Mining for Closure: Policies, practises and guidelines for sustainable mining and closure of mines

Demanding stakeholders can be said to be those stakeholders whose sole relevant attribute (at present) is urgency. Lacking power or legitimacy, such actors nevertheless constitute the vocal “mos- quitoes buzzing in the ears of management”. In a mining context, actors in this category can include: community interest groups; single interest envi- ronmental or historic preservation groups; national and/or international “anti-mining” or “anti-devel- opment” interest groups; 66 and so forth. 3.1.2 expectant stakeholders The second category of stakeholders to be addressed in this discussion is deemed to be expectant. This group includes powerful actors with an issue of interest (dominant) who despite this, currently see no urgency in the issue; suffering or otherwise le- gitimately affected actors who depend on support granted by one more powerful (dependent); and angry or upset stakeholders with power who lack a legitimate status (dangerous). Again, more detailed delineation of these categories and examples with a mining context are included below. Dominant stakeholders include powerful and le- gitimate actors. Simply put, such actors possess legitimate claims and have the necessary resources or means with which to act upon such claims. As has previously been stated, this actor group is gen- erally (or traditionally) deemed the most important and is granted most attention by industrial actors. Organizations commonly produce reports to le- gitimate, powerful stakeholders such as these (e.g. environmental and social responsibility reports as well as more traditional annual corporate reports). While such stakeholders are central, they are not always the most important when issues of concern arise. In the context of this document, such actors include the owners and creditors of minerals relat- ed organizations, community leaders, ministries of natural resources and environment, international development agencies, and so forth. Dependent stakeholders have urgent and legiti- mate claims but depend on others for the power to carry out their will or to meet their calls for aid. As power is not reciprocal in their relationship with organizations or industry, then exercise is gov- erned by advocacy or guardianship of others (e.g. government, legislators or other powerful actor groups must engage on their behalf). In the con- text of minerals related activities, relevant groups in this category could include: near-mine or near-

minesite residents, downstream water users, and transboundary communities and/or political ac- tors across jurisdictional boundaries. Further, this group is also deemed to encompass non-human actors such as mammals and birds, aquatic species – and indeed nature itself. Dangerous stakeholders can arise where urgency and power combine within an actor that lacks legiti- macy. Such actors can be coercive or even violent, are deemed “dangerous”, and can utilise measures such as wildcat strikes, sabotage, or even terrorism in order to achieve their aims. There are a number of stakeholders relevant to mining activities in this regard and the importance of this group cannot be understated in Nation states or sub-regions where political instability is, or has recently been prevalent. Possible actor groups in this category that are of relevance include militant political groups, radical NGOs, marginalised ethnic groups and so forth. 3.1.3 definitive & potential stakeholders The stakeholders of most marked salience within this framework (and thus to an organization en- gaged in mining activities in the context of this dis- cussion) are those who combine all three definitive attributes. Stakeholders holding power and legiti- macy (by definition dominant) are those most like- ly to evolve to this category. This occurs when some incident or development lifts the criticality of the issue for them. When such stakeholders discover an issue, or a claim that is urgent, then managers (or other responsible parties) have a clear and im- mediate mandate for action. Moreover, it is most important to note that there is interaction between groups. For example, depend- ent stakeholders may move into the definitive posi- tion by having their urgent and legitimate claims picked up by a dominant stakeholder (e.g. Mitchell et al (1997) describe Alaskan communities moving in this manner in the Exxon Valdez case when the government became an important ally); or danger- ous actors migrating to a definitive position via the legitimization of their claim (e.g. the evolution of the African National Congress [ANC] from an organiza- 66. In most nations and societies, the NIMBY (Not In My Back- Yard) syndrome must be dealt with to some extent. In situations where trust in authorities and industrial actors is low, then it ap- pears reasonable that the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) syndrome may also be relevant.

34

MINING FOR CLOSURE