Impact of the mining governance of Kibali goldmines (KGM) on social acceptability in the Watsa and Faradje Territories in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Abstract
The arrival of private capital in the mining sector in Africa in general and in the DRC in particular has given rise to a new phenomenon, namely the "controversy" between local stakeholders and the mining right holder. This controversy raises the question of the social acceptability (the result of a process by which the stakeholders involved agree together on the minimum conditions to be put in place for a project, program or policy to integrate harmoniously, at a given time, into its host environment) of the mining enterprise in its development environment. Its achievement fulfilled a condition allowing all actors to benefit from mining including, of course, local communities.
In Watsa and Faradje Territories, Kibali Gold mines (KGM) has invested heavily for the benefit of local communities, according to figures included in various company reports. On the other hand, these communities do not seem to fully express their satisfaction with these investments, hence the question of social acceptability highlighted.
Indexed as the cause of this low social acceptability, KGM's governance has been developed at three levels " Mining Public Policy ", "KGM implementation process" and "KGM'S Social Responsibility governance" and has made it clear that there has been a gap between what should be done and what is actually done. This distance is a major factor affecting the social acceptability of KGM in the territories of Watsa and Faradje.
Downloads
References
2. BANQUE MONDIALE, involuntary resetlement instrument, PO 4.12, Annexe A, décembre 2001.
3. CHAMARET, A., Une démarche top-down / bottom-up pour l'évaluation en termes multicritères et multi-acteurs des projets miniers dans l'optique du développement durable. Application sur les mines d'Uranium d'Arlit (Niger), thèse (inédite) en science économique, l’Université de Versailles Saint–Quentin–en Yvelines, juin 2007.
4. COUNCIL ON ETHICS FOR THE GOVERNMENT PENSION FUND GLOBAL, Annual report 2014, p.110. Disponible sur www.etikkradet.no 13 novembre 2019.
5. Décret n° 038/2003 du 26 mars 2003 portant Règlement minier tel que modifié et complété par le Décret n° 18/024 de 12 juin 2018.
6. ERNST et YOUNG, Business Risks Facing Mining and Metals 2011–2012, disponible sur le lien http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Business_risks_facing_mining_and_metals_2011-2012/$File/Metal_Mining_ paper_02Aug11_lowres.pdf
7. FORTIN, M-J et FOURNIS Y., « Vers une définition ascendante de l'acceptabilité sociale : les dynamiques territoriales face aux projets énergétiques au Québec », In Natures Sciences Sociétés 2014/3 (Vol. 22).
8. FOURNIS Y., et FORTIN M-J « Une définition territoriale de l’acceptabilité sociale : pièges et défis conceptuels. » In Vertigo, Volume 15 Numéro 3 | 2015.
9. GENDRON, C., « Penser l’acceptabilité sociale : au-delà de l’intérêt, les valeurs », Communiquer, In Revue de communication sociale et publique, vol. 11, 2014, pp. 117-129.
10. IFC, Acquisition de terre et déplacement forcé, 30 avril 2006, document disponible sur www.ifc.org
11. MAUD BERGERON, K., JEBRAK, M., YATES, S., SEGUIN, C., LEHMANN, V., LE MEUR, P- Y., ANGERS, P., DURAND S., et GENDRON, C., « Mesurer l’acceptabilité sociale d’un projet minier : essai de modélisation du risque social en contexte québécois », In Vertigo, Volume 15 Numéro 3 | 2015, disponible sur http://vertigo.revues.org.
12. MOFFAT, K., et ZHANG, A., « The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining », Resources Policy, vol. 39, 2014, pp. 61-70 et PRNO, J., et SLOCOMBE, D. S., « Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories », In Resources Policy, vol. 37, no 3, 2012.
13. OCEAN, L’exploitation aurifère à Watsa et Faradje : impacts, avantages et gestion durable de risque, Projet « appui aux communautés riveraines des entreprises minières a Doko, province du haut Uélé », OCEAN, juin 2015.
14. RUGGIE, J. Report of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the issue of human rights, and transnational corporations and other business enterprises – Business and human rights: further steps towards the operationalization of the “protect, respect and remedy” framework. New York: USA: United Nations 2010.
15. SIMEN S-F., ASSANE NDAO, « L'effet de la mise en place d'une stratégie de responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise sur la culture organisationnelle : analyse, implications et enjeux pour le Sénégal ». In Éditions ICES, « Revue Congolaise de Gestion », Numéro 17, 2013.
STRAUSS A-L., Negotiations. Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1978.
16. THOMSON I., et BOUTILIER R. G., Modelling and Measuring the Social License to Operate: Fruits of a Dialogue between Theory and Practice, 2011. Diaponible sur le lien http:// socialicense.com/publications/Modelling%20and%20 Measuring%20the%20SLO.pdf. 11 décembre 2019.
17. YAV et ASSOCIATES, L’indemnisation des communautés locales en cas de leur délocalisation en droit minier congolais, document disponible sur www.legavox.fr
Copyright (c) 2020 GPH - International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Author(s) and co-author(s) jointly and severally represent and warrant that the Article is original with the author(s) and does not infringe any copyright or violate any other right of any third parties, and that the Article has not been published elsewhere. Author(s) agree to the terms that the GPH Journal will have the full right to remove the published article on any misconduct found in the published article.
