چگونه می توان با مشارکت های دولتی - خصوصی به امنیت و سیاست حقوق بشر و اقدام در صنایع استخراجی کمک کرد؟مطالعه موردی جمهوری دموکراتیک کنگو (DRC)
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3573||2012||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9034 کلمه|
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله شامل 9034 کلمه می باشد.
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Resources Policy, Volume 37, Issue 2, June 2012, Pages 251–260
Across sub-Saharan Africa, the presence of foreign large-scale mining companies is increasing. This is in part a result of depleting resources in countries such as Canada, United States and Australia, and in part from a more favorable national mine investment climate in several mineral-rich African countries. Their increased presence raises important questions around the potential role and function of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the sector. In post-conflict and/or fragile states, CSR has further implications for conflict and risk mitigation strategies to ensure the protection of human rights. One CSR approach increasingly being considered is the public–private partnership, whereby companies, public donors, and development agencies leverage their relationships for mutual benefit. There is merit in exploring its function in post-conflict fragile states, where socio-economic needs are high and the capacity of the state to respond to a variety of mine governance challenges is limited. Two case studies from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are presented, and their policy implications, discussed.
Following the 2002 peace agreement in The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the large-scale mining sector has resurged, bolstered by foreign investment. Mining operations, however, operate in a highly post-conflict fragile context, where population needs are considerable and development efforts limited. Such a policy environment necessitates the mitigation of a variety of conflicts and risks as mining benefit is introduced into communities amidst high social expectations, continued unemployment, and thriving informal economic sectors. Two case studies from The DRC provide insight into how the private–public partnership (PPP) model has enabled multi-actor partnerships to address fundamental development concerns related to conflict whilst equally influencing policy formation around conflict and risk mitigation. This article presents these two PPP examples, arguing that whilst considerable work has been done at the policy level to develop standards and guidelines for conflict and risk mitigation in the extractive industry, their implementation at the local level could benefit from greater public–private collaboration. A PPP approach, which entails public and private organizations working together to address commonly defined conflicts and risks in the social environment, can not only mitigate risks for companies but ultimately, can also lead to the development of more coherent social and economic strategies for populations, governments and the development community. Such a collaborative approach intensifies potential impact on overall development agendas by leveraging expertise and relationships. The PPPs detailed in this article are distinct in nature. The first is largely a ‘development-oriented’ model with specific indicators and objectives. The second, however, is largely a ‘research-oriented’ model with a forward planning purpose. The article highlights the potential value of these differing models in preventing and mitigating several conflict and risk dynamics in the mining environments of The DRC. The first model spanned two provinces of The DRC – Katanga and Orientale – whilst the second focused solely on Kolwezi, a town in Southern Katanga. In each case, due to partners' positions and relationships with wider networks and influencing actors, analysis of implementation contributed to a variety of policy debates intrinsically linked to conflict and risk mitigation at the national and international levels. Three will be explored: (1) policy coherence on development; (2) artisanal mining; and (3) security and human rights. The article is divided into two sections. The first provides an overview of PPPs in global CSR practice. It positions conflict and risk mitigation within these CSR approaches, and argues that whilst tremendous work has occurred at the policy level, more local application of international standards and policy guidelines is needed. The second section explores two PPP experiences in The DRC. It demonstrates usefulness of combining local level implementation of conflict and risk strategies with policy engagement to enhance understanding of, and responses to, key conflict drivers. It frames these PPPs and their subsequent responses in the context of the mine agenda and the national development agenda, in the process, demonstrating their intrinsic relationship to overall socio-economic recovery. In this second section, the article also makes observations for policy consideration.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The article returns to the fundamental question raised by this Special Issue, namely the relevance of CSR in extractive industries in the developing world and the function it plays. This article demonstrated the potential role and relevance of a particular type of CSR engagement, the PPP, in a specific mining context of Africa to promote conflict and risk mitigation. Although each PPP experience is unique, there are several observations applicable to the wider debate on collaborative approaches between industry and the development sector worth noting. First, as mining operations move into more remote, isolated, and ‘fragile’ contexts in Africa, awareness and sensitivity to risk and conflict potential is important—not only from a risk management perspective but equally from a recovery and development perspective. This imperative is increasingly recognized amongst development institutions and experienced mining companies, having led to valuable tools, guidelines and standards for mainstreaming conflict mitigation practice into extractive operations. Equally, the development of these resources has been rooted in international policy forums where industry and the development sector are participating more actively together. This collaboration is important, as is the work of mainstreaming tools and standards into company structures through external experts, most often from consulting firms, but at times with assistance from development agencies. Second, there is an acknowledgement that more direct collaborative implementation and learning should be fostered in order to advance practice and refine policy on conflict and risk mitigation in extractive industry contexts. The gaps in collaboration could be overcome in some instances through PPP mechanisms that leverage resources from a range of concerned actors. These actors are often equally active members of relevant policy forums and thus their site level experiences, collectively shared and analyzed, serve to enrich discourse at the policy level. Third, PPPs, by virtue of their partners, have access to several ‘spheres of influence’ important for promoting coherence on national development planning and mine policy. If leveraged properly, partners can influence policy on specific shared issues facing the development and industry sectors. In the case of The DRC, these were artisanal mining, development, security and human rights. Fourth, conflict prevention can be a key approach of a PPP where specific mutual concerns are addressed. In the case of the PPPs, one such example was ASM. The PPPs were able to use a collective platform to research and analyze the dynamics of ASM, determine how different engagements models could work, and to influence policy formation on this development issue. Research became one part of a conflict prevention methodology to inform planning and policy. Fifth, integrating conflict and risk analysis methodologies benefits from a variety of partners. Several different modes of lending on expertise were used, depending on the specific context. One important dimension was ensuring greater perspectives shared on conflict dynamics in a given operating environment. Analysis carried out by an outside partner can refine a methodology on who to consult and how best to do it. Sixth, government does have a role to play and with the right support can play it. Both reviewers of this article stressed its lack of criticism regarding the corruption and behavior exhibited by the ‘state’ in The DRC. Whilst it is true that such practices do exist across the mining sector and across various levels of government, the PPP experiences enjoyed strong levels of support from individual government officials. This came from an explicit effort by PPP partners to provide consistent support and efforts to build the capacity of officials in various government departments. However, this does not mean that efforts to reform the governance of the sector in general is not equally relevant and critical. As has been noted, the liberalization of the mining sector in Africa has shifted social responsibility away from the State to encompass a wide variety of actors, both development and industry. A ‘third way’ of promoting responsible practice includes collaboration between the public and private sector through specific, defined partnerships. In the area of conflict and risk mitigation, both an important development objective and a vital business strategy, support is needed to test and refine at mine-site levels. A PPP can play a unique brokering role in synthesizing learning at local levels and leveraging national and international relationships for policy influence. If development agencies and mining companies embrace a mutual understanding that good conflict and risk mitigation practice comes from the exchange of ideas based on sound learning, there is value in partnering together for improved security and human rights.