Public trust built early in project development through strong regulation and meaningful community participation could help mining projects advance faster by preventing conflicts and costly delays, according to a new report from the Trust, Accountability and Inclusion (TAI) Collaborative.

Mined The Gaps: Trust and Critical Minerals challenges the assumption that deregulation will accelerate critical minerals development and argues that faster mining developments hinge on establishing more trust in the communities affected by mining.  

The report finds that establishing public trust is one of the most important factors for new developments to succeed, thus avoiding legal challenges and regulatory disputes that delay projects. 

“When people have a meaningful voice, confidence in oversight and assurance that environmental and social concerns will be addressed, problems can be identified earlier and resolved before they escalate,” writes author and TAI consultant Sefton Darby. 

While communities value receiving a fair share of a project’s benefits, benefit-sharing alone does not necessarily build trust. Community members may place greater importance on having a meaningful voice in the project’s development, confidence in regulatory oversight, and assurance that environmental impacts are being properly addressed.

TAI proposes establishing an Adaptive Governance Partnership (AGP) for mining projects. This framework would bring regulators, mining companies and community representatives together to make decisions throughout the lifecycle of a project.  

It would comprise of a committee that would address environmental, social and cultural concerns early, to avoid them becoming bigger issues throughout project development.  

“The fastest project is not necessarily the one with the fewest rules,” Darby said. “It is the one that identifies risks early, gives communities a genuine role in decisions and creates confidence that commitments will be honored throughout the life of the mine. Fairness and speed are not competing objectives. Done properly, each makes the other possible.” 

A clearer distinction is also required on the critical minerals that are needed for modern technology, clean energy systems, and national security, whose supply chains face a high risk of disruption to accelerate project development and gain public support.  

Without a better distinction between critical mineral applications, environmental, and philanthropic initiatives could unwittingly support hidden agendas rather than the transition to clean energy, further eroding public trust, the report asserts.   

The report also stresses that while there is a push for greenfield mines, the short-term reality is that brownfield developments will be responsible for most of the growth in mineral supply. 

As underfunded junior mining companies are usually starting these developments, they can only focus on finding geological resources, not being able to consider the community, environmental and social concerns that, left unaddressed, can lead to outright project opposition.  

“The market for developing new mines is structurally broken,” the report reads. “The exploration phase is dominated by small, under-capitalised junior mining companies whose technical focus is almost entirely geological.

“Environmental and social risks are routinely created during this phase but go unaddressed
because companies lack the resources, incentives, and regulatory obligations to
consider them. By the time a project reaches the mine permitting stage, those
risks are deeply embedded.”

The report suggests that there needs to be a new model for junior mining companies to operate, where exploration funding is tied to environmental and social initiatives. 

“Meeting the world’s clean energy needs will require more than increasing the supply of minerals. It will require changing the way governments, companies and funders work with the people who live alongside mining operations,” TAI executive director Michael Jarvis said.

“A transition that ignores community rights will not only be unjust; it will also be slower, more expensive and less sustainable.”