Institutional and Political Frameworks of Environmental Licensing Processes Researchers: Diana Arbelaez-Ruiz, Juan Mauricio Benavidez, Bárbara Oñate Santibáñez, Rebekah Ramsay School/Centre: Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining University/ Sustainable Minerals Institute, Institution: The University of Queensland Key themes: Governance and Regulation Community and Environmental Sustainability Key countries: Peru Completion: January 2013 Research aims: This research sought to address the following questions: • How can proponents, regulators and governments ensure accountability, participation and social inclusion in environmental licensing processes? • What checks and balances are necessary to prevent excessive exertion of power in environmental licensing processes and to ensure they support sustainable development? For further information on this action research: Contact person: Diana Arbelaez-Ruiz [email protected] Research paper: Arbeláez-Ruiz DC, Benavidez JM (2013). Politics and institutions in mining EIS approvals. The International Association for Impact Assessment 13th Conference, Calgary, Canada. http://www.iaia.org/conferences/iaia13/final-papers.aspx Powerpoint presentation: ‘Political and Institutional aspects of mining EIS approvals: Learning from the Peruvian Experience’ Summary of Action Research Activity Institutional and political frameworks of environmental licensing processes This project examined the influence of political and institutional factors on environmental licensing processes, including environmental assessment and approval processes (EAAPs), for mining projects. It was aimed at devising better ways to take account of, and respond to, political and institutional factors as part of the EAPP. The research was based on the premise that while political and institutional dimensions exert a strong influence on regulatory impact assessment and approval processes, this influence is often poorly understood, leading to shortcomings in design and implementation, and in some cases to conflict that results in human and economic losses. Regulatory design and implementation often rest on assumptions that regulators are well placed to protect wider societal interests and have access to full, timely information. In practice, approval decisions occur within highly political negotiations on project design, with imperfect information, constrained timelines and limited regulatory capacity. These factors pose difficulties for conflict prevention in regulatory approval processes. A conceptual framework was developed to analyse the role of political and institutional factors in EAPPs, and was used to examine two cases of mining Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) approvals in Peru. Regulatory design and implementation criteria to improve the approval processes are proposed, which centre around supporting inclusive dialogue on sustainable development. In the cases analysed, the results suggested that poor proponent-community relations, limited social science influence in EIS and a weak regulatory framework, lacking civil society trust, hindered constructive dialogue on sustainable development. The proposed framework principals relate to relationship building, an early start to dialogue, elected decision-maker commitment, integration of processes within and outside the EAAP, integrating social science input, managing incentives, balancing capacity gaps, designing adaptable processes and allowing for dialogue between different knowledge systems. Scope for implementing these principles is not limited to regulators or governments; various other participants can contribute to implementing many of them. The research resulted in a set of recommendations and a strategy for adaptation for training environments, aimed initially for a Latin American audience, but potentially for broader audiences. International Mining for Development Centre Action Research Report Institutional and Political Frameworks of Environmental Licensing Processes REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL MINING FOR DEVELOPMENT CENTRE Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining Sustainable Minerals Institute The University of Queensland, Australia [email protected] www.csrm.uq.edu.au Authors Diana Arbeláez-Ruiz (CSRM) Juan Benavides (Universidad de los Andes) Bárbara Oñate Santibáñez (CSRM) Research Team Diana Arbeláez-Ruiz (CSRM) Juan Benavides Bárbara Oñate Santibáñez (CSRM) Rebekah Ramsay (CSRM) Reviewers Professor Saleem Ali, Director, CSRM Dr Deanna Kemp, Deputy Director, CSRM Acknowledgements The researchers would like to thank the International Mining for Development Centre for its support of the project. We gratefully appreciate the generous and valuable advice we received from Gerardo Castillo, David Brereton, Miguel Cervantes and Ivan Ormachea. Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining The Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) is a leading research centre, committed to improving the social performance of the resources industry globally. We are part of the Sustainable Minerals Institute (SMI) at the University of Queensland, one of Australia’s premier universities. SMI has a long track record of working to understand and apply the principles of sustainable development within the global resources industry. At CSRM, our focus is on the social, economic and political challenges that occur when change is brought about by resource extraction and development. We work with companies, communities and governments in mining regions all over the world to improve social performance and deliver better outcomes for companies and communities. Since 2001, we have contributed significantly to industry change through research, teaching and consulting. This centre is led by Professor Dr Saleem Ali. i Abbreviations ANA National Water Authority CRR Community Relationships Review CSRM Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining EAAP Environmental Assessment and Approval Process EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement/Study FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent IM4DC International Mining for Development Centre MEM Ministry of Energy and Mines MINAM Ministry of Environment OEFA Assessment and Environmental Control Agency SENACE National Environmental Certification Service for Sustainable Investments SCC Southern Copper Corporation UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services ii Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Rationale ......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Structure of this document ............................................................................................................. 10 2. Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 11 2.1 A working Definition of Environmental Assessment and Approval Processes ....................................... 11 2.2 A conceptual framework to analyse EAAP ........................................................................................ 12 2.2.1 Context ................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Project design, consequences and resulting incentives ............................................................... 14 2.2.3 Actors ..................................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.4 Environmental Assessment and Approval Processes (EAAP) ........................................................ 16 2.2.5 Assessment criteria .................................................................................................................. 16 2.2.6 Conflict ................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.7 The Conceptual Framework in Summary ................................................................................... 18 2.3 EAAP and the institutional and political context ................................................................................ 20 2.3.1 The influence of institutional and political factors in EAAP .......................................................... 20 2.4 Strengthening EAAP to support sustainable development taking account of political and institutional factors ................................................................................................................................................ 23 2.4.1 Enable early, broad-based dialogue on the sustainability contribution of the project .................... 25 2.4.2 Seek commitment from elected decision-makers ....................................................................... 26 2.4.3 Integrate dialogue, negotiation, consent, impact assessment and approval processes .................. 26 2.4.4 Fully integrate social science into all stages of the process .......................................................... 27 2.4.5 Introduce checks and balances to compensate for perverse incentives ........................................ 27 2.4.6 Support capacity building and address capacity unbalances .......................................................