Environmental Governance Programme

Integrating Environment and Human Rights in the Governance of the Mining Sector

Workshop Report
Regional Workshop on Participatory Environmental Governance for Sustainable Natural
Resources Management in Latin America, with a focus on Participatory Environmental
Monitoring Committees
October 3-5, 2018, Panama City
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Key Messages from the Workshop ............................................................................................................................... 2
Workshop Structure ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Workshop ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Preliminary Results from the Regional Study ............................................................................................................ 5
The Case Studies ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Day 1: Key Learnings and Gaps from Case Studies .................................................................................................. 9
Day 1: Proposals and Reflections ................................................................................................................................ 10
Day 2: Hackathon Challenges ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Day 2: Hackathon Solutions ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Participatory Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Insights from Workshop Partners ............................................................................................................................... 14
Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Table of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
CIRDI Canadian International Resources and Development Institute
EGP Environmental Governance Programme
GDL Grupo de Diálogo Latinoamericano
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
PEMCs Participatory Environmental Monitoring Committees
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SEPA Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
Sida Swedish International Development Agency
UBC University of British Columbia
UNDP United Nations Development Programme

Cover and back cover photo credit: Bruno Cámara Rojo / UNDP Peru.
 Executive Summary

Group picture of workshop participants, facilitators, and organizers. Photo: Josu Ansoleaga / UNDP Panama

During October 3-5, 2018, more than 40 participants from 13 countries gathered in Panama to share
their perspectives and experiences, at the Regional Workshop on Participatory Environmental
Governance for Sustainable Natural Resources Management in Latin America , with a focus on
Participatory Environmental Monitoring Committees (PEMCs). The Panama Workshop brought together
the PEMC representatives from four countries included in a Regional Study on PEMCs (Argentina,
Bolivia, Panama, and Peru) as well as NGO experts and UNDP officials from the Latin American region.
The workshop served as a space for collaboratively developing ideas to improve PEMCs effectiveness
and setting the foundations of a professional support network.

Key topics discussed during the workshop included issues related to the formalization and autonomy
of PEMCs, funding challenges, as well as technical capacity needs, and the importance of having spaces
for dialogue and exchange of PEMC best practices at the community, national, and international level.

The Panama Workshop was a joint initiative of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA/Naturvårdsverket), and the Canadian
International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI). Additionally, Grupo de Diálogo
Latinoamericano (GDL) and the University of British Columbia (UBC) provided support on the facilitation
of some of the workshop sessions.

1
Key Messages from the Workshop
The first observation from the workshop sessions is that there is no one size fits all recipe, while at the
same time there is common ground to learn from different experiences of the PEMCs' work. The
workshop focused on five issues in the view of workshop participants:

1. Formalization of committees : It is important to address the issue of how PEMCs are established,
and what level and type of institutional structure and formalization they have, which in turn affects
how the PEMC is viewed by and relates to external actors (communities, businesses, the State, etc.).
2. Sustainable financial models: This was chosen as the main challenge PEMCs face by about half of
the workshop participants. PEMCs struggle to find financing mechanisms that are sustainable over
time and guarantee autonomy, ensuring their work is being perceived as legitimate and not in
conflict of interest.
3. Network building: The importance of building networks and sharing experiences with other PEMCs
was indicated by several participants and seconded by the rest. During the workshop, many PEMC
representatives realized there were better ways to deal with issues in their own PEMC after
discussing with PEMC representatives from other regions and countries. It is important to build a
PEMC support network, and the EGP is well-positioned to do so.
4. Dissemination of monitoring results: Many PEMC representatives struggle with properly
communicating the results of monitoring (to communities, media, and other interested actors).
These challenges range from limited capacity to spread messages to a large audience, use a
language and format that is understandable for the audience, or get their audience interested in
the results and implications of monitoring.
5. The use of robust dialogue processes has several different applications: a) Multi-stakeholder
dialogue , in a dynamic and adaptable way; b) Knowledge of knowledges - situating each PEMC in
their socio- alongside
scientific knowledge; c) Continuous dialogue to stay in contact with relevant actors (e.g. mining
company) instead of not having any dialogue at all; and d) Internal and external dialogue, as a key
tool both within the PEMC and with outside actors.

