See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359525990

Centering Community Voices in Mining Governance

Article  in  Society and Natural Resources · March 2022

DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2022.2053018

CITATIONS READS

0 20

10 authors, including:

Anna Erwin Zhao Ma

University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Purdue University
19 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   1,122 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Patricia Salas Glenn Arce

National University of St Agustin National University of St Agustin
5 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Exploring farmworker agency through the case of a faith based organization (dissertation) View project

Family Forest Owners and Invasive Species Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anna Erwin on 29 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Society & Natural Resources
An International Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Centering Community Voices in Mining

Governance

Anna Erwin, Zhao Ma, Emma Patricia Salas O’Brien, Jonathan Bauchet, Nelly
Ramírez Calderón, Eliseo Zeballos Zeballos, Glenn Roberto Arce Larrea,
Ruxandra Popovici, Laura Zanotti & Chelsea A. Silva

To cite this article: Anna Erwin, Zhao Ma, Emma Patricia Salas O’Brien, Jonathan Bauchet, Nelly
Ramírez Calderón, Eliseo Zeballos Zeballos, Glenn Roberto Arce Larrea, Ruxandra Popovici,
Laura Zanotti & Chelsea A. Silva (2022): Centering Community Voices in Mining Governance,
Society & Natural Resources, DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2022.2053018

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2053018

© 2022 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

View supplementary material

Published online: 28 Mar 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usnr20
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2053018

Centering Community Voices in Mining Governance

Anna Erwina , Zhao Mab , Emma Patricia Salas O’Brienc,
ne , Eliseo Zeballos Zeballosc ,
Jonathan Bauchetd , Nelly Ramırez Caldero
f
Glenn Roberto Arce Larrea , Ruxandra Popovicig , Laura Zanottih , and
b
Chelsea A. Silva
a
School of Earth, Environmental, and Marine Sciences, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg,
TX, USA; bDepartment of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA;
c
Department of Sociology, Universidad Nacional de San Agustın de Arequipa, Arequipa, Peru; dDivision
of Consumer Science, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,
USA; eDepartment of Psychology, Universidad Nacional de San Agustın de Arequipa, Arequipa, Peru;
f
Department of Economics, Universidad Nacional de San Agustın de Arequipa, Arequipa, Peru;
g
Independent Scholar; hDepartment of Anthropology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Peru has shifted away from centralized mining management to gov- Received 3 May 2021
ernance among government, companies, and communities. Various Accepted 23 February 2022
mechanisms facilitate community participation, including the mining
KEYWORDS
canon, dialogues, and corporate social responsibility programs. Even
Mining dialogue
with these laws and mechanisms, mining pollution and conflicts con- community-driven
tinue. In this study, we ask: how do communities perceive and par- development; natural
ticipate in mining governance? And what are some alternative ways, resource governance;
driven by community priorities, to address governance in mining participation; Peru
contexts? We collected 53 semi-structured with agricultural actors in
two Peruvian districts with mining activity and analyzed those per-
spectives through the lens of community-centered governance. Our
analyses revealed how centering community priorities in data collec-
tion and analysis illuminates context-specific factors that shape com-
munity attitudes toward mining and highlights community-driven
approaches to addressing mining governance. Such community-
driven approaches could include integrating understandings of local
livelihoods and historical contexts, implementing transparent partici-
patory processes, and improving laws to give communities decision-
making power over mining development.

Introduction
During the 1980s, mining development in Peru was mainly conducted by state-owned
enterprises (The World Bank 2005). However, over the last three decades, Peru, along
with many other countries, has shifted its management of mines from centralized, gov-
ernment-controlled policymaking to more decentralized governance arrangements

CONTACT Anna Erwin anna.erwin@utrgv.edu School of Earth, Environmental, and Marine Sciences, University of
Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, USA.
Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2053018
ß 2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 A. ERWIN ET AL.

involving public, private, civil society, and community actors (Adam et al. 2021;
Arellano-Yanguas 2011; Verbrugge 2015). This shift stimulated the implementation of
various arrangements and mechanisms to support effective mining and resources
governance, processes, and approaches that aimed to improve the effectiveness of
government decision-making. First, mining companies have increasingly implemented
corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs (Arellano-Yanguas 2011). Second, the
government created decentralized mining laws to support subnational governments and
collaborations across governments, mining companies, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and communities (Arellano-Yanguas 2011). Most notably, the Peruvian gov-
ernment created the mining canon, which diverts a significant portion of corporate
income tax collected from mining companies and mining royalties to subnational gov-
ernments (i.e., departments, provinces, districts) in mining areas (Arellano-Yanguas
2011, 2019; Aresti 2016) (Supplement A). Third, the Peruvian legal framework requires
community participation, particularly public participation as part of the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) and General Environmental Law, and prior consultation and
informed consent for Indigenous Peoples (Supplement A).
Together, these governance arrangements and mechanisms aim to enhance sustain-
able development by increasing the participation of those most impacted by mining and
other resource development projects; however, the results of these efforts are mixed. For
instance, the Peruvian government has enacted several laws to increase the involvement
of affected communities in the approval process of new infrastructure projects, but the
forms and extent of such involvement are not clearly delineated. This includes Law No.
29785, which states that Indigenous Peoples. While this law gives the right to prior con-
sultation for Indigenous Peoples before mining development, it also designates an
authority, often a government official, to decide if and how concerns raised through
such community consultation will be addressed (Jaskoski 2014; Rey-Coquais 2021). In
the end, communities do not have the legal power to veto proposed mining projects. In
light of such a lack of decision authority, communities have pursued several avenues to
voice their concerns and exercise power in mining governance. Some encourage mining
companies to seek a Social License to Operate (SLO), an informal, often ongoing agree-
ment between communities and mining companies that indicates community approval
or rejection of a proposed mining project (Prno and Slocombe 2012). Some partner
with transnational networks to increase awareness of mining activity and its negative
social and environmental impacts (Paredes 2016). In other cases, communities lead pro-
tests against mining companies and governments, sometimes ending in violence or even
death (Conde 2017; Flemmer and Schilling-Vacaflor 2016; Muradian, Martinez-Alier,
and Correa 2003; Triscritti 2013).
Indeed, these actions have increased community agency in decision-making. At the
time of this study, proceeding with a mining project without engaging local commun-
ities is not advisable and can lead to conflict, loss of resources, and worse (Hodge 2014;
Triscritti 2013). Even with these realities, many new and ongoing mining projects still
neglect community concerns and at times even forgo gaining an SLO (Owen and Kemp
2013). Moreover, there remains a disconnect between the literature that critically
questions efforts designed to cultivate equitable resource governance and many applied
policy studies that analyze existing governance processes in mining development.
 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 3

