Changing the Rules of the Game…
Once upon a time, large investment projects were the ultimate sign of progress and economic prosperity. The significant environmental social costs paid by the people living in proximity to these projects was pale in comparison to the collective benefits created by increased jobs, royalties and taxes. Communities living on the margins of the mainstream economy were forced to either resist, to move away or, sadly, to eventually be swallowed up by the incoming tide.
Thankfully, this scary scenario is no longer acceptable in many parts of the world. Today, projects must undergo an environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) that weighs the positive economic impacts with the negative impacts of a given project. Potentially damaging environmental, social, health and even human rights impacts are rigorously measured to allow decision-makers to take an enlightened decision regarding the risks of the project as well as to develop strategies to adequately mitigate these impacts. While far from perfect, it can be argued that ESIA’s have, by and large, allowed for better designed projects. This is especially important for long life-cycle projects such as mines, transportation infrastructure and hydroelectric dams and powerhouses. Even for projects that are ultimately pushed through because of political pressure, mitigation plans are often developed to at the very least minimize the harm they cause.
In many areas, the reverse situation has become all too common: local populations, tired of the accumulation of impacts from numerous projects spanning several generations, are unwilling to allow new projects on their territory. While this resistance often has its merits, clearly our continued dependence on natural resources, energy and the means to get from one place to another requires some infrastructure development from time to time.
How do we overcome the challenge of developing projects that supply our often insatiable demand for resources that nonetheless limit the negative effects on local populations? The key is in the notion of coexistence. It is only by developing effective coexistence formulas that we will be able to create projects that allow for economic growth while limiting the negative consequences, especially for local populations.
Symbiosis is probably one of the most powerful relationships that exists in nature. Two separate species co-existing in close proximity, helping each other to carry out each other’s vital biological functions. As in the case of symbiosis, development in today’s context can only be successful when the proponent and local host communities intimately rely on each other to survive and thrive. This means that projects are acceptable for local communities, who in turn help it to be economically successful. This can be accomplished through a number of ways:
1. Joint monitoring of environmental and social impacts
2. Comanagement of funds dedicated to mitigation and remediation
3. Integration of local entrepreneurs into the project supply chain
4. Training and capacity-building of local actors
5. Permanent committees to address different issues related to the project.
In sum, to ensure harmonious relations between local communities and development projects, sustained engagement must be ensured for the life of the project. In this way, local communities are no longer seen as “rent-seekers” looking to free ride from projects, but instead are essential actors in the project life-cycle who have a clear interest in its long-term success. This is the essence of symbiosis.