Corruption risks in mining approvals
This global snapshot explores where and how corruption can get a foothold in mining approvals processes – before ground is even broken.
Transparency International has assessed the risks that can lead to corruption in 18 resource-rich countries to identify the warning signals as early as possible.
Our research found that vulnerabilities to corruption exist in the mining approval regimes of jurisdictions across the world, irrespective of their stage of economic development, political context, geographic region or the size and maturity of their mining sectors. Based on our Global Report, Combatting corruption in mining approvals: assessing the risks in 18 resource-rich countries, this snapshot highlights some lessons from our research on corruption risks in mining approvals and illustrates what the government, mining industry and public can do to address these risks.
Case study 1: Revolving doors
Decisions about whether to approve mining projects must put the public interest first, and conflicts of interest need to be acknowledged and addressed. Undisclosed and unmanaged conflicts of interest can distort decision-making and result in poorly executed mining projects.
Case study 2: Rules and criteria
Clear rules and criteria about which land is opened to mining and under what conditions means that these decisions can be made on sound land-use principles, not to personally benefit decision-makers. This strengthens the integrity of licensing decisions and other mining related approvals.
Where the discretion of government officials about which areas to open to mining is kept in check by clear rules and decision-making criteria, it is less likely that their decisions will be influenced by personal interests or will favour particular stakeholders in exchange for personal benefit.
Case study 3: Weaknesses in the licencing process
A fair and transparent licensing process has clear rules and an effective licensing authority with a complete and accurate register of licences. This avoids conflicts between competing licence applicants and existing licence holders and reduces the possibility that investors will resort to corrupt conduct to have conflicts resolved in their favour.
Case study 4: Due diligence
Effective due diligence on licence applicants’ technical capacity and financial resources ensures that only qualified and experienced applicants are successful. This also requires effective investigation into applicants’ compliance history and past conduct to screen out undesirable applicants
Case study 5: Capacity to verify environmental impact assessements
Properly verifying environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs) ensures that the potential impacts of mining developments are identified before work starts. This enables government authorities to impose effective licence conditions to manage these impacts by requiring mining enterprises to develop and implement effective mitigation plans. Thorough verification of ESIAs makes it more likely that a licence applicant will provide a robust and effective ESIA that does not contain misleading or fraudulent statements or that omits critical information.
Case study 6: Requirements for consultation
Genuine consultation with communities is fundamental to ensure that mining contributes to sustainable development.
Ensuring genuine consultation and negotiations with communities is critical to securing the legitimacy of any mining project. Corruption undermines the credibility of the consultation process, the resulting agreements and, by extension, a company’s social licence to operate. It can increase conflict between the community and the mining operator, leading to major disruptions to mining activities.
As the Accountable Mining Programme’s global research has found,
- when consultation only occurs with elites who do not necessarily represent the community’s interests, leaders can take advantage of negotiations for their own personal gain.
- when the negotiation process is not transparent, and agreements are not published, it is difficult to detect whether negotiations have been manipulated and hold the decision-makers to account
- if there are no clear or binding requirements for community consultation (or they are not enforced), this opens the door for the duty to consult to be ignored or undertaken superficially.