Specifically, research that uses political-ecological or other critical approaches uses com-
munity perspectives, both empirically and conceptually, to guide analyses of conflict
and governance in mining contexts. This literature has shown that power imbalances
and negligence of community priorities, along with other factors like ineffective pollu-
tion control and remediation, continue to degrade the environment, jeopardize local
livelihoods, increase inequalities within and across communities, and exacerbate local
political and social conflicts (e.g., Anguelovski 2011; Arellano-Yanguas 2011; Muradian,
Martinez-Alier, and Correa 2003; Triscritti 2013). Yet, while applied policy studies on
natural resource governance in mining contexts argue for increased community partici-
pation, many have elected to largely focus on the analysis of corporate and government
stakeholders, reviews of policy documents, or secondary analysis of community
concerns (e.g., Franco and Ali 2017; Fraser and Kunz 2018; Mercer-Mapstone et al.
2018, 2019). In fact, few applied policy studies focus on community perspectives or use
community priorities to shape mechanisms for improving mining governance
(e.g., Andrews and Essah 2020; Essah and Andrews 2016).
In this article, we begin to address gaps in the applied policy studies by documenting
and analyzing community concerns through the lens of a “community-centered gov-
ernance” framework that prioritizes community perspectives and works toward balanc-
ing power among stakeholders in decision-making (Andrews and Essah 2020; Armitage
et al. 2020; Lockwood et al. 2010). Using this framework as a guide, this study asks:
how do communities perceive and participate in governance in mining contexts? And
what are some alternative ways, driven by community priorities, to address governance
in mining contexts? We answer these questions by drawing on semi-structured inter-
views in two distinct agricultural districts, Caylloma and Madrigal, in the Department
of Arequipa in Peru, and analyzing mining-specific governance mechanisms (i.e., min-
ing canon, CSR policies, participation procedures) from community perspectives. Our
contribution to the applied, natural resource policy literature on mining governance is
to draw lessons from community members themselves, rather than analyzing data from
corporate and government stakeholders or secondary sources. Our results show how
prioritizing community perspectives in data collection can illuminate context-specific
factors that shape a community’s perception and participation in governance and
pinpoint approaches, driven by context, to address governance in mining development.

Challenges to Governance in Mining Development

Globally, it has been widely documented that decades of mining activity have contami-
nated water and soil and exhausted significant water resources, which also resulted in
biodiversity loss and the changes in local water management systems (Sosa, Boelens,
and Zwarteveen 2017; Vela-Almeida et al. 2016). In response to these impacts, com-
munities around where mining activity has taken place have demanded, through protest
and collaboration with transnational and local NGOs, that mining companies and gov-
ernments take more responsibility to prevent and/or mitigate them (Conde 2017;
Muradian, Martinez-Alier, and Correa 2003). In the early 1990s, countries like Peru and
the Philippines also began to shift away from centralized, national policymaking to
decentralized, multi-stakeholder governance with mining and other extractive industries
4 A. ERWIN ET AL.

(Adam et al. 2021; Arellano-Yanguas 2011; Verbrugge 2015). In a few cases, the shift
improved policymaking and movements toward sustainable mining (Fraser 2021; Fraser
and Kunz 2018). While in other cases, issues, such as power imbalances among stake-
holders created inequitable outcomes, at times instigating conflict within communities
and among stakeholders (Arellano-Yanguas 2011; Jaskoski 2014).
Mining development also often takes place in the context of governmental institutions
that lack effective processes for managing multi-stakeholder governance (Franco and Ali
2017; Cheshire 2010; Popovici et al. 2021). This creates obstacles to implementing
effective arrangements for decentralized mining governance. For instance, Peru, Bolivia,
Indonesia, Nigeria, and South Africa all created mining funds that redistribute mining
revenues to subnational governments (in Peru, referred to as the mining canon). These
countries use the funds to support infrastructure projects in town centers located close
to mines through building schools, soccer stadiums, or hospitals. Despite these efforts,
studies show that mining funds have fallen short of supporting local development. In
Peru, corruption, clientelism, short-term political incentives for local authorities, and a
lack of technical expertise and institutional knowledge among administrators have
resulted in mismanagement of allocated funds, uneven distribution of benefits across
communities, and in some cases, underspending of the allocated funds (Arellano-
Yanguas 2019; Gamu and Dauvergne 2018). As a result, communities often experience
the impacts of mining and the associated mining funds unevenly, become increasingly
frustrated and distrustful, and lose confidence in existing mining governance arrange-
ments (Bury 2004, 2005; Conde and Le Billon 2017).
In addition, in remote areas of Peru and Australia, CSR efforts act as surrogates to
social programs implemented by regional, democratically elected institutions (Cheshire
2010; Triscritti 2013). In some cases, such CSR efforts, especially those that incorporate
participatory mechanisms and tailor programs to address local needs, have generated
some benefits by fostering community-driven socio-economic development (Franco and
Ali 2017). However, this provisioning of social services can complicate governance by
fostering paternalism between communities and companies and deepening power differ-
ences between them (Cheshire 2010). Other scholars argue that while CSR could have
short-term positive impacts in communities, it is still embedded in extractive activities
that ultimately legitimize capitalist projects that pollute the environment, disrupt local
livelihoods, and are unable to “peacefully transform local resource politics” (Gamu and
Dauvergne 2018 p. 960). Overreliance on CSR can also weaken the legitimacy of demo-
cratic institutions and create negative views on government performance (Konte and
Vincent 2021). Because of these concerns, scholars posit that CSR can only support
development if domestic policies are in place to effectively regulate CSR and mining
activities (Andrews 2016; Arellano-Yanguas 2011; Triscritti 2013).
Moreover, most mining projects in countries like Peru, Australia, and the U.S. have
now instituted multi-stakeholder dialogues where actors deliberate over various stages
of mining development (Holley and Mitcham 2016; Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2019;
Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2018; Rey-Coquais 2021). In some cases, dialogues, especially
those that center local communities’ voices by prioritizing local concerns and needs, can
create mutually beneficial outcomes for all parties involved (Franco and Ali 2017; Fraser
2021; Fraser and Kunz 2018). For instance, in the case of the Cerro Verde Mine in
 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 5

Arequipa, Peru, stakeholders held dialogues for three years until all parties agreed to a
mutually beneficial outcome—the mining company built the city a much-needed waste-
water plant and used the wastewater in its mining operations (Fraser 2021; Fraser and
Kunz 2018). However, even though these dialogues support participation in mining
development, many countries do not have laws to support equitable participation.
As evident in documented cases worldwide, communities generally do not have the legal
authority to veto mining projects (Jaskoski 2014; Rey-Coquais 2021). Despite not having
equal legal and procedural power when compared to companies and governments, com-
munities often exercise their power by granting or vetoing the SLO. Some scholars describe
the SLO as an industry standard, while others define it as a tool that communities use to
practice their agency in mining governance (Prno and Slocombe 2012). No matter how it is
described, mining companies are generally motivated to obtain an SLO. However, gaining
an SLO often does not denote sustainable outcomes (Owen and Kemp 2013). In some cases,
obtaining mutually beneficial, sustainable outcomes requires communities initially denying
an SLO, which prompts companies to further address community priorities (Fraser and
Kunz 2018). In other cases, companies gain the SLO through short-term dialogues with
community elites, eliminating opportunities to gain input from diverse community actors or
to create long-term, reciprocal relationships among stakeholders (Owen and Kemp 2013).
Overall, scholars argue that an overemphasis on gaining the SLO in dialogues and mining
development both causes more conflicts in the long term and prevents relationship building
that could support more effective decision-making in mining contexts (Mercer-Mapstone
et al. 2019; Owen and Kemp 2013).
The literature suggests that community priorities should be at the forefront
(Armitage et al. 2020), and “actors ought to be able to negotiate the management of
mining projects and revenues as equal partners” (Triscritti 2013, 448). However, even
though scholars are starting to recognize the value of community-centered governance
in conservation programs and policy (see Armitage et al. 2020), few have applied this
perspective in mining contexts. Moreover, many studies on mining policy and govern-
ance do not focus on the perspectives of the communities that are often most impacted
by mining development, and many projects move forward without addressing commu-
nity concerns or the inherent power imbalances among actors. In this paper, we center
community voices by comparing mining governance in two cases in Peru and analyzing
how the ways that mining-specific mechanisms, like CSR, dialogues, and procedural
laws, prioritize or neglect community concerns. In what follows, we describe our
research sites and design and discuss the results of community perceptions of mining
governance across our two cases.

