I'm going to slow down a bit.
The broadening of involvement in development initiatives is risky. This situation of partnership creates a disconnection from the responsibilities directly linked to the mining operation, responsibilities that are now in Chinese hands. This broadening of involvement in development initiatives is risky. It adds to vagueness about responsibilities and it allows companies to move away from commitments related to their mining operations.
We should not forget that CSR was primarily developed as a response to resistance against mining operations. Loss of livelihoods, ways of life, and threats in local communities triggered resistance, and CSR was a response to this. CSR is an acknowledgement that companies have responsibilities beyond their employees; they are also responsible for people who may be negatively affected by mining operations. Issues of compensation, redistribution of wealth, and offsetting are based on the idea that mining inherently disturbs social and ecological environments. It's the company's responsibility to mitigate social and environmental damage caused by its operations, a responsibility that I think should be mandatory, regulated, and monitored.
The public-private partnerships should not open doors for mining companies to walk away from these on-site responsibilities. Therefore, I would like to argue that the goals set by the public-private partnership can be achieved only by, first, assigning the different partners clearly distinct tasks and responsibilities, and second, maintaining an awareness that the first job is to prevent resource curse and negative adverse effects.
The goals formulated by the Canadian public-private partnerships set pertinent benchmarks for this task. CIDA has singled out three areas of intervention: children's rights, food security, and livelihoods. These goals imply that companies have to organize mining without menacing local food security and livelihoods. This makes land use into a major issue. In a poor and largely rural country like Burkina Faso, food security and livelihoods are primarily related to agriculture, rearing of livestock, and artisanal mining.
I would argue that Canadian mining companies such as IAMGOLD and SEMAFO take their responsibilities for their mining operation as their main focus for development targets.
In the mining operations of both these companies in Burkina, lessons can continue to be learned. In 2008, SEMAFO paid cash to compensate farmers for loss of agricultural lands. How this has changed the subsistence economy and the social relations within communities made headlines at the time. SEMAFO did abide by the rules, but these rules need to be looked into.
The report of 2002 by the MMSD warns of the negative effects of monetary compensation for land—unsustainability of livelihoods and social relations. For instance, these cash inflows have adverse effects on the position of women.
I think development efforts of companies should remain focused on on-site subsistence issues, with food security and livelihoods as a benchmark. “Land matches mouth” in countries like Burkina.
Of course, mining operations also generate jobs and can create livelihoods beyond the traditional subsistence activities. Indeed, with about 2,200 employees, the IAMGOLD mine is the biggest private employer in Burkina Faso. Moreover, the company has initiated activities for market gardening.
However, this did not prevent tensions building up around the mine. Just this week the roads to and from the mine were blocked by youth demanding that IAMGOLD live up to the job promises they made.
I am fully aware that these issues of job promises are complex, but they show the importance of firm commitments and strategies in the field of job creation and procurement. Local populations and national host countries rightly demand that mining have a tangible link with development. In my view, this gives all partners involved a strong incentive to urge mining companies to stay put, so to speak, and focus their efforts on land issues and economic spinoffs directly linked to the site where they mine.
I'm particularly concerned that the current trend for Canadian public-private partnerships, together with a broadening of a form of offsetting, may allow for moves away from the real tasks, responsibilities, and sites of social and environmental challenges.
In conclusion, I recognize that currently public-private partnerships are only part of the CSR programs of companies. In fact, the amount of company money involved in these initiatives is rather marginal. These initiatives are, however, presented as a trend for the future. With that in mind, I've tried to argue that the new public-private partnerships risk blurring responsibilities. Moreover, responsibilities of mining companies risk becoming disconnected from the sites and issues that really matter to local populations.
The new public-private partnerships should not lead attention away from two central tasks, one for public actors, the other for private enterprise. For the public actor, the Government of Canada, the tasks should continue to be focused on bilateral public-public partnerships that are crucial for institutional development, in particular in young mining countries such as Burkina Faso. For the private enterprise, for Canadian or other multinational large-scale mining initiatives, the focus should be on proper processes of negotiation with local populations and a focus on social and environmental mitigation in order to prevent economic exclusion and development deficits.
Thank you.