What Participation? Distinguishing Water Monitoring Programs in Mining Regions Based on Community Participation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods. Characterizing Community Involvement in Participatory Water Monitoring in the Mining Sector
- A central agency identifies a situation to be monitored, designs a monitoring scheme and asks the community to operate it.
- A multi-actor board of directors is created in a collaborative fashion. Later, this board designs and performs the monitoring.
- The community identifies a situation to be monitored, designs a monitoring scheme and executes it.
- In this framework, the three stages of citizen participation are called conveying, designing and execution, respectively.
- Externally driven and professionally executed, i.e., monitoring is designed, performed and interpreted by experts from outside the community.
- Externally driven, with local data collectors, i.e., monitoring is designed and interpreted by outside experts, but data is collected by local community members.
- Collaborative monitoring with external data interpretation, i.e., the monitoring program is designed in collaboration with the local community and the data is also collected locally. However, outside experts are responsible for the interpretation.
- Collaborative monitoring with local data interpretation, i.e., the monitoring is collaboratively designed by community members and outsiders, the data is collected locally and management decisions and data interpretation is led by the local group. Since this is a collaborating approach, both the monitoring institution and the community participate.
- Autonomous local monitoring, i.e., the monitoring program is completely designed, implemented and interpreted by community members. An external monitoring institution or company, does not participate.
- “Conceptualization” reflects which group convenes and designs the monitoring process and therefore acts as the leader. Like Reference [31], in this category PWM endeavors are classified as (a) “externally-led,” when the company or the government leads and designs the process; (b) “collaborative,” when the community has a say in the process design; and (c) “locally-led,” when the community leads and designs the process by itself or with the support of a non-governmental organization (NGO).
- “Collection” distinguishes between (a) “professional” or (b) “local” data collection. Local collection refers to local residents or community members taking samples or collecting data.
- “Interpretation” is either (a) “external” or (b) “local”. External interpretation occurs when the monitoring data or samples are sent to professionals for analysis and interpretation, such as when water samples are sent to laboratories for comparison to national standards. Local interpretation occurs when community members perform this work. Examples of local interpretation include a community member with the technical skills to perform or fully understand related data analysis, or when monitoring and analysis is made in vernacular terms such as color or taste of water.
- Monitoreo participativo agua mineria OR minera OR mina
- Monitoreo comunitario agua mineria OR minera OR mina
- Veeduría ambiental agua minería OR minera OR mina
- Monitoreo participativo agua mineria OR minera OR mina—peru–Perú
- Monitoreo comunitario agua mineria OR minera OR mina—peru–Perú
3. Results
3.1. Search Results and Case Identification
3.2. Characterizing of Monitoring Groups Using the Three Features
3.3. Partial Characterization
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Prno, J.; Scott Slocombe, D. Exploring the origins of “social license to operate” in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resour. Policy 2012, 37, 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, A.; Moffat, K.; Lacey, J.; Wang, J.; González, R.; Uribe, K.; Cui, L.; Dai, Y. Understanding the social licence to operate of mining at the national scale: A comparative study of Australia, China and Chile. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 1063–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beirele, T.; Cayford, J. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions; Resources for the Future Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; ISBN 9781891853548. [Google Scholar]
- ICMM. Research on Company-Community Conflict; ICMM: London, UK, 2015; Available online: https://www.icmm.com/website/publications/pdfs/social-and-economic-development/8515.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2018).
- Franks, D.M.; Davis, R.; Bebbington, A.J.; Ali, S.H.; Kemp, D.; Scurrah, M. Conflict translates environmental and social risk into business costs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Andrews, T.; Elizalde, B.; Le Billon, P.; Hoon Oh, C.; Reyes, D.; Thomson, I. The Rise in Conflict Associated with Mining Operations: What Lies Beneath? Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI): Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 1–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moffat, K.; Zhang, A. The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resour. Policy 2014, 39, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Finance Corporation (IFC) Infrastructure & Natural Resources Advisory Team. Water in the Mining Sector: Shared Water, Shared Responsibility, Shared Approach; IFC: London, UK, 2017; Available online: https://www.icmm.com/website/publications/pdfs/water/170321_icmm-ifc_shared-water-shared-responsibility.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2018).
- Kunz, N.C.; Moran, C.J. Sharing the benefits from water as a new approach to regional water targets for mining companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bebbington, A.; Williams, M. Water and Mining Conflicts in Peru. Mt. Res. Dev. 2008, 28, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haslam, P.A.; Ary Tanimoune, N. The Determinants of social conflict in the Latin American mining sector: New evidence with quantitative data. World Dev. 2016, 78, 401–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Himley, M. Monitoring the impacts of extraction: Science and participation in the governance of mining in Peru. Environ. Plan. A 2014, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, J.; Kunz, N. Water stewardship: Attributes of collaborative partnerships between mining companies and communities. Water 2018, 10, 1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bebbington, A.J.; Bury, J.T. Institutional challenges for mining and sustainability in Peru. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 17296–17301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Xavier, A.; Leon, A.; Carlier, A.; Bernales, M.; Klein, B. The role of participatory environmental monitoring committees in mining regions in Peru. Geo-Resour. Environ. Eng. 2017, 2, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CAO. Participatory Water Monitoring: A Guide for Preventing and Managing Conflict; CAO: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; Available online: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/howwework/advisor/documents/watermoneng.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2018).