Research Design
Case Sites: Caylloma and Madrigal
The commercial center of the district of Caylloma (Figure 1) sits at 4,332 meters/
14,212 ft above sea level and is home to 4,000 residents. Caylloma’s elevation is too
high for crop farming, so pastoralism is the dominant agricultural livelihood strategy.
Many residents have homes in the town center, but also spend time in annexes, which
are large pieces of land of 150 acres or more where they herd between 100 and 500
6 A. ERWIN ET AL.

Figure 1. Case study sites (Daneshvar et al. 2021).

alpacas, lambs, goats, and/or llamas. In lower elevations, some people also raise cattle.
Caylloma is home to some of the oldest mines in Latin America, with an active mining
history of 400 years (Pinto del Carpio 2020). National and international mining com-
panies operate throughout the district, and multiple informal mines operate in or close
to the district. However, the most prominent formal mine is the Caylloma Mine, owned
and operated by Fortuna, a subsidiary of Minera Bateas, a Canadian mining company.
The Caylloma Mine covers 36,312 hectares and extracts silver, gold, zinc, and lead, with
future aspirations to mine for diamonds. This mining activity funds the mining canon
as well as other community projects (Pinto del Carpio 2020). Many residents also work
in informal mines, either as their primary livelihood strategy or to diversify their
income sources.
With a population of around 600 and an elevation of 3,262 m/10,702 ft., the district
of Madrigal primarily consists of small farms that grow a variety of crops, including
corn, alfalfa, and potatoes, and raise cows and other livestock. While many indigenous
people live in Madrigal, the district is not designated an indigenous community by the
Peruvian government. Madrigal has a unique history of mining. The Madrigal Mine
was located next to the town center from the 1970s until it abruptly closed in 1991.
When the mine was operating, people in Madrigal engaged in both smallholder farming
and economic activities that revolved around mining. Some worked in the mine, and
those who did not work directly for the mine benefited economically through commer-
cial activities, such as restaurants or selling services to miners. The closing of the mine
impacted the town economically and environmentally. At the time of data collection in
2018, the Peruvian mining company Buenaventura had plans to construct the Mayra
 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 7

mine, a gold mine in K’ana K’ana (northern part of the district, elevation 4500 m/
15,000 ft). It was planned to be located at the headwaters of the Palco River, which pro-
vides domestic and irrigation water for the nearby districts of Madrigal, Lari,
Ichupampa, and Corporaque. Buenaventura applied for a permit from the Peruvian
Ministry of Energy and Mines to conduct exploratory extractive studies to see if there
were mining reserves. However, exploratory extraction started without Buenaventura
consulting with the local community. At the time of our study, the construction of the
Mayra mine was halted.

Research Methods
We used a multi-case embedded approach (Yin 2013) to study how two distinct com-
munities attempted to use governance mechanisms to address their concerns with min-
ing companies. To choose study sites, we used “replication logic,” defined by Yin (2013)
as “the selection of two or more cases … because the cases are predicted to produce
similar findings” (p. 239). We chose our sites because both are situated in the same
Province, had access to the same governance mechanisms, were subject to the same
laws, and were experiencing mining conflicts at the time of this study. The two districts
also differed in that they were in various stages of mining development, with Madrigal
experiencing conflict in the face of a new mining project and Caylloma engaging in
long-term mining development. Despite these differences, the two cases were predicted
to produce similar findings because mining policies and governance mechanisms were
consistent across cases. The comparative method allowed us to compare and contrast
these two cases, offer insights into both contexts, and demonstrate what issues inhibited
effective governance.
We used a combination of purposive and snowball sampling to collect data from a
diversity of actors (Neuman 2009). Specifically, in 2018, we conducted 24 semi-
structured interviews with 29 people, including farmers, community leaders, and
authorities in Madrigal, and 29 semi-structured interviews with 56 alpaca and llama
herders, ranchers, community leaders, authorities, and a community relations expert
from a mining company in Caylloma. The majority of the interviews were conducted in
Spanish; however, several research participants spoke Quechua, and in those situations a
translator supported fieldwork. During interviews, we aimed to document how commu-
nity members perceived the mining development process and their capacity to address
their concerns. In particular, we asked community members to identify their commun-
ity’s most prominent problems and describe their opinions of mining activity, the min-
ing cannon, and dialogues.
For intercoder reliability, the lead author and two coauthors collectively edited the
coding framework in four separate meetings and coded 10% of the transcripts before
deciding on a codebook (Campbell et al. 2013; Church, Dunn, and Prokopy 2019).
Coauthors stopped the reliability processes when they met a kappa coefficient higher
than 0.7. The lead author then used Nvivo to code and organize the data into themes
and used direct content and thematic analysis to interpret how people perceived gov-
ernance in each district (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). The analysis concluded by con-
necting results that emerged during thematic analysis, interpreting the results in
8 A. ERWIN ET AL.

relation to the scholarly literature, and identifying quotations that were examples of
those linkages.

Results: Community Perspectives of Mining Development and Governance

In this section, we document how people perceived mining development within each
district. We then describe how people perceived governance mechanisms, such as the
mining canon, dialogues, and CSR programs. We also describe how both communities
resorted to protest because their district’s governance arrangements did not adequately
address the issues they were facing.

Caylloma
Dust, Lack of Employment in Mining, and Water Pollution
In Caylloma, interviewees were concerned about dust from mining trucks, a lack of
employment opportunities in the mine, and water pollution from mining activity. Many
interviewees told us that mining trucks created dust that polluted their pastures. One
pastoralist in Caylloma explained this as follows: “There’s a lot of pollution, which
impacts our animals, especially when there are a lot of cars and the dust from the cars
pollutes the grass.” Many interviewees believed that the dust made their animals sick, as
one person explained: “We get a lot of dust pollution. The rain will clean the dust but if
there’s no rain, the animals cough a lot.”
In addition to dust issues, interviewees informed us that the mining companies would
often promise to employ local people, but they hired workers from elsewhere. One local
school leader described this as:
“There’s an agreement between the municipality and the mining company that states that
professionals from Caylloma get preferential treatment. When there are no more professionals
from here, they can bring in people from other places, but that’s only in writing. In reality,
they only bring in people from other towns. They say [local] people don’t know how to work,
they haven’t studied, and they’re not trained.”
One authority from Caylloma further confirmed this perception by stating: “The big
companies bring in their own workers from other parts of the country like Cusco,
Chumbivilcas, and Puno, so we continue to dedicate our livelihoods to raising alpacas.”
Interviewees also told us that mines impact water quality and quantity, which nega-
tively affected the grass that their alpacas ate: “The grass has really decreased because
there isn’t much water. The mine diverts the water, the springs have dried up, and there’s
no longer green grass. It’s just dry grass.” Another pastoralist explained this in more
detail as follows: “Before there wasn’t much mining and the rivers had fish, there were
frogs and toads, but now, there’s nothing. They all disappeared when they started the
work in the mines.”