Tailings dam in Tatasi, Potosí (Bolivia). Photo: Ángela Lara and René Núñez / Bolivia case study consultants

2
 Workshop Structure
The Panama Workshop took place from Wednesday 3 to Friday 5 October 2018, for a total of 2.5 days.
An overview of the workshop activities can be found in the table below:
Date Activity Description
Nine case studies from Panama, Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru
Wed 3 Oct,
Case Studies Presentation were presented by the consultants who carried out the field
morning
research
Participants worked in groups to exchange experiences
Wed 3 Oct,
World Café around five dimensions (internal governance, learnings,
afternoon
socioeconomic, environment, gender)
Claudio Pareja (CIRDI) presented to participants the
Wed 3 Oct, Presentation of preliminary
preliminary results of the Regional Study, followed by a
afternoon results of the Regional Study 1
plenary discussion
Participants worked in groups to discuss and propose ideas
Wed 3 Oct, about cross-cutting issues (from demands to proposals,
Focus Group Discussions
afternoon financing, capacity development, trust-building, PEMC
limitations)
Thurs 4 Oct, Hackathon - Challenge Participants worked in groups to identify key challenges
morning Definition PEMCs face
Participants selected the top four challenges and worked in
Thurs 4 Oct, Hackathon - Hacking the
groups to come up with solutions to them and share the
afternoon Challenges
solutions they found
Thurs 4 Oct, Plenary session for participants to share their impressions
Participatory Evaluation
afternoon about the workshop
Friday 5 Oct, Visit to the Cemex limestone mine in Chilibre (Panama) and
Field Visit
morning plenary discussion at the Chilibre PEMC community center

Workshop participants discuss during the Hackathon session. Photo: Josu Ansoleaga / UNDP Panama

1
request, an additional 30-minute feedback session on the preliminary results of the Regional Study was
allocated in the morning of Thursday 4 October.

3
Purpose of the Workshop
For many developing countries, mineral extraction continues to be an important driver to promote
economic and human development, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). When
managed appropriately, mining can bring economic and social development; yet, if managed poorly,
mining can also lead to increased inequality, displaced populations, and environmental degradation.
Furthermore, reported socio-environmental conflicts in mining regions have been on the rise in the last
10 years, particularly in Latin America2. These conflicts negatively affect communities and impacts
private sector and governments by increasing costs and limiting the potential economic benefits from
mining. One of the key drivers of these conflicts are
impacts of mining projects, especially concerns about water.

In many parts of Latin America, one tool civil society is using to work towards finding solutions is
through carrying out participatory environmental monitoring initiatives. These initiatives provide space
to foster dialogue, civic engagement, trust-building, transparency, and the building of scientific literacy.
With that in mind, under the framework of the Environmental Governance Programme (EGP), UNDP and
SEPA, in collaboration with CIRDI, conducted a Regional Study on PEMCs, including cases from
Argentina, Bolivia, Panama, and Peru. The Regional Study on PEMCs aims to better understand the
conditions and characteristics which enable participatory environmental monitoring committees to
have an influence on decision making in the mining sector.

In future, this enhanced understanding will position UNDP and partners to strengthen the participation
of communities and civil society actors in the environmental monitoring of mining activities, improving
governance in the sector, serving to prevent socio-environmental conflict by addressing issues at an
early stage.

Following the objectives mentioned above, the Regional Study research questions are:

➢ What are the key characteristics and conditions that enable PEMCs to influence decision making
in the extractives sector?
➢ Which features explain the successes and failures of PEMCs in Latin America?
➢ What are the key political, financial, technical and operational challenges and opportunities to
strengthen committees and link them to governance structures?

To validate and deepen these preliminary findings, UNDP, with the support of the workshop partners,
organized the Panama Workshop. This workshop served as a space for experts, academics, practitioners,
and PEMC members to exchange experiences and collectively reflect on the findings from the Regional
Study. It also enabled participants to distil good practices and identify challenges and common gaps
from the different PEMCs represented at the workshop.

2
CIRDI (2017). The Rise in Conflict Associated with Mining Operations: What Lies Beneath? Document available at
https://cirdi.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Conflict-Full-Layout-060817.pdf.

