In what circumstances can the discovery and/or development of large-scale mineral resources bring countries or communities together, consolidating peace rather than driving conflict?
This question is the subject of the recently published Chatham House report 'Investing in Stability' (here).
As co-authors we found this a tricky subject area, filled with counter-factuals, definitional minefields, and serious methodological problems: how do we measure in what ways major resource projects increase or mitigate conflict risk? How do we attribute 'peace-positive' events or processes to the conduct of firms or others? How do we define 'peace' (net peace? local or national? etc) and who gets to do so? And so on.
The report proceeds on the basis that while energy and mining firms have increasingly clear responsibilities in ensuring conflict-sensitive operations and practices, the principal responsibilities are those of governmental authorities.
The tricky fact is that in fragile and contested states and situations -- the topic of this report -- governmental capacity is by definition very low or compromised. This increases the onus on responsible firms (and their financiers and insurers) to decide how, when and indeed whether to pursue large-scale projects in areas where the historical and political context makes it very difficult to see resource extraction and related revenues as capable of contributing to peaceful outcomes and processes.
Jo
No comments:
Post a Comment