The Community Wanted a New Road and a Mining Institute

In relation to these concerns, interviewees wanted the mine to pave the road and create
an institute to train youth to work in the formal mines. In particular, interviewees
informed us that they wanted a new asphalt road, as one person explained: “We want
 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 9

an asphalt road and the authorities to help us draw out water to irrigate our pastures to
improve our natural pastures and economy.” Other interviewees told us that they wanted
opportunities for young people to work in the formal mines. One authority explained
this as follows: “It would be great if the majority of the workers in formal mines were
from Caylloma, but this isn’t happening … They should have a chance to work in the for-
mal mines, but the companies only bring people from outside.” Another pastoralist
expressed a similar desire: “We don’t have an institute in Caylloma. Because of this,
young people who finish high school work in informal mines as day laborers. We need an
institute so that they can study, work as professionals, and have a better income.”

Many Community Members Felt Neglected by the Mining Company

Interviewees identified several mechanisms used by the mining company to address
community concerns, including dialogues, the mining canon, and CSR programs. Many
interviewees also told us that they expressed their concerns to the mine directly, but the
mine did not listen. One pastoralist described this as follows: “They don’t listen to us,
they only spray down the dust in some areas. Afterwards, it goes back to normal.”
Another explained this as: “There’s not much help from the mining companies. They’ve
had meetings, but they don’t listen.” Interviewees also expressed that they were confused
about how to request help, as one pastoralist explained:
“We need tubes [for irrigation], but we don’t know which institutions to turn to. We’ve
asked the mining companies, but they don’t want to support us. The regional government
also won’t support us. The information they give us is an insult. We no longer trust anyone.”
The mining canon was also a point of tension. In Caylloma, the mining canon was
distributed to the district municipality and then dispersed at the mayor’s discretion.
One leader described this relationship as follows: “The district gets funds from the
mining canon, but our annex doesn’t. The mining companies support the annexes but
indirectly. Decisions made on the distribution of funds rest in the hand of the district
municipality, the mayor.” Because the mining canon funds were distributed this way,
some interviewees did not see the impact of these funds and wanted more direct sup-
port. As one pastoralist explained: “The people always ask the mine for help, but the
mining companies say that they already help by paying into the mining canon.”
The mining company had recently implemented CSR programs where they supported
pastoralists through capacity building. A mining representative explained that they
implemented the CSR programs because the mining canon neglects rural populations.
He explained this as follows:
“We do this as part of our social responsibility, but it’s also due to the people’s demand. The
mine makes their contribution to the mining canon, but in many cases, the funds are
channeled to other areas, not to livestock. Infrastructure is built in town, but 95% of the
population is dedicated to pastoralism, so they’re neglected.”
He also informed us that he and his colleagues from the mining company had elicited
input from community members through a workshop. He explained the process as: “a
workshop and afterwards we learned about their needs, like dosages of parasitic
medicines.. The pastoralists learned how to administer the medicines.” Some interviewees
perceived the CSR programs as helpful. A pastoralist explained the project as follows:
10 A. ERWIN ET AL.

“Now, the mine is helping us … In general, you could say that the support is good, but in
the end, they’re taking our wealth and should support us.” There was also a shared senti-
ment that the mining company could and should do more for the local community.

Community Members Used Protests to Address Their Concerns and Priorities

Because community members felt that the mining company and the government had largely
neglected their concerns and needs, many resorted to protests. A teacher described this
as follows:
“This year, there have been two intense protests, one due to non-compliance of agreements
and another due to not asphalting the road … The mining company takes the town’s
resources and leaves nothing in return. It’s chaos. That’s why they went out to protest.
Because of the protests, many things have been achieved, such as improving the road, which
is being carried out … If there were no protests, nothing would happen, and the companies
would just operate as usual. The protests are good.”
Even though most community members supported the protests, some were hesitant
in their support. One pastoralist explained this as follows: “This year, there was a protest
and now the mine’s paying 5 million soles. It is a form of support, but it was implemented
by force.” Similarly, another pastoralist explained to us that the protests were conten-
tious: “When we protest, they also bring police, and they don’t allow us to claim
our rights.”

Madrigal
Pollution from a Former Mine and Potential Threats to Headwaters
In Madrigal, interviewees were still dealing with runoff from a former mine while being
concerned about the potential ramifications of a proposed mine on their water supply.
One authority explained this as: “Two mining companies are attacking us. The current
company and the former one.” In particular, interviewees were troubled by the runoff
from the former mine and the proposed mine’s threat to their water supply, and a lack
of engagement with Madrigal’s community.
For example, many interviewees told us that farm plots next to the former mine were
polluted. One widow of a miner and farmer in Madrigal shared: “They left us with run-
off, so it no longer produces, no corn, no potatoes, no barley, nothing … That damn
company … They told us, ‘we are going to fix it, we are going to fix it’, but they never
did.” Another farmer described her experience similarly. She said: “We had a lot of
farms that were close to the old mine, and it impacted us so much that people had to
move away and abandon those farms.”
Interviewees also told us that they were scared that the new mine would pollute their
headwaters. When we asked an authority his opinion about the biggest challenge facing
the district, he said: “The problem with the mine … If it comes here, it will pollute our
water. It’s in our headwaters.” A farmer interviewee confirmed this concern by stating:
“The mine wants to come, and we don’t want it. They’ll pollute our water. The water comes
from a spring, and from that spring, we irrigate. Many of our farms were destroyed from the
old mine. We had a large farm next to the older mine, and it’s ruined. We’ve been screwed.
The mine didn’t buy the farms back from us, either.”
 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 11

Others were concerned that the new mine was a short-term economic solution that
would leave the district with nothing after it closes. One farmer explained this as: “In
ten years, this place will be a desert. You will no longer see plants … It’s not right.” One
farmer and temporary government worker explained her concern about the short-term
nature of mines as well:
“The mine will move the mountains, and that’s where the water is. So, each time they move
the mountains, another drop of water is lost … Afterward, what water are we going to have?
Of course, the mine will be welcomed now. There may be jobs all over the place, but what
will happen in the long term? We cannot just think about ourselves. We have to think about
our children and grandchildren … After a while, there’ll be just a little bit of green, and as
time goes by, it’ll all be desert. Of course, there’ll be progress, but what will happen later?
Once the mine closes, they’ll leave happy, but what about those of us who live here? We’re
the ones who are going to suffer. We won’t have anything.”
Several interviewees also discussed alternative development opportunities to mining.
One farmer and local business owner preferred that the community focus on tourism
instead of mining. He explained this as follows:
“The mine is a passer-byer. There was a mining company here, 30 years ago. As you have
probably seen, they’ve left … I think that tourism could be permanent … I think we should
bet on tourism.”

