilience. The Colombia case was
mentioned earlier, and Glencore reports its contribution to peace-building through social
investment programs. However, the company has had allegations of violation of Human
Rights made against it and linkages with illegal groups, also in Colombia, implied† which, if
 they turn out to be true, could undermine not only the company’s contribution to peace-
building, but the community’s ability to live free of violent conflict.

Furthermore, mining companies and, in general, the private sector, does not yet
have a proper understanding of their role in peace-building, due to the business model that
will be now be discussed.

2. LESSONS LEARNED
a. The Business Model

Most major mining companies are committed to investing effort and resources in
specific SDGs, and report against SDGs in their annual Sustainability Reports, SDG 8, 3 and 6
being most frequently included. Some major mining companies report that they contribute
to SDG 11 by partnering with communities and governments for community sustainable
development and resilience.

Nevertheless, some of these efforts are linked to the SDGs, and SDG 11 in particular,
only for reporting purposes, that is to say, the links are not made in the planning process,
and the CSR, SED and stakeholder engagement activities are not aimed at making a systemic
contribution to community sustainable development, safety, resilience and inclusion; these
programs are mostly individual, separate actions, that, combined, can contribute to SDG 11.

Additionally, the key drivers for mining companies to invest in sustainable

communities are mostly related to creating an enabling and stable environment for the
business. These include maintaining social support to the operation (misunderstood as
having and maintaining the SPLTO), ensuring legal compliance, managing operational and
financial risks, creating a positive reputation – all of which ultimately contribute to ensuring
the sustainability and expansion of the business.

The majority of these social programs and contributions present three key issues: (a)
they are not consistent with the corporate policies and standards and are mostly isolated
and dispersed efforts; (b) the majority of them are focused on managing risks to the
business; and (c) they still obey an “enclave” business model.

a) Inconsistency with corporate policies and standards: As is shown in the mining

companies’ sustainability reports, stakeholder engagement, Corporate Social
Responsibility and socio-economic development programs can be seen as
isolated and disperse efforts that i) lack structure, a strategic and long-term
view, and a purpose that could help catalyse SDG-aligned regional development;
ii) are planned and implemented in isolation from each other; iii) are planned
and implemented separately from the life of asset and operational plans; iv) are
not aligned with corporate-level policies, standards and mandates, but obey the
site’s immediate needs; in fact, v) these programs are even, in many cases,
isolated from community priorities, as they are usually not planned in
consultation with the beneficiaries.
So, what has been called natural synergies and mining contributions to SDG 11
could also be called residual effects of “doing business as usual”. This might
 come from a perspective that only focuses on ensuring an enabling environment
for the business, and not on being part of the local and regional socio-economic
dynamics.
b) Managing risks to the business: Mining industry social programs and activities
are shown to be mainly aimed at preventing or responding to: risks to and
impacts on the business; ensuring operational continuity; and to preventing any
social incidents that can affect production, reputation or have legal implications
(blockades, demonstrations, strikes, etc.). This approach often results in “quick
wins” with only a short-term impact, and not a significant contribution to
community sustainability, safety and resilience.
c) The “enclave” model: Most mining companies still operate in a way that does
not fully integrate into the local/regional socio-economic system and dynamics.
This approach leads to a social intervention focused mainly on the area of
influence of the operations or projects, and to investment in short-term
programs. It also leads to an individualistic approach that fails to partner with or
invest in the diverse stakeholders at a regional level, including other mining
companies. If mining companies were to become active actors of the local and
regional dynamics, had an active role in the regional planning and brought their
know-how to their partnerships with governments, other mining companies,
other industries and civil society organisations, they could be catalysts for
regional development and, as a consequence, would have a profitable business.
Right now, the business model is the other way round: the purpose of mining
companies is to have a profitable business and they expect this will have a
positive effect on local economies. Herein lies the limitation of the current
business model.

This business model not only contributes to SDG 11, but can, in fact, exacerbate
vulnerability and induce other vulnerabilities in communities, which constitutes a
hindrance to moving towards a local and regional sustainable development.

b. Challenging Regional and ocal Socio-Economic Context

There are factors that are external to the mining operations and which challenge
their contribution to SDG 11. Mining usually operates in remote, isolated locations where
local communities experience challenges to accessing basic public services (potable water,
sanitation), social services (health, education), have high levels of poverty, are usually
politically weak and are not integrated into the regional development dynamics.

Such communities have high levels of vulnerability, limiting their ability to recover
from the impacts of mining operations. In this context, community priorities are at the self-
protective level, to ensure a basic standard of living and a livelihood that secures access to
food.

As a consequence, communities and even local and regional authorities, lack the
capacity to plan for their sustainable development in the long term, and lack the
empowerment to partner with mining companies to implement actions and plans that
contribute to their sustainable development, inclusion and resilience.
 c. The Role of International Initiatives

There is an increasing number of international initiatives regarding mining’s

contribution to SDGs.* Even though these initiatives may constitute a key driver for mining
companies about their role in regional and local sustainable development, inclusion and
resilience, most of these initiatives do not constitute a requirement for financing projects
(such as the IFC Performance Standards); as a consequence, they are not always fully
implemented.

Despite the positive reputational impact that aligning with the SDGs and committing
to their achievement creates for mining companies, the SDGs are not yet embedded into
companies’ policies, standards, processes and actions on the ground.

International organisations and mining councils have a critical role to play and can
start by including measurable contributions to SDG 11 into their guidelines and standards
for their members, and by assessing operations at the local level with clear criteria.

Furthermore, requiring alignment and strict indicators on the achievement of SDGs,

especially SDG 11, which seeks community safety, inclusion and resilience, as a condition for
financing projects and operations, could help embed good practices further, and to put
them in place through holistic strategies of integration in the local dynamics, through
partnerships with local and regional governments, other mining companies, other economic
sectors and civil society, in order to co-create long term sustainable development plans that
ensure independence from mining.

d. Way Forward

The mining sector’s purpose must continue to evolve beyond creation of value for
shareholders and impact management, towards a more active role in society, as catalysts of
local and regional sustainable development, community empowerment and social evolution.
This will require companies and the sector at large to structure mechanisms for
incorporating community perspectives into decision-making; to integrate into regional
dynamics through partnerships with the communities and different stakeholders; and to
help create the basis for communities to evolve and move away from self-subsistence
towards a culturally relevant vision of sustainability.

Mining companies, with their know-how, global scope and capacity to influence
governments and international organisms, should evolve towards creating regional
development that, as a consequence, creates an enabling environment for their operations.

3. CONCLUSION
The contribution of mining to SDG 11 is still limited to diverse activities and intervention
in the area of influence of the operations. The key drivers are mostly managing operational risks
and impacts in order to create a stable enabling environment for the business. The current
business model is predominantly based on short-term goals.
When mining companies implement good practices and high standards across the
business, and in all the sites and operations, in a holistic and systemic way, their contribution to
SDG 11 will be more significant, and will trigger and initiate social cohesion, impelling
communities to grow, empower themselves, raise their voices, participate in decision-making,
and own their path towards sustainable development.