CompaniesEfficient operation, legal and social license to operate. Communities – goals can be conflictingContinuity of lives, livelihoods, and environmental sustainability Maximizing benefits and minimizing risksGovernmentsRepresentatives of both national and local interestTrying to maximize investment and revenue generation, while protecting interests of impacted communitiesHow can working together bring these stakeholders closer to their own goals?
What we have seen in all these experiences is the number of common drivers that include both risks and benefits. When deciding if and with whom to partner, it might be useful to consider what specific risks the partnership would allow you to manage and whether the partnership offers one or more of the above benefits. Examples of risks/cost drivers that can be addressed through partnerships: legal/regulatory compliance (e.g. South Africa's policy of Black Economic Empowerment), “Social License to Operate” (especially where there is a need to close the gap between community expectations and company E&S performance); compliance with finance conditions; enforcing conditions (e.g. supply chain standards); lack of capacity, resources and skills from government and communities, to carry out respective roles and responsibilities. Examples of Benefits that can be gained through partnerships: Ability to leverage expertise, skills, and resources; Scalability/Extended reach (Moving from localized impacts of individual projects to more systemic interventions allows achieving greater development impacts), Enhanced likelihood of success (e.g. the partnership can enhance likelihood of successful outcomes by ensuring the shared ownership of the project results and therefore, generating a stronger commitment from other actors to the project sustainability).
In 1992, The UN Conference on Env and Development – Rio Earth Summit – noted that partnerships are central to achieveing global sustainable development. Only with comprehensive and widespread cross-sector – ie. between civil society, the public sector, and the business sector, can development and engagement be sustainable, locally appropriate, and sufficiently creative to succeed. Between communities and companies (local level)Help companies communicate about operations and corporate citizenshipCommunicate operational plans – including timeline, job potential, construction, and infrastructureCommunicate results , and receive feedback on environmental and social assessmentsShare details of local investment plans and activitiesTransparency about revenue flowsCreate an opportunities for companies to listen and respond to communities, and create sustainable mechanisms for communication and accountabilityCreate accountability for regulatory and contractual committmentsCommunities can share concerns, ask questionsClarify concerns about environmental and social impactsReceive information about jobs, revenues, plansSmooth potential conflict over large and small-scale miningBetween communities and government (local and national)Create accountability for transparent revenue allocationDecentralize monitoring to communities – can reduce pressure on government monitoring and improve how local level information is gatheredImprove government service provision at the local level – and improve community satisfaction with government servicesCompanies and governmentsImproved implementation of joint activitiesStakeholder networksCivil Society NetworksCommunity Relations practitioner networks
MSP lend themselves to complex and contentious issues that can not be easily addressed through a unilateral or traditional engagement. IFC’s experience evolves around engagement on various issues that can be driven out of industry or site level.
We are focusing on local level here
This is a depiction of the approach developed by the Collective Leadership Institute. This is the framework that was developed as the result of the multiple projects that the Institute carried out over the years such as the African Cashew Alliance, Common Code for the Coffee Community Association (4C). This captures the process of building MSP in a more formalized way and acknowledges that this is inclusive, iterative, multi-phase process throughout the life cycle of the project. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:Phase 1: Exploring and engaging In Phase 1 stakeholders explore the Stakeholder Dialogue’s context, taking other existing initiatives and the people involved into account. This requires understanding the external context, the factors that will influence the dialogue, and the dynamics of the complex system in which the Stakeholder Dialogue will take place. Talking to selected but relevant stakeholders and opinion-leaders informally in this phase can help to understand the prospects and potential obstacles for dialogue and change. Central to Phase 1 is building trust, creating resonance and building the case for dialogue and change. So, the quality of an engagement process is the key element in Phase 1. Good relationship management and a broader understanding of the context are crucial. Formal structures for the Stakeholder Dialogue, agreements, or defined procedures are not a priority at this point. Phase 2: Building and formalizing Phase 2 is geared toward consolidating the system of stakeholder collaboration and formalizing stakeholders’ commitment to change. The objective of this phase is to find an appropriate formal structure for moving an initiative forward and to build a stable collaborative system for implementation. Goals are agreed upon jointly, and roles and resources are defined. This usually leads to agreements – the signing of a contract, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), a project plan or a public address in the interest of the change endeavor. The initiative shifts to a formalized process. In more complex Stakeholder Dialogues, there may also be issues of division of tasks, decision-making, resource allocation or internal and external communication strategies. Phase 3: Implementing and evaluating This phase can be seen as the actual implementation of planned activities and includes the establishment of an internal Stakeholder Dialogue monitoring system to ensure results and learning. Its focus is on creating visible results in a reasonable timeframe so that all actors involved can see the success of the Stakeholder Dialogue. If a Stakeholder Dialogue never moves past the stage of discussion and exchange of ideas, it may be a sign that the stakeholders can discuss the issue, but are not willing enough to implement actual change. However, for Stakeholder Dialogues to deliver, it is crucial that stakeholders perceive visible change during the dialogue process; otherwise they might lose interest in the dialogue and in implementing change. So, results orientation is a key factor for success. The complexity of a process often becomes evident during this phase, sometimes in the form of a crisis. Crisis symptoms may include criticism from external parties, counter initiatives or endless non-productive discussions. The more stability and trusting relationships have been created in Phase 1 and 2, the better such phases of instability can be overcome. Phase 4: Developing further, replicating or institutionalizing Once a Stakeholder Dialogue has reached the agreed-upon results, the question remains whether an initiative should stop there, or if it should be further developed. If the desired goal has been achieved, success should be adequately celebrated: participation and contributions of individual stakeholder groups should be acknowledged and appreciated. Many Stakeholder Dialogues terminate successfully after Phase 3. Some Stakeholder Dialogues may want to consolidate their outcomes into sustainable structures. This can mean taking the endeavor to the next level, replicating it at another location, integrating a new issue or further institutionalizing the dialogue on a more formal level. The goals of Phase 4 are different from dialogue to dialogue; they can be, for example institutionalizing a successful dialogue form or to use the experience gathered in dialogue in another process.