Some Community Members Supported While Others Objected to the Proposed Mine
Even though some community members expressed conditional support for the proposed
mine, others were entirely opposed no matter the opportunities the proposed mine
could bring. In terms of the former, several interviewees discussed how they wanted the
proposed mine to halt all exploratory extraction and planning activities until it made an
agreement with the community and supported local development. As one organizational
leader explained: “The mine could come here with no problem, but there has to be an
agreement between the farmers and the mine.” Another farmer and local business owner
told us: “I would even say yes to the mine, but they have to follow the law. They could
help us improve education and our animals, including cattle, sheep, and maybe even alpa-
cas. The mining company could also help us find a market.” An additional farmer echoed
this conditional support as follows: “We want a responsible mine that does what the state
asks. This would be great, but if the mine is not responsible, it will destroy us, just like
other mines.” However, based on their previous experience with mining companies,
many interviewees were not confident that an agreement between the mining company
and the agricultural community would be possible. As one farmer explained: “The min-
ing company has to support ranchers, education, health, but they’re not interested. For
them, it doesn’t matter.”
While some community members were conditionally supportive of the proposed
mine, many other interviewees did not want the mine to operate at all. An exact per-
centage was unknown due to the qualitative nature of our study; however, one local
authority estimated that “80% of the population doesn’t want the mine.” Interviewees’
objection was mostly because they doubted that the mine could operate without pollut-
ing their headwaters. Even community members who benefited from the former mine
rejected the proposed mine. One leader and former mine worker in the Madrigal mine
12 A. ERWIN ET AL.

said: “No, because it will ruin our headwaters. Right now, the water is already polluted.
It is turning blue … People don’t want it, period.” Another farmer spoke about the
pollution that the former mine had left and said: “Everything you see here has already
been ruined. Now a mine wants to come back!? We will never let them in again.”

Former Laws Neglected Community Concerns and the Proposed Mine Did Not Seek
Community Participation
In Madrigal, people told us that laws neglected people and did not prevent pollution
when the former mine was in operation. One authority described this as: “In the 80 s
and 90 s, there were almost no mining laws that favored agriculture. There was no envir-
onmental impact assessment. The Madrigal Mine did their best, but they left runoff that’s
still here to this day.” Because laws were not in place, the land was damaged, and only
some people were compensated for their losses from the runoff. Many shared the same
frustration as one farmer interviewee explained: “They completely ruined my land …
They didn’t compensate us for any of the damages.”
Regarding the proposed mine, interviewees told us that the mine already started
exploratory extraction without soliciting input from the local community. An authority
described this as follows: “Of course, we knew they had the intention, but they began
working without communicating with local authorities or local people.” One farmer
described this as: “Right now, the mine’s here, but without asking the town for permis-
sion. It has already started extracting.” In addition to being upset by this, interviewees
told us that this violated Peruvian laws. In particular, they informed us that the
Ministry of Energy and Mines and the National Water Authority, both national agencies
that approve mining projects, had signed an agreement with the proposed mine, but
they neglected to solicit input from the local community before starting exploratory
extractions, which is required by law in Peru (Supplement A). One authority expressed
that because of this, community members renounced the mine. He said: “The majority
of the people here don’t want the mine because the mine hasn’t had a dialogue. In what-
ever way, there has to be a dialogue to discuss environmental problems, pollution, and
people’s land.”
Some interviewees also told us that the mining company and government agencies
did hold a dialogue, but only after the mining company had started exploratory extrac-
tion. Several interviewees told us specifically that they learned of mining activity when
people from Madrigal and neighboring towns also affected by the proposed mine met
with mining representatives and government agencies to discuss the project. They
thought they were meeting to discuss the proposal; however, they realized that the min-
ing company had already started exploratory extraction when they met. Many interview-
ees perceived this as deception, as one farmer explained: “They came to give us a
dialogue. They wanted to surprise us, but then we realized what they were doing.”
Another farmer explained that the mining company held the dialogue only to elicit
information about possible CSR projects, not an SLO. He said: “They told us: ‘we’re
going to start on Tuesday. What do you want from us?’ We told them that we want noth-
ing. ‘You have deceived us way too much. Go away!’”
 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 13

Community Members Addressed Their Concerns through Protests and

Legal Measures
In the end, many community members perceived the lack of consultation and respectful
dialogues with the mining company as an encroachment on their rights, as one author-
ity told us: “The townspeople say: ‘Even the humblest of towns has rights, and those rights
have been violated.’” Many interviewees shared with us that they declared their rights at
a dialogue held by the mining company and united with authorities and other towns to
protest against the mine. In fact, during the dialogue process, the mining company
attempted to convince some local people to support the mine, but it did not work. A
farmer described this event as follows:
“At some point some people wanted the mine; however, then people who actually understood
mining came to the dialogue. They asked: ‘How are you going to give authorization to them?
They’re going to pollute the water, and we make our living from agriculture.’ After that, the
mine was out.”
It is also worth noting that several protests took place in Arequipa, the departmental
capital. As one interviewee told us: “We were upset and had a meeting. It was there we
learned they’d started without our permission. Because of this, we protested.” When asked
why people went to Arequipa to protest, this interviewee said: “so they’ll listen to us
faster.” Another farmer interviewee told us that the people from Madrigal united with
other districts. He said: “We’re fighting against the company, together with the govern-
ment authorities.” An authority from Madrigal further elaborated on this collective
effort and told us: “Practically all the right side of the river [Rio Colca] is united against
the mine, [districts of Lari, Madrigal, Ichupampa].”
Because of these efforts, the mining company halted its exploratory extraction.
Specifically, an authority from Madrigal described that the company had been
“paralyzed.” In addition to being paralyzed, the company had to pay a hefty fine for
violating the community’s rights and not following laws requiring community participa-
tion in mining development. An authority described this as follows: “The mine was
sanctioned. It owes the state a fine. It’s a lot of money. I really don’t know if it will be
able to pay it and reopen.” Another authority explained this as follows: “This is why the
town has risen up together. Now, the company has suffered a bit … Why? Because of
their bad behavior! The mine will be fine. They have money.” Even though the actions
taken by local communities had succeeded, some had concerns that the mine could
return, as one younger farmer interviewee described: “They stopped, but if they start
again, we’re ready to fight.”

