The Extractive Industries and Society 17 (2024) 101439

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Extractive Industries and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/exis

Original article

Social impacts of critical mineral exploration on Indigenous peoples’ lands:

A case study from Solomon Islands
Jillian Ash *
School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The growing uptake of energy transition technologies in response to global and national climate policy goals to
Social impacts transition to a low-carbon future is increasing demand for critical minerals. This increased demand is expected to
Energy transition intensify mineral exploration, particularly on Indigenous peoples’ lands. However, mineral exploration is a
Mineral exploration
protracted process, fraught with uncertainty, and few mineral exploration projects progress to development.
Solomon islands
While the social impacts of mine construction, operation, and increasingly, closure are well documented in the
Indigenous peoples
literature, there is limited empirical evidence on the social impacts of mineral exploration on Indigenous peoples.
This paper contributes to this gap in the literature by drawing on the case of nickel exploration in Solomon
Islands. Drawing on qualitative data elicited from semi-structured interviews, this research indicates that ac­
tivities associated with critical mineral exploration on Indigenous peoples’ lands generate more negative than
positive impacts for affected communities and interested parties. Overlooking the social impacts of critical
mineral exploration can lead to community opposition, which in turn can lead to project abandonment, thereby
potentially delaying the energy transition and achievement of global climate goals. The findings underscore the
importance of ‘just transition’ in the context of the accelerating energy transition to a low-carbon future.