- Kelly, R.; Fleming, A.; Pecl, G.; Richter, A.; Bonn, A.; Schiller, F.; Str, D. Social licence through citizen science: A tool for marine conservation. bioRxiv 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvertown, J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 467–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burgess, H.K.; DeBey, L.B.; Froehlich, H.E.; Schmidt, N.; Theobald, E.J.; Ettinger, A.K.; HilleRisLambers, J.; Tewksbury, J.; Parrish, J.K. The science of citizen science: Exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 208, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kruger, L.E.; Shannon, M.A. Getting to know ourselves and our places through participation in civic social assessment. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2000, 13, 461–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farnham, D.J.; Gibson, R.A.; Hsueh, D.Y.; McGillis, W.R.; Culligan, P.J.; Zain, N.; Buchanan, R. Citizen science-based water quality monitoring: Constructing a large database to characterize the impacts of combined sewer overflow in New York City. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 580, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carr, A.J.L. Why do we all need community science? Soc. Nat. Resour. 2004, 17, 841–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad, C.C.; Hilchey, K.G. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: Issues and opportunities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 176, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Danielsen, F.; Burgess, N.D.; Balmford, A. Monitoring matters: Examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 2507–2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouveia, C.; Fonseca, A.; Câmara, A.; Ferreira, F. Promoting the use of environmental data collected by concerned citizens through information and communication technologies. J. Environ. Manag. 2004, 71, 135–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dickinson, J.L.; Zuckerberg, B.; Bonter, D.N. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2010, 41, 149–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fore, L.S.; Paulsen, K.; O’Laughlin, K. Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshw. Biol. 2001, 46, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Overduin, N.; Moore, M.L. Social license to operate: Not a proxy for accountability in water governance. Geoforum 2017, 85, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leifsen, E.; Sánchez-Vázquez, L.; Reyes, M.G. Claiming prior consultation, monitoring environmental impact: counterwork by the use of formal instruments of participatory governance in Ecuador’s emerging mining sector. Third World Q. 2017, 38, 1092–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helwege, A. Challenges with resolving mining conflicts in Latin America. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2015, 2, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danielsen, F.; Burgess, N.D.; Balmford, A.; Donald, P.F.; Funder, M.; Jones, J.P.G.; Alviola, P.; Balete, D.S.; Blomley, T.; Brashares, J.; et al. Local participation in natural resource monitoring: A characterization of approaches. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 23, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turreira-García, N.; Lund, J.F.; Domínguez, P.; Carrillo-Anglés, E.; Brummer, M.C.; Duenn, P.; Reyes-García, V. What’s in a name? Unpacking “participatory” environmental monitoring. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, J. From social risk to shared purpose: Reframing Mining’s Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Odell, C.J.; Scoble, M.; Bullard, J.R. Improving socio-environmental outcomes at Andean mines. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2011, 25, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adler Miserendino, R.; Bergquist, B.A.; Adler, S.E.; Guimarães, J.R.D.; Lees, P.S.J.; Niquen, W.; Velasquez-López, P.C.; Veiga, M.M. Challenges to measuring, monitoring andaddressing the cumulative impacts of artisanal and small-scale gold mining in Ecuador. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 713–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- What’s Wrong with Google Scholar for “Systematic” Reviews. Available online: https://etechlib.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/whats-wrong-with-google-scholar-for-systematic-reviews/ (accessed on 20 September 2018).