Discussion: Community-Driven Approaches to Mining Governance

Results show how centering community voices can reveal context-specific mechanisms
for addressing governance concerns in diverse mining communities, like the districts of
Madrigal and Caylloma. In particular, insight from community members in two distinct
districts shows that local livelihoods and historical contexts can shape how communities
perceive mining. Like in other studies ( Armah et al. 2011 ; Vela-Almeida et al. 2016),
community members from both sites continued to experience pollution from mining,
including dust and water pollution. However, most interviewees in Caylloma did not
14 A. ERWIN ET AL.

want the mine to close. As in other Peruvian communities with mining (Malone, Smith,
and Zeballos 2021), many interviewees partially relied on the mine for their livelihoods
and some self-identified as both miners and pastoralists. On the contrary, Madrigal’s
interviewees’ concerns about pollution directly contributed to their disapproval of the
new mining project. Overall, a community’s historical relationship with a mine, the
extent to which community members depend on the mine for their livelihoods, and
their physical proximity to the mine can shape their perceptions of mining (Conde and
Le Billon 2017; Dagvadorj, Byamba, and Ishikawa 2018; Triscritti 2013).
In particular, prior knowledge of Madrigal’s adverse mining history could have cau-
tioned the mining company before pursuing the development of a new mine. In fact, in
Peru, proposed mining projects in headwaters, like the one in Madrigal, are usually
denied an SLO (Jaskoski 2014; Triscritti 2013). In Caylloma, however, the historical
presence of mining and the complex livelihoods and corresponding intersectional identi-
ties of many pastoralists (Erwin et al. 2021) created more common ground. For this rea-
son, working together to identify community-driven, mining-supported development
outcomes is likely more plausible in Caylloma than in Madrigal. Together, our results
highlight a need for community-centered governance, that is, placing local livelihoods,
historical contexts, and community dynamics at the forefront to effectively engage com-
munity participation and facilitate effective governance.
Similarly, data suggest that distributing funds from the mining canon to rural areas
could more adequately address the priorities of people living in rural, agricultural com-
munities in mining contexts. For instance, the Peruvian government implemented the
mining canon so subnational governments could have more resources to address com-
munity priorities (Supplement A). However, subnational governments may have prior-
ities that do not align with local needs. Even at the local level, decision-makers may
prioritize some desires from their communities over others. This was evident in the
case of Caylloma where rural pastoralists wanted an asphalt road, but municipal leaders
used the mining canon to stimulate development in the town center. In this case, rural
pastoralists were displeased because their concerns and priorities were neglected, and
the mining company was dissatisfied because they felt they already paid their dues.
Other studies have similarly shown how funds from the mining canon often fail to
adequately address rural priorities (Arellano-Yanguas 2011, 2019). These findings point
to nuances with increasing public participation in decision-making. Particularly, demo-
cratically elected officials often have more incentive to adhere to the majority’s desires.
Peruvian town centers generally have higher populations, thus, are more likely to bene-
fit from the mining canon. However, town centers rarely experience the same magni-
tude of mining impacts as populated rural communities (Arellano-Yanguas 2011, 2019).
Our results indicate that reallocating funding to rural areas that are affected by the
mine to specifically address local problems and needs could improve perceived fairness
and development opportunities in those areas. In places like Caylloma, one option could
be to distribute a portion of the funds to elected presidents of annexes where pastoral-
ists reside instead of distributing all the funds to the municipality in town.
Furthermore, community perspectives provide further evidence that supports what
has been shown in some studies about CSR and its related initiatives. First, CSR pro-
grams are increasingly used by mining companies to address opposition toward negative
 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 15

impacts of mining, engage with communities, and gain their support (Conde 2017).
Second, communities may have a broader perspective of CSR than mining companies
(Mzembe and Downs 2014). Indeed, in Caylloma, many community members wanted
opportunities to work in the mine and desired a mining institute to train youth to work
in formal mines. Yet, the CSR programs focused on small, dispersed projects that
trained pastoralists, for example, programs that teach pastoralists about antibiotics for
their herds. Even though the mine discussed CSR ideas with communities, the projects
they implemented did not address the longer-term priorities of most pastoralists we
interviewed. As Devenin and Bianchi (2018) pointed out, CSR programs often fail when
they do not contribute to long-term community priorities. Our findings suggest that
educational and employment opportunities could be essential for community develop-
ment along with shorter-term projects. In this study, we did not have sufficient data to
further analyze how power shapes the development and implementation of CSR
programs. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that extractive industries use CSR
programs as a risk management tool (Frederiksen 2019; McLennan and Banks 2019).
They often aim to address the priorities of “those with the greatest capacity to disrupt
operations rather than those with the greatest need” (Frederiksen 2019, 168). This
should be an important topic for future research.
Perceptions of community members align with other studies showing that participa-
tory processes, such as dialogues and processes for informed consent between commu-
nity members and mining companies, need to be community-driven, transparent, fair,
and sincere (Flemmer and Schilling-Vacaflor 2016; Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2018, 2019).
In both Caylloma and Madrigal, community members participated in dialogues with the
mining companies, but they did not feel respected in these spaces. In Madrigal, when
the mining company held a dialogue, community members felt that it was not for
addressing their needs and concerns; rather, interviewees felt that the mining company
had predetermined goals, including informing the community of their operations as if
the mine were already moving forward, and they felt that the dialogue was solely for
the purpose of gaining their approval to proceed (i.e., SLO). In particular, community
members perceived that the dialogue was manipulative and disrespectful, and they
protested because, from their perspectives, the mining company did not genuinely
consult them.
On paper, Peruvian laws require community participation before a new mining pro-
ject begins and throughout the life of the mine (Supplement A). However, the laws do
not grant communities the power to create dialogue agendas or legally veto a proposed
project (Flemmer and Schilling-Vacaflor 2016; Rey-Coquais, S. 2020). Because there are
no set details on what community participation entails, the decision about if and how
community concerns will be addressed rests in the goodwill of the Ministry of Energy
and Mines. Like what was shown in our study, a lack of accountability can spark resist-
ance on the part of communities, reduce the likelihood of recourse, and decrease com-
munity trust in dialogues (Anguelovski 2011; Armah et al. 2011; Vela-Almeida et al.
2016). Indeed, many mining projects across Peru, including those from Conga,
Tambomayo, Tintaya, and Rio Blanco, also experienced widespread resistance from
communities because of a lack of transparency, mutual respect, and perceived fairness
in decision-making processes (Anguelovski 2011; Arellano-Yanguas 2011, 2019;
16 A. ERWIN ET AL.

Bebbington et al. 2008; Gamu and Dauvergne 2018; Jaskoski 2014; Muradian, Martinez-
Alier, and Correa 2003; Toledo Orozco and Veiga 2018). In addition, theories of
participatory justice suggest that dialogues alone will not sufficiently support those who
participate unless participant priorities are tied to actions (Fraser 2009). As such, our
results, along with previous studies, suggest that dialogues developed to discuss and sup-
port local needs and priorities, instead of dialogues organized to inform communities of
mining companies’ plans or for the sole purpose of gaining SLOs from communities,
could facilitate long-term relationship building among stakeholders, something that may
support more effective decision-making over time ( Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2018; Owen
and Kemp 2013). At the same time, our results highlight the need for legal arrange-
ments that give communities power and enforce accountability for addressing local
needs and priorities discussed during dialogues. Furthermore, most Peruvian laws focus
on participation at the beginning stages of mining development, particularly during the
EIA process (Supplement A). Our findings from Caylloma highlight the need for more
robust, clear laws that support community participation throughout the life of a mine.
Finally, results align with other studies in Peru and indicate that dismissing commu-
nity agency before proceeding with mining operations could cost communities, mining
companies, and governments significant resources (Triscritti 2013). For instance, in
Madrigal, interviewees used the law in their favor to demonstrate how the mining com-
pany did not allow for community participation before starting exploratory extraction.
They also used protests to raise awareness of their case. In the end, the community and
local government spent significant time and energy working through the conflict, and
the mining company was fined and stopped its exploratory extraction in response to
these efforts. In Caylloma, community members used protests to address their desires
for an asphalt road, a need that was previously raised through dialogues but neglected.
While the road had not been built at the time of our interviews, interviewees reported
that a road had been promised to them and would be built soon. Our results provide
further evidence that supports trends observed across several studies. Particularly, while
mining development and pollution are increasing globally, communities continue to
exercise agency in mining deliberations (Hodge 2014; Paredes 2016).