1. Introduction progressing to development and subsequent production (Gandhi and

The demand for critical minerals is intensifying as the global
consensus around energy transition strengthens and the uptake of green
technology increases to achieve internationally agreed climate targets
and a low-carbon future (Jowitt et al., 2020; Lèbre et al., 2020; Sovacool
et al., 2020). Critical minerals are necessary to drive this energy tran­
sition as they are essential for the production of green technologies.
Increased demand for critical minerals is thus expected to intensify
mineral exploration globally (IEA 2021; Lèbre et al., 2020). Mineral
exploration is a vital stage of a mining project’s lifecycle, as it usually
represents the first contact between company and community (Lindahl
et al., 2023; Luning, 2012; Mackenzie et al., 2020). However, mineral
exploration is fraught with uncertainty for communities, governments,
mining companies and their investors. Analysis conducted by the In­
ternational Energy Agency indicates that it takes on average 16 years to
move mining projects from discovery to commissioning (IEA 2021).
Exacerbating the uncertainty shrouding mineral exploration is that most
exploration projects do not advance to operational mines, with
approximately only one in a thousand mineral exploration projects
Sarkar, 2016; Moon and Evans, 2006). The undercurrent of uncertainty
in mineral exploration is reported to be a key driver of communi­
ty–company conflict, with Franks et al. (Franks et al., 2014) determining
that the pre-feasibility and feasibility phases of projects, which in this
article are included as part of the mineral exploration phase, are over­
represented in the proportion of community–company conflicts that
lead to the abandonment of mining projects. Franks et al. (Franks et al.,
2014) state that the most common underlying issues contributing to
community–company conflict are related to the social and economic
changes experienced in the affected communities. Further, as noted by
Vanclay (Vanclay, 2020), social impacts occur as soon as there are ru­
mours about a mining project, regardless of whether the mine proceeds
to development. While there is anecdotal evidence that social impacts
occur during mineral exploration, there is currently no legislative or
policy requirement or expectation to identify and manage the social
impacts of mineral exploration activities, and environmental and social
impact assessment is typically only conducted to predict the impacts of
the project’s future construction, operation and/or decommissioning
activities (Caron et al., 2016).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jillian.ash@outlook.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2024.101439
Received 21 October 2023; Received in revised form 15 January 2024; Accepted 19 February 2024
Available online 23 February 2024
2214-790X/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Ash
Nevertheless, in recent years, there has been some research focused
on the social dimensions of mineral exploration projects, albeit almost
exclusively through a corporate lens. Mackenzie et al. (Mackenzie et al.,
2020) broadly focused on company perspectives of the social dimensions
of mineral exploration, while Fraser et al. (Fraser et al., 2018) assessed
whether exploration companies can create and share value with stake­
holders, based on a case study in Mongolia. Skrzypek (Skrzypek, 2020),
through the case of Freida River in Papua New Guinea, provided an
anthropological lens on the experiences of company–community re­
lations and development practitioners. Lindahl et al. (Lindahl et al.,
2023) investigated the concept of ‘social licence to explore’ in Sweden
and Finland to determine the extent of companies’ control in shaping
local attitudes to mineral exploration and how attitudes to exploration
relate to those of mining. Despite this, there remains a gap in the liter­
ature exploring the wide-ranging social impacts of mineral exploration
from the perspective of affected communities and interested parties, as
company and expert perspectives vary markedly from local community
perspectives and experiences. Further, there is little empirical evidence
or understanding of the social impacts of mineral exploration that occur
on Indigenous peoples’ lands. An enhanced understanding of the social
impacts of mineral exploration on Indigenous peoples’ land is essential,
as 68 % of critical mineral exploration projects globally are located on or
near to Indigenous peoples’ lands (Owen et al., 2022). One factor
contributing to the under-researched nature of the social impacts of
mineral exploration is the assumption that exploration activities have
minimal impact due to limited numbers of people being involved in the
process. While there is generally a low level of environmental and social
impact relative to other project phases such as mine construction and
operation, these impacts are still significant in the context of Indigenous
peoples’ lands, as this paper will demonstrate.
This paper draws on qualitative data from individual and group in­
terviews on the case of the Isabel nickel deposits in Isabel Province,
Solomon Islands, centring on mineral exploration activities conducted
by two multinational mining companies over a ten-year period to 2019.
To identify the social impacts of mineral exploration, this paper first
provides a background into the key drivers of demand for critical min­
erals, with a focus on critical minerals situated on Indigenous peoples’
land in the Pacific region. A description of nickel exploration in Solomon
Islands, which forms the case study for this paper, is also provided.
Following that, the conceptual framework underpinning development of
this paper is described, along with the research methods. Section 4
identifies the social impacts of the case study from the analysis of the
qualitative data. The identified social impacts are then framed through
the lens of ‘just transition’, drawing attention to the social burden of
energy transition being disproportionately placed on Indigenous people
in the pursuit of a low-carbon future.
2. Background literature and the case study
2.1. Drivers of the demand for critical minerals
The growing uptake of energy transition technologies, such as elec­
tric vehicles and solar panels, is increasing demand for critical minerals,
including iron, copper, aluminium, nickel and lithium (Jowitt et al.,
2020; Lèbre et al., 2020; Sovacool et al., 2020). Driving this energy
transition is the growing global consensus that climate change and
global warming is a universal threat requiring action (Sovacool et al.,
2020). In response, parties to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change signed the Paris Agreement in December 2015,
which specifies that limiting global warming to 1.5◦ C will require
reaching 100 % zero-emission energy by 2050. Energy transition is in­
tegral to the achievement of this ambition (Sovacool et al., 2020).
Energy transition involves a shift from a fuel-intensive system, using
fuels such as coal, oil and gas, to a material-intensive energy system,