4
Preliminary Results from the Regional Study
The following results were identified from analyzing and compiling the reports from the countries
included in the Regional Study:

1. The creation of committees occurs in difficult contexts: Committees are usually established as a
reaction to past or ongoing conflicts and setting them up is burdensome due to the many legal,
institutional, capacity, or financial limitations. However, committees may also be formed prior to the
incidence of conflict, or from existing community organizations, and monitoring might be considered
as part of a broader strategy of a company-community relationship and engagement.

2. It is important to agree on priorities and how the community participates: Supervising mining
operations is not the only objective of PEMCs, as other priorities might also be addressed. While
participation is an objective, the depth of participation varies among committees from monitoring
supervision to sample collection.

3. Monitoring is a technically complex process: Committees monitor various environmental aspects,

which requires the participation of different experts. In that sense, technical assistance in the form of a
technical secretariat or other technical support for the committee is key for its effectiveness.

4. Committees are learning to acquire knowledge and capacity to influence: Committees do not
always have a data baseline with which to compare results. In some instances, the new data collected
serves as a new baseline for the future. In some cases, committees are linked to governments, but often
in an informal and weak way.

5. Trust is both a prerequisite for and a result of work: The more trust communities,
companies and government agencies have in committees, the more effectively they can work; the more
effective their work is, the more the committees are trusted by communities, companies and
government.

5. Learning is a key component in every stage of the monitoring process: The three most important
types of learnings are: 1) Learn to decide and lead, 2) Learn to trust, and 3) Learn to monitor.

6. Best practices include:

✓ Incorporating women in the monitoring process.

✓ Making use of opportunities committees create for additional engagement with communities.
✓ Formalizing PEMC processes.
✓ Creating dialogue spaces for discussion with state institutions. It is important that government
agencies get involved in the work of PEMCs.
✓ Fostering transparency and collaboration with the mining company.

Finally, there are limits to the benefits that committees bring, namely that 1) Monitoring does not avoid
all the negative social, environmental and spiritual effects of mining, 2) Monitoring must be inserted in
a broader environmental governance process for mining, and 3) Even where monitoring is robust, there
can be remediation or prevention gaps involving companies and governments.

5
The Case Studies
At the workshop, the country consultants who did completed field research presented nine case
studies: two from Argentina (Alumbrera and Jujuy), two from Bolivia (Pocoata and Tupiza), two from
Panama (Donoso and Chilibre), and three from Peru (Orcopampa, Juprog, and Mallay). Below is a
summary of background information case studies:

Argentina
Alumbrera: Bajo de la Alumbrera is a copper, gold and molybdenum deposit that has been mined by
Minera la Alumbrera since 1997, within the provinces of Catamarca, Tucuman and Santa Fe. Throughout
years of mineral extraction, several negative impacts and events have been identified that have led to
the escalation of conflict. Conflict prevention and dialogue initiatives have also taken place, as well as
participatory monitoring activities. Monitoring activities are carried out by both national authorities and
community members.

This PE was influenced by previous dialogue

experiences in the agricultural sector. The PEMC began with dialogue meetings to maintain an open
and frequent communication with the mining company. Thanks to this, the relationship between the
PEMC and the mining company strengthened over time. Nowadays, the company values the PEMC and
the contributions from its members, and the involvement of community actors and organizations in the
monitoring. However, despite this positive attitude towards the PEMC, this case study shows that no
specific policy or procedural changes have taken place because it
is complex to translate local experiences into standardized global protocols.

Jujuy: The mining company Sales de Jujuy runs a lithium extraction project in Salar de Olaroz, in the
Puna region, Jujuy province. Mining is the main economic activity in the region. There are ten
communities in the mine affected area. The salt flats of Atacama (Chile), Hombre Muerto (Argentina)
and Uyuni (Bolivia) , a geographic area containing 75 to 85% of the
world's lithium reserves. While some communities of the ten affected by this mine see mining as an
opportunity for development, others oppose it due to perceived environmental risks. The State views
lithium as an opportunity for economic development and job creation.

Participatory monitoring activities are carried out by a non-formalized group made of company
members, community representatives, and representatives from the provincial government. This group
has conducted environmental participatory monitoring since the mining activity began. There are
community concerns regarding water consumption and contamination from mining activities, as
lithium extraction can negatively impact the conservation of the salt flats.