Conclusions
This study provides insight into how to address mining governance from community
perspectives, a view that contributes to the natural resource policy literature. Our
analyses of community members’ perceptions of mining companies, governments, and
community relations yielded three key insights. First, open dialogues at different stages
of mining development where communities control the agenda could create more pro-
ductive relationships among stakeholders than dialogues staged by mining companies
with the primary goal of gaining an SLO (Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2018). Second, funds
from the mining canon and CSR programs need to adapt to adequately support rural
communities in mining contexts. Lastly, our results call for additional attention to the
laws that uphold power imbalances in mining decision-making. For instance, across the
world, the shift from government to governance encouraged opportunities for public
participation and informed consent in natural resource management (Flemmer and
 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 17

Schilling-Vacaflor 2016; Larson and Soto 2008; Lockwood et al. 2010). However, existing
laws continue to give more power to decision-makers like government officials than
communities, thereby reinforcing existing power imbalances and further excluding those
with less power (Frederiksen 2019; Larson and Soto 2008). Future research on how
diverse communities perceive governance in mining contexts could highlight more ways
in which these dynamics play out on the ground and provide additional insight into
how to address governance in mining contexts.

Acknowledgments
We thank our research participants in the districts of Caylloma and Madrigal and the Purdue
University Center for the Environment.

Disclosure statement
All coauthors of this manuscript have no competing interests to declare.

Funding
This research was funded by the Arequipa Nexus Institute for Food, Energy, Water, and the
Environment provided by the Universidad Nacional de San Agustın de Arequipa.

ORCID
Anna Erwin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5953-5603
Zhao Ma http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9103-3996
Jonathan Bauchet http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0583-5678
Nelly Ramırez Calder on http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6133-9946
Eliseo Zeballos Zeballos http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8003-9348
Glenn Roberto Arce Larrea http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6949-9001
Ruxandra Popovici http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5096-6909
Laura Zanotti http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2712-4284
Chelsea A. Silva http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9435-4082

References
Adam, J. N., T. Adams, J.-D. Gerber, and T. Haller. 2021. Decentralization for increased sustain-
ability in natural resource management? Two cautionary cases from Ghana. Sustainability 13
(12):6885. doi:10.3390/su13126885.
Andrews, N. 2016. Challenges of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in domestic settings: An
exploration of mining regulation vis-a-vis CSR in Ghana. Resources Policy 47:9–17. doi:10.
1016/j.resourpol.2015.11.001.
Andrews, N., and M. Essah. 2020. The sustainable development conundrum in gold mining:
Exploring ‘Open, Prior and Independent Deliberate Discussion’ as a community-centered
framework. Resources Policy 68:101798. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101798.
Anguelovski, I. 2011. Understanding the dynamics of community engagement of corporations in
communities: The Iterative relationship between dialogue processes and local protest at the
Tintaya Copper Mine in Peru. Society & Natural Resources 24 (4):384–99. doi:10.1080/
08941920903339699.
18 A. ERWIN ET AL.

Arellano-Yanguas, J. 2011. Aggravating the resource curse: Decentralisation, mining and conflict
in Peru. Journal of Development Studies 47 (4):617–38. doi:10.1080/00220381003706478.
Arellano-Yanguas, J. 2019. Extractive industries and regional development: Lessons from Peru on
the limitations of revenue devolution to producing regions. Regional & Federal Studies 29 (2):
249–73. doi:10.1080/13597566.2018.1493461.
Aresti, M. L. 2016. Mineral revenue sharing in Peru. Revenue Sharing Case Study. Natural
Resource Governance Institute. https://resourcegovernance.org/sites/default/files/documents/
mineral-revenue-sharing-in-peru_0.pdf.
Armah, F. A., S. Obiri, D. O. Yawson, E. K. Afrifa, G. T. Yengoh, J. A. Olsson, and J. O. Odoi.
2011. Assessment of legal framework for corporate environmental behaviour and perceptions
of residents in mining communities in Ghana. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 54 (2):193–209. doi:10.1080/09640568.2010.505818.
Armitage, D., P. Mbatha, E. K. Muhl, W. Rice, and M. Sowman. 2020. Governance principles for
community-centered conservation in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.
Conservation Science and Practice 2 (2):e160. doi:10.1111/csp2.160.
Bebbington, A., L. Hinojosa, D. H. Bebbington, M. L. Burneo, and X. Warnaars. 2008.
Contention and ambiguity: Mining and the possibilities of development. Development and
Change 39 (6):887–914. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00517.x.
Bury, J. 2004. Livelihoods in transition: Transnational gold mining operations and local change
in Cajamarca, Peru. The Geographical Journal 170 (1):78–91. doi:10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.
05042.x.
Bury, J. 2005. Mining mountains: Neoliberalism, land tenure, livelihoods, and the new Peruvian
mining industry in Cajamarca. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 37 (2):
221–39. doi:10.1068/a371.
Campbell, J. L., C. Quincy, J. Osserman, and O. K. Pedersen. 2013. Coding in-depth semistruc-
tured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological
Methods & Research 42 (3):294–320. doi:10.1177/0049124113500475.
Cheshire, L. 2010. A corporate responsibility? The constitution of fly-in, fly-out mining compa-
nies as governance partners in remote, mine-affected localities. Journal of Rural Studies 26 (1):
12–20. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.06.005.
Church, S., M. Dunn, and L. Prokopy. 2019. Benefits to qualitative data quality with multiple
coders: Two case studies in multi-coder data analysis. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 1:2.
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/jrss/vol34/iss1/2/.
Conde, M. 2017. Resistance to mining. A review. Ecological Economics 132:80–90. doi:10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2016.08.025.
Conde, M., and P. Le Billon. 2017. Why do some communities resist mining projects while
others do not? The Extractive Industries and Society 4 (3):681–97. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2017.04.
009.
Dagvadorj, L., B. Byamba, and M. Ishikawa. 2018. Effect of local community’s environmental
perception on trust in a mining company: A case study in Mongolia. Sustainability 10 (3):
614–2. doi:10.3390/su10030614.
Daneshvar, F., J. Frankenberger, K. Cherkauer, H. Novoa, and L. Bowling. 2021. Hydrological
assessment of interconnected river basins in semi-arid region of Peruvian Andes. Earth and
Space Science Open Archive. doi:10.1002/essoar.10506222.1.
Devenin, V., and C. Bianchi. 2018. Soccer fields? What for? Effectiveness of corporate social
responsibility initiatives in the mining industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management 25 (5):866–79. doi:10.1002/csr.1503.
Erwin, A., Z. Ma, R. Popovici, E. P. Salas O’Brien, L. Zanotti, E. Zeballos Zeballos, J. Bauchet, N.
Ramirez Calder on, and G. R. Arce Larrea. 2021. Intersectionality shapes adaptation to social-
ecological change. World Development 138:105282. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105282.
Essah, M., and N. Andrews. 2016. Linking or de-linking sustainable mining practices and corpor-
ate social responsibility? Insights from Ghana. Resources Policy 50:75–85. doi:10.1016/j.resour-
pol.2016.08.008.
 SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 19

