Filer and Imbun here clearly spell out the real SD issues facing PNG mining industry
If developers fail to internalize the full external costs of mineral development, then the simple equation of financial costs and benefits, as registered in corporate and government accounts, will fail to show the extent to which mineral development also counts as sustainable development. (Filer & Imbun, 2009, p. 76)
However, it is appropriate to revisit the concept of SD again. According to Redclift, (2008, p.279) ‗SD‘ has served as a concept, a policy prescription and a moral imperative. Although there are multiple definitions of SD, the definition given by the Brundtland Commission (1987) is still common and valid, where SD refers to ―development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs‖. Whilst there are criticisms of this definition, it provides a basis for development advocates to consider the future within the development discourse, whilst developing and using current resources. However, insofar as the mineral sector is concerned, SD has been a contentious and controversial issue. As alluded to by the Mineral Council of Australia (2004) and described by Mohr-Swart et al. (2008, p.169), SD within the mining sector includes investments that are financially profitable, technically appropriate, environmentally sound and socially responsible for the communities in which they operate. However, SD requires a coherent policy and planning framework to achieve long-term impact. Whilst policy frameworks are vitally important, they must also be capable of being made manifest and translated into reality. However, according to Cronje and Chenga (2009, p. 413) gaps between policies, plans and practice, and between ‗social responsibilities‘ and genuine SD, are too common. What should matter most is whether policy frameworks are workable in producing tangible SD outcomes or not. In addition to sustainable policy frameworks, Cronje and Chenga (2009, p. 413) further assert that power relationships, effective communication, planned priorities and identified responsibilities are all crucial. In such ways SD practices typically incorporates a range of guidelines, policies, principles and activities. These enable sound corporate governance, ethical business practices and responsible extraction of
natural resources (Mohr-Swart et al., 2008, p.171). Thus, the mining industry could contribute to sustained growth and prosperity if economic progress, responsible social developments and effective environmental management become integrated (Mohr- Swart et al., 2008, p.165). Despite reluctance by some mining companies, there is increasing involvement by the industry in community development roles, often promoting the newly acquired corporate language of ‗sustainability‘ and ‗partnerships‘ that has evolved during the last decade (Banks, 2008, p.24). In this regard mining companies drive development in remote communities where the perceived impact although positive is often short-lived, disregarding long-term losses (Lagisa & Scheyvens, 1999, p.129). However, mining and SD are not necessarily contradictory terms; mining developments contributions can have profound long-term SD effects within communities if policies and plans guide such developments (Mohr- Swart et al., 2008, p.168).
Within the PNG mining sector, SD remains an enormous challenge, even though it is important for both the industry and the sustainability of local livelihoods. One of the reasons that PNG has gained global prominence in regards to corporate social responsibility and environmental responsibility is the fact that it hosts three famous mines around the world for their irresponsibility: Ok Tedi, Panguna and Porgera (Filer et al 2008, p.180). These mines have caused irreversible damages in terms of local people‘s livelihoods which make SD a vital aspect yet challenging. Another key challenge faced is the absence of actual acknowledgement of mineral revenues in the government‘s expenditure budget and plans each year (Filer & Imbun, 2009). The concealment of these revenues reveals the government‘s devious stand on SD interests. In other words, the revenues from mining are shown but it is the application of these that are not shown. This is due to the opinion held by PNG‘s Department of National Planning that mining and oil industries are ‗sunset industries‘, and as such cannot, by definition, be sustainable and therefore cannot make a contribution to SD (Filer & Imbun, 2009, p.77). The reality of mining companies participation in the longer-term prospects of governance in PNG is that, if the companies become de facto mini-states, the sustainability of any infrastructure and services provided is not guaranteed once the mine operation ends. Consequently, SD is vitally important to the very people whose lives are affected by mining operations. The local communities are the ones who will live to experience the ordeal over the years. As noted by Mark
Soipang, a Lihir landowner, ―the developers are foreigners and the State is only a concept; it is us, the landowners, who represent real life and real people‖ (Filer, 1996a, p. 68 as cited in Ballard & Banks, 2003, p. 297). As such Banks (2003) argued that ongoing governance problems can be blamed for the failure of workable policy frameworks in PNG. Banks (2003) further contended that the PNG government has condoned systematic corruption which remains unabated, and this has trickled down to become a factor in the failure of stakeholders to comply with and fulfill obligations and commitments vital to SD within mining communities. Consequently, the most troublesome issues, from the SD perspective, are the local effects of large scale resource development projects, regardless of whether forestry or mining (Banks, 2009).
In a bid to establish an SD framework, a group of experts were brought together in 1985 to discuss how the mining sector could contribute to SD in PNG. Papua New Guineans were optimistic toward having a mineral policy framework in place which would be the envy of the other developing countries (Filer & Macintyre, 2006, p. 215). However, the policy framework did not come to mean much over the years. Rather, the development transformation driven by the mining industry has been lamented by many authors (see Banks, Bonnell, 1999, Burton, 2006 Filer, 2006 Imbun, 2007, Jackson, 1991) who cited discrepancies between policies and practice. In the past decade, PNG has been positioned to benefit from a detailed baseline study undertaken by Banks (2001) through the MMSD14 project. Coupled with this is a sustainability framework developed by Finlayson (2002), which has the potential for setting effective and meaningful SD outcomes for PNG but was never put in place. Both of these are being applied in an environment with a significant governance deficit, where there is a shortage of authority to determine who should be responsible to whom for what (Filer et al., 2008, p.180). In reviewing the recent literature, PNG looks like a country where it is hard to distinguish between environmental and social responsibility and the lack of it (Banks, 2006, Bosshard, 1996, Danielson, 2006, Filer et al, 2008, p.180). It is in this regard that it is important to focus on those types of development that are helpful in achieving SD, and on gaining an understanding of how SD will be achieved. SD and sustainable livelihoods should form the basis of
14
The Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) was an independent two-year project of research and consultation looking at how the mining and minerals sector could contribute to the global transition to SD. (http://www.iied.org/sustainable-markets/key-issues/business-and-sustainable-development/mining-minerals- and-sustainable-development)
development endeavors within the mining industries and the local communities that surround them.