Bolivia
The case study areas selected were the Colquechaca basin, Macha Pocoata, and the San Juan del Oro
and Tupiza basins, both located in the Department of Potosí, which are the regions of the Qaraqara-
Charka and Chichas indigenous peoples. The cases were selected due to the diversity of types of mining
activities: cooperatives and private enterprises. Committees are grassroots organizations, and they are
recognized by the Bolivian State.

6
Pocoata: In the municipalities of Colquechaca and Pocoata, the most significant mining activity is
carried out by the Colquechaca mining cooperative. Most miners in this area are also farmers, and they
are referred to as agromineros - . In the riverine communities from the Colquechaca basin,
including Macha and Pocoata, concerns remain over heavy metal contamination in agricultural farms3.
This negatively

Members of the Pocoata committee are elected from civil society and government institutions:
representatives from agrarian unions, the civic committee, the provincial delegation, Pocoata
municipality environment secretariat, the deputy governor, and the Colquechaca mining cooperative.
This committee works in close collaboration with municipal councilors, departmental
councilors, regional deputies, and the Potosí senator.

Tupiza: In the Tupiza river basin, San Juan del Oro, there are 382 mining concessions. Most miners come
from peasant communities. Similarly to the Pocoata case, concerns exist in the Tupiza communities
about lead contamination4. This results in agricultural and livestock production being perceived as
contaminated by communities, and thus leading to productivity losses of cultivated lands and
economic and reputational problems.

The Tupiza committee is not a multi-sector stakeholder committee, but instead includes representatives
from 20 communities as one coordinated body that separately engages with government agencies. The
committee meets monthly and in extraordinary cases when required. Relevant environmental issues
are identified and addressed during plenary committee meetings. The Tupiza committee has identified
the need to address the environmental problems of mining.

For both the Pocoata and Tupiza cases, the main motivation for establishing a participatory monitoring
system is centered around the organizational capacity of those affected, mostly the agrarian unions
from the community to the district level. Committees exercise control through formal requests to local
authorities, who represent the committees before government agencies. Additional political pressure
takes the form of demonstrations and roadblocks.

Panama
Donoso: The extractive activity is located in the district of Donoso, where the mining company Minera
Panama has an open metal mining concession. This is a biodiversity rich area, and home to Ngäbe Buglé
indigenous communities. After the mining concession was granted, the protected area of Donoso was
created as a compensation measure. Participatory monitoring initiatives in Donoso are recent and less
developed than other monitoring initiatives, such as those registered in the Panama Canal watershed.
Monitoring prior to the mining activities was part of the environmental impact assessment.

For communities, monitoring efforts strengthen their capacities to prevent negative impacts from
mining extraction. Participatory monitoring includes community representatives, self-appointed as
Defenders of Water Resources, who work alongside a consultancy company with expertise in citizen

3
Loredo et.al. (2013). La Contaminación de la Minería en Bolivia. El caso de la cuenca Macha Pocoata, libro de actas III congreso
internacional de geología y minería ambiental para el ordenamiento territorial y el desarrollo.
4
Tupiza River Micro-watershed (2013). Minutes of the seventh meeting of the Tupiza river micro-watershed meeting, 2013,
Tupiza: Tupiza health commission proposes a new assessment of the existence of heavy metals, study of heavy metals in
residents.

7
participation and environmental protection. Monitoring serves as an environmental risk mitigation
measure. Community meetings are periodically held between monitoring activities.

Chilibre: The mining company Cemex has a limestone mining concession in the area of Chilibre, within
the Panama Canal watershed and natural protected areas. The Panamanian Law states that
communities and community-based organizations are an active part in the protection of the Panama
Canal watershed.

Community-based organizations participate in environmental monitoring activities of mining

operations and industrial expansion in these areas. These activities include citizen participation plans
and public consultation forums. Participatory monitoring includes institutional multi-stakeholder
spaces with governmental and non-governmental participation, such as the consultative councils from
nearby counties. The mining company also participates in other socio-environmental activities, such as
ecotourism, solid waste management, environmental education, and community engagement.

