There are the long-term commitments that companies have to make. One of the problems you see occurring in countries such as Burkina Faso is the contingency of the mining sector as such. I said in my introduction that I have been working particularly on Canadian exploration countries in Burkina Faso. We have known, in particular over the last few years, that this is a sector with a lot of failing and buying of companies and joint ventures.
This is a very tangible problem on the ground. Communities are confronted with an exploration company coming in and making big promises that they're going to build a mine and that the communities are going to get jobs and water facilities, etc. Of course, they only explore in the beginning, and then they may move on if they do not find any possibility to going to the stage of building a mine. That happens more often than not.
In that sense, I think you're very rightly pointing to the fact that the sector is one that has many changes and changeovers, in the sense that they make promises and then people just disappear, which I've seen happening a lot, and they don't know where they have gone. Then another company comes in at one point and starts making new commitments, but perhaps to the neighbouring village. You can see all sorts of conflicts easily building up.
In that particular context, I think it's very important that companies that enter a particular site and make promises should be controlled, or at least should formulate what these promises are and should be able to live up to them. That also refers to what will happen after they leave. There should be something like a rehabilitation bond or an institutional way of organizing things such that it is assured that livelihoods that were there prior to their arrival are still in place or at least guaranteed after they're gone.
I think that would be a very good—