by Jackson Rose
In Spring 2016, a mining project in central Montana was generating controversy and heated debate around the state. At the time, the Black Butte Copper Project was a proposed underground copper mine located in Meagher County about fifteen miles north of White Sulphur Springs, a rural community with less than a thousand residents. At the heart of the conflict around the project was a recurring question that sparked my interest: does natural resource development create sustainable rural community development?
Two years later, as a Master’s student at Montana State University, I was still pondering that question. Around this time, I was offered the unique opportunity to get directly involved with the Black Butte Copper Project through a local stakeholder group called the Meagher County Stewardship Council. The Stewardship Council wanted our research group to provide resources, expertise, and advice designed to help them capitalize on the impending development. I used this opportunity to shape a thesis looking at the cost/benefit equation facing rural communities that host an emerging and highly relevant type of mining development: short-duration, high-impact underground mines.
So, what did I learn?
First, rural communities that host mining projects are increasingly turning towards non-regulatory agreements to both mitigate short-term impacts and realize long-term benefits tied to these projects. These agreements typically go above and beyond regulatory requirements and are negotiated directly with the project developer.
Second, community concerns and priorities tied to mining developments are contested spaces with multiple stakeholder groups involved. Outside of environmental groups, many stakeholders in rural communities are focused on the short-term benefits provided by a potential mine. The desire for a boost to the local tax base and high-paying jobs often comprises the ‘wish-list’ of these groups and may complicate the need to negotiate for fiscal and social impact mitigation. Ideally, communities are able to assess the regulatory gaps in the regulatory and institutional frameworks around hard-rock mining and incorporate formal initiatives into non-regulatory agreements to cover those gaps. However, my research suggests that communities may be unwilling or unable to assess and address regulatory limitations.
Thirdly, negotiations between rural communities and mining companies are further complicated by the reality that the most influential stakeholder groups are often environmental/conservation organizations with significant legal, policy, and economic expertise. These groups often hold leverage during the crucial stages of the permitting process, when mining companies are seeking a ‘social license to operate’ or local acceptance and approval of a project. Conservation groups exercise this leverage via the threat of litigation, which results in their priorities (and a large share of a limited resource pool) ending up in formal agreements. While these groups often include locals, their ability to represent the broader community is in question.
Taken together, these findings help explain why certain priorities, specifically long-term community development concerns, are not always formalized in non-regulatory agreements. When they are present, evidence suggests that community development initiatives are often limited in scope and heavily front-loaded, leaving their long-term sustainability in doubt. Importantly, my research does not suggest that the institutional and regulatory environment might limit rural communities’ ability to secure enduring benefits. Pressure to secure a social license to operate appears to exist even in strong regulatory environments. This pressure creates opportunities that communities can and should exploit to capitalize on natural resource developments.
The question of whether or not natural resource projects lead to sustainable rural community development is not going away. In the West, rural places like White Sulphur Springs continue to host large-scale industrial developments with no guarantee of lasting socioeconomic benefits. I believe that non-regulatory agreements offer a unique mechanism for rural places to secure these benefits and ensure positive outcomes for future generations.