Peru
Orcopampa: The Orcopampa PEMC started in 2010, near the mining extraction sites of the Minas
Buenaventura mining company. Extractive operations consist of underground mining of gold and silver
in three districts: Orcopampa, Chilcaymarca, and Cayarani.

The environmental problems that motivated the formation of the PEMC were community concerns
about heavy metal water contamination from leaks and spills from a concentration plant. These
concerns were outlined in the mining The environmental
impact assessment also referred to possible effects on air quality from debris, construction materials, as
well as from the circulation of trucks in access roads within the mining areas. A local NGO accompanies
the committee monitoring activities.

Juprog: Since 1996, the mining company Minera Antamina runs an open-pit mine and processing
facilities for the extraction of copper, zinc and molybdenum in the department of Ancash. It is one of
the ten biggest mines in the world in terms extraction volume, with an estimated production until 2029.

The Juprog Unifed Committee began its activity in 2015, as a result of a tripartite agreement between
the Santiago Antúnez de Mayolo National University as Technical Secretariat, the mining company, and
the communities of San Antonio de Juprog, Chipta, and Cinco Troncos. Potential environmental
problems led to the formation of the PEMC, including community concerns over water contamination
from the mine construction, as well as from waste dumps. Additional concerns included possible effects
on local fauna, and algae growth in the water bodies nearby the town of Ayash. Local communities are
also affected by noise and particulate material from mining activities.

Mallay: The mining company Minas Buenaventura runs a lead, zinc and silver mine in the district and
province of Oyón, Lima department. The mine may close earlier than planned due to predicted mineral
reserve shortage. According
to environmental impact assessment, contamination of water bodies is linked to possible
effluent discharges to streams in the area. These environmental risks motivated the formation of a
PEMC. The Mallay PEMC began its activities in 2011, and its activities currently focus on monitoring the
mine closure plan, with external support from a consultancy company.

8
Day 1: Key Learnings and Gaps from Case
Studies
Consultants from Argentina, Bolivia, Panama, and Peru presented the case studies to the workshop
participants. Following the presentations, participants were divided into groups for a World Café activity
where they distilled key learnings and analyzed gaps across country case studies. Each group worked
on one of the five research dimensions outlined below:

➢ Internal Governance: Formalization options demonstrated by committees taking part in the

workshop included: 1) Almost no formalization, needing support from external civil society
organizations (perceived as not desirable); 2) Tripartite, although not too formalized: community,
company, and government, with shared responsibility for environmental monitoring; 3) Mixed and
multi-actor committee, regulated by national law; and 4) Understanding committees as a tool for
the involvement of communities, companies, and government. The main advantage of involving
the government is having access to funding and public resources, and the main disadvantage is
that often governments do not have technical capabilities to fulfil their role.

➢ Learning: PEMCs should improve the way they access and manage information, knowledge about
how the industry works, and dialogue and negotiation skills with companies and communities.
Additionally, companies need to learn to improve their communication, explain and dialogue with
PEMCs in accessible language, and be transparent about their decision-making processes.

➢ Socioeconomic: There is the need for governments to recognize the existence, work, and role of
PEMCs. Legislation must address the issue of how committees are funded. Participants indicated
that committees can guarantee that the legislation is being implemented or followed, as well as
serve as an early-warning mechanism.

➢ Environmental: Monitoring sites must be representative and accessible and need a control point
that allows for downstream monitoring. Participants pointed out that environmental monitoring is
a complex process that needs multiple indicators, among them: 1) Water flow (amount), including
groundwater; 2) pH, conductivity, and water coloration ; and 3) Biomonitoring, although it requires
specific skills. In any case, it is important to carry out monitoring jointly with or in parallel to mining
companies.

➢ Gender: PEMCs from listeners

to active participants, as well as set up groups of women interested in mining/water issues, and
c . Capacity building in gender
issues is also very important, as well as setting up support networks among women.

9
Day 1: Proposals and Reflections
The second group activity aimed to identify characteristics that allow committees to influence decision
making in the mining sector, and to explore how PEMCs can play a role in decision making. Participants
were divided into different groups, organized around cross-cutting themes:

➢ Moving from demands to proposals: The first step participants identified was to formalize PEMCs,
so they are able to obtain external recognition. After this, effective actions include organizing
capacity building initiatives, formulating proposals alongside a space for dialogue and conflict
resolution with companies, and engaging subject matter experts. It is important to involve external
actors such as universities, NGOs, and the media.