Flemmer, R., and A. Schilling-Vacaflor. 2016. Unfulfilled promises of the consultation approach:
the limits to effective indigenous participation in Bolivia’s and Peru’s extractive industries.
Third World Quarterly 37 (1):172–88. doi:10.1080/01436597.2015.1092867.
Franco, I. B., and S. Ali. 2017. Decentralization, corporate community development and resource
governance: A comparative analysis of two mining regions in Colombia. The Extractive
Industries and Society 4 (1):111–9. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2016.12.001.
Fraser, J. 2021. Mining companies and communities: Collaborative approaches to reduce social
risk and advance sustainable development. Resources Policy 74:101144. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.
2018.02.003.
Fraser, N. 2009. Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Fraser, J., and N. C. Kunz. 2018. Water stewardship: Attributes of collaborative partnerships
between mining companies and communities. Water 10 (8):1081. doi:10.3390/w10081081.
Frederiksen, T. 2019. Political settlements, the mining industry and corporate social responsibility
in developing countries. The Extractive Industries and Society 6 (1):162–70. doi:10.1016/j.exis.
2018.07.007.
Gamu, J. K., and P. Dauvergne. 2018. The slow violence of corporate social responsibility: The
case of mining in Peru. Third World Quarterly 39 (5):959–75. doi:10.1080/01436597.2018.
1432349.
Hodge, R. A. 2014. Mining company performance and community conflict: Moving beyond a
seeming paradox. Journal of Cleaner Production 84 (1):27–33. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.007.
Holley, E., and C. Mitcham. 2016. The Pebble Mine Dialogue: A case study in public engagement
and the social license to operate. Resources Policy 47:18–27. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2015.11.002.
Hsieh, H. F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research 15 (9):1277–88. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
Jaskoski, M. 2014. Environmental licensing and conflict in Peru’s mining sector: A path-depend-
ent analysis. World Development 64:873–83. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.07.010.
Konte, M., and R. C. Vincent. 2021. Mining and quality of public services: The role of local gov-
ernance and decentralization. World Development 140:105350. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.
105350.
Larson, A. M., and F. Soto. 2008. Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33 (1):213–39. doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.33.
020607.095522.
Lockwood, M., J. Davidson, A. Curtis, E. Stratford, and R. Griffith. 2010. Governance principles
for natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 23 (10):986–1001. doi:10.1080/
08941920802178214.
Malone, A., N. M. Smith, and E. Z. Zeballos. 2021. Coexistence and conflict between artisanal
mining, fishing, and farming in a Peruvian boomtown. Geoforum 120:142–54. doi:10.1016/j.
geoforum.2021.01.012.
McLennan, S., and G. Banks. 2019. Reversing the lens: Why corporate social responsibility is not
community development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26
(1):117–26. doi:10.1002/csr.1664.
Mercer-Mapstone, L., W. Rifkin, W. Louis, and K. Moffat. 2019. Power, participation, and exclu-
sion through dialogue in the extractive industries: Who gets a seat at the table? Resources
Policy 61:190–9. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.11.023.
Mercer-Mapstone, L. D., W. Rifkin, K. Moffat, and W. Louis. 2018. What makes stakeholder
engagement in social licence “meaningful”? Practitioners’ conceptualisations of dialogue. Rural
Society 27 (1):1–17. doi:10.1080/10371656.2018.1446301.
Muradian, R., J. Martinez-Alier, and H. Correa. 2003. International capital versus local popula-
tion: The environmental conflict of the Tambogrande Mining Project, Peru. Society & Natural
Resources 16 (9):775–92. doi:10.1080/08941920309166.
Mzembe, A. N., and Y. Downs. 2014. Managerial and stakeholder perceptions of an Africa-based
multinational mining company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR). The Extractive
Industries and Society 1 (2):225–36. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2014.06.002.
 20 A. ERWIN ET AL.

Neuman, L. 2009. Social science research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 7th
ed. Pearson.
Owen, J. R., and D. Kemp. 2013. Social licence and mining: A critical perspective. Resources
Policy 38 (1):29–35. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.06.016.
Paredes, M. 2016. The glocalization of mining conflict: Cases from Peru. The Extractive
Industries and Society 3 (4):1046–57. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2016.08.007.
Pinto del Carpio, P. M. 2020. Gobernanza de recursos naturales y conflicto social: El caso de
minera bateas, caylloma-per u 2005–2018. Thesis. Universidad Nacional de San Agustın
deArequipa.
Popovici, R., A. Erwin, Z. Ma, L. Prokopy, L. Zanotti, E. F. Bocardo Delgado, J. P. Pinto Caceres,
E. Zeballos Zeballos, E. P. Salas O’brien, L. Bowling, et al. 2021. Outsourcing governance in
Peru’s integrated water resources management. Land Use Policy 101:105105. doi:10.1016/j.land-
usepol.2020.105105.
Prno, J., and D. S. Slocombe. 2012. Exploring the origins of ’social license to operate in the min-
ing sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resources Policy 37 (3):
346–57. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.04.002.
Rey-Coquais, S. 2021. Territorial experience and the making of global norms: How the
Quellaveco dialogue roundtable changed the game of mining regulation in Peru. The
Extractive Industries and Society 8 (1):55–63. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2020.05.002.
Sosa, M., R. Boelens, and M. Zwarteveen. 2017. The influence of large mining: Restructuring
water rights among rural communities in Apurimac, Peru. Human Organization 76 (3):215–26.
doi:10.17730/0018-7259.76.3.215.
The World Bank. 2005. Wealth and sustainability: The environmental and social dimensions of
the mining sector in Peru. Peru Country Management Unit, Environmentally and Socially
Sustainable Development, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, The World Bank, 194.
http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/icsidblobs/onlineawards/C3004/C-032_Eng.pdf
Toledo Orozco, Z., and M. Veiga. 2018. Locals’ attitudes toward artisanal and large-scale
mining—A case study of Tambogrande. The Extractive Industries and Society 5 (2):327–34.
doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2018.01.002.
Triscritti, F. 2013. Mining, development and corporate-community conflicts in Peru. Community
Development Journal 48 (3):437–50. doi:10.1093/cdj/bst024.
Vela-Almeida, D., F. Kuijk, G. Wyseure, and N. Kosoy. 2016. Lessons from Yanacocha: Assessing
mining impacts on hydrological systems and water distribution in the Cajamarca region, Peru.
Water International 41 (3):426–46. doi:10.1080/02508060.2016.1159077.
Verbrugge, B. 2015. Decentralization, institutional ambiguity, and mineral resource conflict in
Mindanao, Philippines. World Development 67:449–60. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.007.
Yin, R. K. 2013. Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

View publication stats