TRUST – companies and communities need to feel that their engagement is in good faith, that contributions are heard, and that commitments will be keptMutually beneficial - Differentiation between community investment and community collaborationMonitoring and EvaluationTransparencyOpen communicationStrong CSO NetworksEnabling companies to work with CSO representativesStrong information flow within CSO networksEffective community decision-making within Civil SocietyGender equitable participation
Supporting local level accountability programsDFGG - ANSAParticipatory Monitoring of Mining activitiesOyuTolgoi participatory environmental monitoring“Native Seed” program for environmental restorationInvestment in Community Capacity BuildingMost sustainable when programs are designed based on consultation, and have a view beyond the life of the mine – creating value and skillsExxonMobil support for women’s skill building in Papau New GuineaMoEnCo support for community groups in MongoliaImproving company-community-government accountabilityAhafo Social Responsibility ForumANSA EAP Benefits: Improves community voice; improves how operations run, reduces negative impact, reduces monitoring costsExamples:DFGG - ANSAParticipatory Monitoring of Mining activitiesParticipatory Budgeting – MG, TZCollaborative environmental protectionBenefits:OyuTolgoi participatory environmental monitoring“ Native Seed” program for environmental restorationInvestment in Community Capacity BuildingBenefits: Creates value for communities and company, reduces bottom line, improves relationships, creates lasting valueExamples:MoEnCoExxonMobil Notes: Most sustainable when programs are designed based on consultation, and have a view beyond the life of the mine – creating value and skills
Multi stakeholder collaboration
Communication andCooperation: Global discussion ofmulti-stakeholder collaboration in the mining sector Seminar of Community and Local CSR Representatives Katherine Heller Social Development Specialist The World Bank
Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives on the Extractive Industries Companies Communities and Civil Society Governments How can working together bring these stakeholders closer to their own goals?
Common Drivers for Collaboration Risk drivers: Legal/regulatory compliance (e.g. South Africas policy of Black Economic Empowerment) Social License to Operate Compliance with finance conditions Enforcing conditions (e.g. supply chains) Lack of capacity, resources and skills Benefits: Ability to leverage expertise, skills, and resources Scalability/Extended reach Enhanced likelihood of success Sustainability of initiative
How can collaboration bring stakeholders closer to their goals?Between communities and companies (local level) Help companies communicate about operations and corporate citizenship Communities can share concerns, ask questionsBetween communities and government (local and national)Companies and governments Improved implementation of joint activitiesStakeholder networks Civil Society Networks Community Relations practitioner networks
Partnerships can address various IssuesIssues Cases• Revenue Management and Social Rio Tinto (Peru)Accountability• Local development Sadiola (Mali), Guinea Mining Sector• Local content MozLink (Mozambique)• Water Yanacocha (Peru), Marlin (Guatemala)• Biodiversity Simandou (Guinea)• Health Lonmin (South Africa)
Multi-stakeholder partnerships can exist at different levels Local/ site level (Multi-Stakeholder advisory committees, Dialogue Forums, etc.) Industry level (e.g. Industry Associations, Royalty Management Committees (Latin America)) Global level (Global Reporting Initiative, Commodity Roundtables (e.g. Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil)
Requirements for successful collaboration with/by civil society TRUST Mutually beneficial Monitoring and Evaluation Transparency Open communication Strong CSO Networks Enabling companies to work with CSO representatives Strong information flow within CSO networks Effective community decision-making within Civil Society Gender equitable participation
Examples of CollaborationLocal Development Planning Lonmin Rekopane Development Forum Sadiola Gold MindParticipatory Resource Planning Madagascar, TanzaniaImproving company-community-government accountability Ahafo Social Responsibility Forum ANSA EAPCollaborative environmental protection Oyu Tolgoi Marlin Mine Minera Yanacocha Gold MineInvestment in Community Capacity Building MozLink ExxonMobil RMI “Social Impacts of Mining” programGender-equitable development ExxonMobil - PNG
Challenges to CollaborationSkepticism that all parties work in good faithInflated expectations about what is possiblePreconceptions about the different sectors – i.e., aboutgovernment officials, about mining sector officials, aboutcivil society membersRestricted authority to create partnerships, institutionallimitationsLack of belief in effectiveness of partneringElite capture of initiatives, communication channelsConflicting priorities, competitiveness within a sector
Lessons Learned MSPs can only work where there is shared Interest andBenefits and they are clear to individual parties The form of the MSPs cannot be imposed and will bedriven by stakeholder and issues Ensure inclusive nature of the MSP through earlyidentification of stakeholders and consultation High level Commitment (to enable the partnership) +technical level involvement/support (on specific issues) areneeded Start small and use pilots to test ideas and collaboration models