➢ Sustainable funding models: Six different options were proposed: 1) The mining company gives a
fixed amount to the PEMC (legal entity) and funds are co-managed with a university; 2) The mining
company funds an intermediary NGO; 3) Funds from international cooperation; 4) Manage funds
allocated by public authorities; 5) Fund for PEMC expenses, managed by a third party; and 6)
Corporate social responsibility initiatives and projects. Main funding challenges are creating funds
and public-private partnerships, and dealing with transparency, compliance and due diligence
issues. Having economically independent PEMCs results in higher levels of trust and reputation.

➢ Capacity building of PEMC members: The three most important capacity building activities refer
to monitoring activities and processes, using specific tools and devices, and allowing PEMC and
community members to intern for companies. Training activities need to recognize the value of
traditional knowledge in identifying changes in the environment.

➢ Building trust in the information generated by committees: Approaches mentioned included

co-working and co-creating with communities; involving youth and universities; having open,
accessible information; fostering dialogue among the knowledges from different actors; making
sure the role of all actors is made clear to everyone involved; and having transparent
communication and election of PEMC representatives.

➢ Limits of PEMCs: Participants identified internal and external limitations of committees. Internal
limitations refer to capacity gaps, funding issues, limited advocacy skills to pressure the company
or government, and a lack of monitoring from beginning to end, which results in data continuation
gaps. External limitations refer to lack of recognition as an entity in itself, non-supportive or lack of
supportive regulation, low capacity to reach and influence decision-makers, and a lack of
recognition and validation of monitoring results from the government.

10
Day 2: Hackathon Challenges
Day 2 consisted of a Hackathon exercise in which groups collectively worked on a problem and aimed
to propose creative solutions. First, to select the Hackathon challenges, participants were divided into
two groups. Each group was asked to identify challenges for PEMCs and to prioritize these challenges.
One group's brainstorming and prioritization exercise was done through a structured facilitation (with
guidelines provided by the facilitator team, and lead by a professional facilitator). The other group
performed the same task, also supported by a professional facilitator, but using a less structured
approach. Each group was divided into four subgroups (eight subgroups in total). During these sessions,
each subgroup framed a challenge, and answered questions on their challenge (several groups framed
challenges that were very similar to each other).

Challenges 1, 2, and 3: Financial sustainability and independence

Three subgroups identified financing as the main challenge. Having financial autonomy and
independence allows PEMCs to be trusted, promote social awareness, and fulfil their mandate. It is
therefore key to identify financing sources and mechanisms. This issue affects mainly committees and
the communities they represent. Insufficient funding results in management gaps, political and
economic difficulties, and prejudices about the role and capacities of committees.

Challenges 4, 5, and 6: Institutional issues and internal work

Three groups pointed out challenges related to internal functioning of PEMCs. Committees have to be
formalized with a supportive legal framework to foster dialogue and participation as a conflict-solving
tool. Switching from having monologues to dialogues with key counterparts is vital for the existence
and continuity of committees, and this benefits communities, mining companies, and the government.

Challenges 7 and 8: Communicating and disseminating results

Two groups indicated the need to raise awareness and interest among the community and other key
actors, such as mining companies and government authorities. Committees need different tools to
explain results and implications from monitoring, as communities still have limited understanding of
the impacts of mining activities. Better dissemination -being,
allowing them to demand improvements, and increase the social pressure on mining companies to act
responsibly.

Group representatives present their challenge to workshop participants. Photo: Josu Ansoleaga / UNDP Panama

11
Day 2: Hackathon Solutions
Having defined eight challenges, participants had to select the challenge that they would focus their
solution on. A small group worked on one of the four top selected challenges. The challenges
were financing (chosen twice), improved institutional arrangements, and communicating monitoring
results.

Solutions 1 and 2: Sustainable and independent funding

These two proposed solutions aimed to solve the challenges related to securing funding for the
in a way that guarantees independence and sustainability.
One group proposed a solution to include financing in environmental impact assessments, in the
negotiation of benefits, and to raise awareness for a supportive legal framework and legal recognition
of PEMCs. For this, the most important action is to have a multistakeholder dialogue to set up
transparency, compliance, and financing mechanisms, involving the government, company, civil
society, academia, and international organizations.