- Mahood, Q.; Van Eerd, D.; Irvin, E. Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: Challenges and benefits. Res. Synth. Methods 2014, 5, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godin, K.; Stapleton, J.; Kirkpatrick, S.I.; Hanning, R.M.; Leatherdale, S.T. Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: A case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ottinger, G. Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2010, 35, 244–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, E.D.G.; Dougill, A.J.; Mabee, W.E.; Reed, M.; McAlpine, P. Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 78, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gray, G.J.; Enzer, M.J.; Kusel, J. Understanding community-based forest ecosystem management: An editorial synthesis. J. Sustain. For. 2001, 12, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, S.M. A feminist perspective on technical communicative action: exploring how alternative worlviews affect environmental remediation efforts. Tech. Commun. Q. 1994, 3, 325–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bridge, G. Contested terrain: Mining and the Environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2004, 29, 205–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Environment. Ley General Del Ambiente; Ministry of Environment: Lima, Peru, 2005. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Establecen Disposiciones Para La Prórroga Excepcional De Plazos Para El Cumplimiento De Proyectos Medioambientales Específicos Contemplados En Programas De Adecuación Ambiental; Ministry of Energy and Mines: Lima, Peru, 2004. (In Spanish)
- Reglamento De Participación Ciudadana En El Sub Sector Minero; Ministry of Energy and Mines: Lima, Peru, 2008. (In Spanish)
- Danielsen, F.; Burgess, N.D.; Jensen, P.M.; Pirhofer-Walzl, K. Environmental monitoring: The scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of peoples involvement. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 1166–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ottinger, G. Constructing Empowerment through Interpretations of Environmental Surveillance Data. Surveill. Soc. 2010, 8, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Country | Criteria for Creating Case | Case Name |
---|---|---|
Argentina | Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Barrick Gold, Veladero (Community initiative) |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Barrick Gold, Veladero (Official initiative) | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Orocobre (Sales de Jujuy), Olaroz lithium | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Troy Resources, Casposo | |
Bolivia | Explicit mining company, project and leadership | COMIBOL, Huanuni |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Glencore, Sinchi Wayra | |
Explicit mining company and leadership | Minera Bolivar | |
Chile | Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Andes Iron, Dominga |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Antofagasta Minerals, Los Pelambres (Cuenca del Choapa initiative) | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Antofagasta Minerals, Los Pelambres (Other initiatives) | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | BHP, Escondida | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | CODELCO, El Teniente | |
Colombia | Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Anglogold Ashanti, La Colosa |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Continental Gold, Buritica | |
Dominican Republic | Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Barrick Gold, Pueblo Viejo |
Ecuador | Explicit mining company, project and leadership | ENAMI Ecuador, Llurimagua |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Lundin Gold, Fruta del norte | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Taller Caritas | |
Guatemala | Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Goldcorp, Marlin |
Multi-National | Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Intercambio experiencias |
Mexico | Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Goldcorp, Peñasquito |
Panama | Explicit mining company, project and leadership | First Quatum, Cobre Panama |
Peru | Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Aguila Dorada, Yaku Entsa |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Anglo American, Quellaveco (4th campaing) | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Anglo American, Quellaveco (5th campaing) | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Aruntani SAC, Arasi | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Aruntani SAC, Tucari | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | BHP, Antamina | |
Explicit mining company and leadership | Buenaventura | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Buenaventura, Orcopampa | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Buenaventura, Rio Seco | |
Explicit mining company and leadership | CENTROMIN | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Cerro SAC, Cerro Pasco | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Coimolache, Tantahuatay | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Freeport McMoran, Cerro Verde | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Glencore, Antapaccay | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Goldfields, Cerro Corona | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Marcobre, Mina Justa | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Milpo, Cerro Lindo | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Minera Raura, Raura | |
Explicit mining company and leadership | Minera Volcan | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Minsur, Pucamara | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Newmont, Yanacocha | |
Not explicit mining company or project, but explicit civil society organization | Encuentro Macro Norte | |
Not explicit mining company or project, but explicit civil society organization | Encuentro Sur Andino | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Peru LNG, LNG | |
Multiple companies, Government-led | Peruvian Government, not explicit river basin | |
Multiple companies, Government-led, explicit river basin | Peruvian Government, Canipia Salado river basin | |
Multiple companies, Government-led, explicit river basin | Peruvian Government, Espinar river basin | |
Multiple companies, Government-led, explicit river basin | Peruvian Government, Grande river basin | |
Multiple companies, Government-led, explicit river basin | Peruvian Government, Huara river basin | |
Multiple companies, Government-led, explicit river basin | Peruvian Government, Llaucano river basin | |
Multiple companies, Government-led, explicit river basin | Peruvian Government, Moche river basin | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Southern Peaks Mining, Tia Maria | |
Explicit mining company, project and leadership | Teck Resources, Zafranal |
Number of Cases | Interpretation: External | Interpretation: Locally | Interpretation: No Information | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Collection: Local | Collection: Professional | Collection: No info. | Collection: Local | Collection: Professional | Collection: No info. | Collection: Local | Collection: Professional | Collection: No info. | |
Conceptualization: Externally-led | 2 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
Conceptualization: Collaborative | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
Conceptualization: Community-led | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
No information | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pareja, C.; Honey-Rosés, J.; Kunz, N.C.; Fraser, J.; Xavier, A. What Participation? Distinguishing Water Monitoring Programs in Mining Regions Based on Community Participation. Water 2018, 10, 1325. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101325
Pareja C, Honey-Rosés J, Kunz NC, Fraser J, Xavier A. What Participation? Distinguishing Water Monitoring Programs in Mining Regions Based on Community Participation. Water. 2018; 10(10):1325. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101325
Chicago/Turabian StylePareja, Claudio, Jordi Honey-Rosés, Nadja C. Kunz, Jocelyn Fraser, and André Xavier. 2018. "What Participation? Distinguishing Water Monitoring Programs in Mining Regions Based on Community Participation" Water 10, no. 10: 1325. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101325