The second group proposed several sustainable funding options, among them obtaining direct funding
from the mining company, extraction royalties, international development projects, in-kind
contributions, and management arrangements such as trust funds and contracts with third parties.
Main steps to achieve this include legal recognition guidelines for PEMCs, setting up results-based
budgeting mechanisms, and organizing roundtable discussions for budget negotiation. Key actors
include a tripartite option of government, company, and communities, as well as other actors such as
universities, relevant local players, and UNDP.

Solution 3: Improved institutional arrangements

This proposed solution aims to elaborate an effective and efficient legal framework to define the
functioning and responsibilities of committees where citizen participation is guaranteed. To do so,
PEMCs ought to work with communities and government agencies, taking into consideration the local
realities and the regional framework (Escazú Agreement5), and the experiences from other PEMCs and
networks. Key steps include the recognition of PEMCs by authorities in a transparent way, carrying out
citizen awareness initiatives, and working with policy-making authorities.

Solution 4: Communicating results effectively

The last proposed solution addressed the need to communicate monitoring results in an effective way
the to key groups (community, company, government, and the general public). To do so, the proposed
solution requires the set-up of communication strategies, formal education in schools, informal
education in workshops, and media engagement (radio, social networks, advocacy initiatives, etc.).

5
Adopted on 4 March 2018 by fourteen Latin American and Caribbean countries in Escazú, Costa Rica, the Regional Agreement
aims to guarantee the full and effective implementation in Latin America and the Caribbean of the rights of access to
environmental information, public participation in the environmental decision-making process and access to justice in
environmental matters. For more information, visit: https://www.cepal.org/en/escazuagreement

12
Participatory Evaluation
After the Hackathon sessions, the workshop ended with a participatory evaluation, addressing three
questions. Some of the participants answers are below.

A workshop participant shares his . Photo: Josu Ansoleaga / UNDP Panama

Question: How do I feel?

❖ Energiz .
❖ Happy to share this experience with colleagues from .
❖ With the need .
❖ A bit anxious because there is so much to do A bit frustrated due to the short time to discuss
.
❖ With the satisfaction of having shared. Compl .

Question: What do I take from this workshop?

❖ .
❖ New learnings a .
❖ We are in the beginning of starting a co .
❖ Theoretical and practical knowledge. Ne .
❖ Diversity of experi .

Question: What challenge do I take home? What do I commit myself to do?

❖ To create spaces for dialogue and exchange of exp .
❖ To fight for a sus .
❖ Continue the efforts to develop an institutionalized committee that produces b .
❖ Put into practice everything we have discussed during this workshop .
❖ Establish and m .

13
Insights from Workshop Partners
The following is an integrated compilation of the workshop main insights gathered from the workshop
partners: the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), the Canadian International Resources
and Development Institute (CIRDI), Grupo de Diálogo Latinoamericano (GDL), and the University of
British Columbia (UBC).

This workshop is part of a larger effort in environmental governance

We are all aware that mining-related conflicts are on the rise in Latin America. Our work must serve to
understand the reasons for such conflicts in order to try to prevent them. The community of participants
are aware of the governance implications and potential of participatory environmental monitoring. The
value of participatory monitoring goes beyond scientific data, and can contribute to consensus and
trust building, dialogue, and conflict resolution.

The workshop allowed for exchange and learning among participants

The PEMC network in Latin America is an emerging community. While in Peru and Mexico, there are well
established groups with a solid track record and frequent monitoring, in many other countries in Latin
America, the groups are in very early stages of formation and development. South-south exchanges can
be rewarding and empowering experiences, as those who share similar experiences can learn from each
other and feel pride in sharing their work.

workshop, collaborative work towards a

better understanding was possible thanks to the
engagement of people from communities,
researchers, NGO experts, and officials from
international organizations. This diverse group

Mitzy Canessa, GDL

Photo: Josu Ansoleaga / UNDP Panama

The workshop structure and content contributed to its success

The design of the workshop sessions used a structured methodology, but without being rigid. This
contributed to balanced participation and engagement from participants, both in terms of gender and
in terms of affiliation (experts and PEMC representatives).
their previous involvement during the research phase of the country-level studies. Time allocation of
the different workshop sessions was adequately adapted to the workshop workshop also
provided an opportunity to conduct original research on facilitation methods.

-post surveys of participants, we found that structured

facilitation approaches provide modest yet measurable benefits for workshop
Jordi Honey-Roses, UBC

14
This applied work combines the best from academia and from the field
It is important to validate with communities what consultants and experts have documented in the past.
That way, it is possible to have more nuanced and detailed information. Furthermore, it is a way of
respecting the time and knowledge people shared with us. Practical validation is therefore an enriching
process, where both experts and communities can continue learning from each other. The workshop
has made it possible for academic institutions to reach spaces and actors that otherwise might have not
been able to reach, and it has served as a bridge between practitioners and scholars. Community
members seemed to also appreciate the connection between them, scholars and practitioners. The
networking objective of the workshop was clearly met.

The workshop has impacts beyond its participants

During the workshop, participants shared their will to take further the impact of their work. Key themes
that emerged during the workshop went beyond the technicalities of monitoring, focusing on the need
to work on consensus-building. Therefore, there is a need to find ways to have political engagement
with actors that are not in PEMCs. Institutions are made of people, and the willingness of relevant actors
and institutions to improve the current situation motivates PEMCs members. Thus, it is important for
committees to be listened to by mining companies and governments, and there is willingness and
commitment from companies and governments to work together with committees. In that sense, the
workshop is creating spaces for us, the workshop partners, governments, and mining companies to
draw lessons on how effective multi-stakeholder dialogue spaces can be structured.

Tove Lundeberg, SEPA

We are just starting to scratch the surface

This workshop shows that there are no silver-bullet solutions, there are no two equal cases, and every
PEMC context is different. However, there are lessons from each case that are worth documenting and
sharing. Integrating UNDP with academia has demonstrated valuable synergies. The workshop
approach could be tested under different conditions, and complementary research would be beneficial.

different partnership structures and arrangements can also

be explored to maximize the contribution that each partner

Andre Xavier, CIRDI

Photo: Javier Munoz Blanco / UNDP

The convening partner organizations agree the energy and willingness from participants to share and
work together was key for the success of the workshop. There is value in repeating this form of exchange
in the future to keep learning from one another and to provide ongoing support to both established
and nascent participatory environmental monitoring groups.

15
Next Steps
After the Panama Workshop several options for future programming on PEMCs were identified. The
proposed activities below can be carried out sequentially, or as separate approaches to strengthening
and institutionalizing PEMCs:

1. Development of specific toolkits and guidance in areas PEMC members and early research
findings have identified as gaps, such as internal governance, communication and dissemination of
monitoring results and information, and data management within and between PEMCs in the same
area or water basin. These would also include socio-environmental context analyses, addressing
how to work effectively with governments and communities, and generate effective institutional
arrangements for PEMCs.
2. Pre-assessment of conditions for establishing committees: This would consist of taking a
picture of a situation to understand the viability for a PEMC, and where and how to start it.
3. Certification process of PEMCs: The EGP can support accreditation training and certification
processes for existing or new PEMCs. Ensuring minimum agreed upon standards are met would
provide an assurance of quality, reliability and credibility of results, and would contribute to set a
platform for action and opportunities to shape policies.
4. Building institutional spaces for PEMCs within government agencies, and raising capacity of
relevant local governments agencies to work effectively with committees. This can include
preparing government agencies to work effectively with communities. Additionally, certification
processes could also be applied to local government institutions to better work as part of PEMCs.
5. National and regional network building: Participants at the Panama Workshop indicated that
national and regional networks are highly valuable as a source of peer learning and exchanges,
where organizations setting up a PEMC can exchange or complete study tours with committees that
are more established and mature as organizations.

16
The Environmental Governance Programme (EGP) for Sustainable Natural Resource
Management is a joint initiative of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and
the United Nations Development Programme. The EGP supports countries to integrate
environment and human rights into the governance of the mining sector.
E-mail: egp@undp.org
Website: egp-undp.org