using technologies such as wind power, solar power and batteries.
However, material-intensive energy systems are more mineral-intensive
2
The Extractive Industries and Society 17 (2024) 101439
than fossil fuel-based technologies, and as a result, will create significant
demand for critical minerals (IEA 2021). The types of mineral resources
used vary by technology: electric vehicles require copper, nickel, lithium
manganese, cobalt and graphite, while renewable power technologies
such as wind and solar power require substantial amounts of copper,
zinc and rare earths metals (IEA 2021). Demand for the minerals
necessary to energy transition technologies is predicted to rise at least
fourfold by 2040 to meet global climate goals, with particularly high
growth for electric vehicle and battery storage-related minerals (IEA
2021). However, there is a growing consensus in the literature that
environmental and social considerations related to the increasing de­
mand for critical minerals are being overlooked (Lèbre et al., 2020;
Skrzypek et al., 2022; Sovacool et al., 2020). As Sovacool et al. (Sovacool
et al., 2020) warned, energy transition could worsen patterns of social
marginalisation while also degrading the environment, which is the
antithesis of the notion of ‘just transition’, which posits that the transi­
tion to a low-carbon future should proceed in an equitable way that
minimises social and environmental harm (Skrzypek et al., 2022). De­
posits of many critical minerals are more geographically concentrated
than those of oil or natural gas and have a propensity to be located on
land with high environmental, social and governance risks, including
Indigenous peoples’ lands (IEA 2021; Lèbre et al., 2020). Indigenous
peoples often experience higher levels of social marginalisation, while
maintaining deep spiritual, cultural and livelihood ties to their land
(Garnett et al., 2018; Horowitz et al., 2018; Owen et al., 2022).
2.2. Critical minerals on Indigenous peoples’ lands in the pacific region
The Pacific region has a long history of mining, and is rich in critical
minerals, including nickel, copper and zinc. Lèbre et al. (Lèbre et al.,
2021) determined that there are a total of 161 critical mineral projects at
various stages of development in the Pacific region located across seven
Pacific Island countries. Approximately 94 % of these projects fall on or
near Indigenous peoples’ lands, and 78 % of the projects are considered
early-stage projects, including mineral exploration and feasibility ac­
tivities (Lèbre et al., 2021). Much of the land within the Pacific region is
Indigenous peoples’ land, and Indigenous Pacific Islanders retain deep
ties to the use, development and care of land resources in ways that fulfil
their spiritual and cultural needs and customary laws, including liveli­
hood activities, such as hunting and fishing, resource harvesting, and
subsistence agriculture (Garnett et al., 2018; Skrzypek et al., 2022;
United Nations 2015).
Mining activities on Indigenous peoples’ lands in the Pacific region
have catalysed social change in project-affected communities, leading to
both positive and negative social impacts. These social impacts are well
documented, ranging from impacts associated with involuntary
displacement (Bainton et al., 2022), project induced in-migration
(Bainton and Banks, 2018), community conflict (Allen, 2012; Evans,
2010), widening of local inequities, particularly for women (Ember­
son-Bain, 1994; Macintyre, 2007), and stimulation of a cash economy
due to cash-based employment and business opportunities (Imbun,
2000; Imbun, 2006). Much of this literature centres on impacts arising
from activities associated with the construction and/or operation of
mining projects, and there is a growing literature focusing on the im­
pacts of mine decommissioning and closure on Indigenous peoples
(Bainton and Holcombe, 2018; O’Faircheallaigh and Lawrence, 2019).
However, as noted by Vanclay (Vanclay, 2020), social impacts can occur
as soon as there are rumours about a mining project, regardless of
whether the mine proceeds to development. While exploration of min­
erals in the Pacific has been ongoing for decades, there has been few
detailed social studies with most of this work centred on Papua New
Guinea from an anthropological lens. Jorgensen (Jorgensen, 1997)
explored Indigenous peoples’ relation to land in the context of the
proposed Nena copper-gold mining project, while West (West, 2006)
investigated a series of gold mining explorations in the Eastern High­
lands and their intersection with an environmental conservation project.
J. Ash
More recently, Roche et al. (Roche et al., 2019) explored the local ex­
periences of communities potentially impacted by the proposed
Wafi-Golpu copper-gold mine through a human flourishing perspective.
In Fiji, McShane’s (2003) thesis investigated the nature of stakeholder
relationships in the context of the then Namosi copper exploration
project. Despite this, there remains little empirical evidence or under­
standing of the wide-ranging social impacts that occur during the min­
eral exploration phase of a proposed mining project on Indigenous
peoples’ lands in the Pacific region.
Nickel is a key mineral necessary to support energy transition, and by
2050, under a 1.5◦ C scenario, demand for nickel is expected to more
than double (IEA 2021; IRENA 2021). Nickel is currently mainly used to
make stainless steel; however, a growing proportion of nickel is being
used in batteries for electric vehicles and for other renewable energy
infrastructure, such as wind farms and hydropower developments
(Henckens and Worrell, 2020). Therefore, the demand for nickel is ex­
pected to grow alongside the global uptake of electric vehicles and the
establishment of renewable energy infrastructure. The Pacific region is
host to significant nickel deposits; of the 161 critical mineral projects in
the Pacific region, 35 projects are primarily focused on nickel extraction,
with approximately 7 % of global nickel produced by New Caledonia,
and there are 19 nickel exploration projects in the Pacific region,
including in Solomon Islands (Lèbre et al., 2021), which forms the case
study for this research.
2.3. The case study: nickel exploration in Solomon islands
Solomon Islands is a postcolonial archipelago state situated to the
east of Australia between Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. It is abun­
dant in natural and marine resources, on which much of the population
depend for their subsistence livelihoods. Solomon Islands is charac­
terised by ethnic, social and cultural diversity, with around 80 distinct
languages among a population of over 700,000 people (Kabutaulaka,
1998; Lewis, 2009; SIG 2023).
Solomon Islands faces numerous development challenges, including
a predominantly rural population, remoteness, heterogeneity and frag­
mentation of communities (Foale, 2001), vulnerability to extreme
weather events and climate change (Albert et al., 2018), rapid informal
urbanisation (McEvoy et al., 2020) and exponential population growth
(SIG 2023). Shadowing these challenges is the legacy of a civil conflict,
which occurred between 1999 and 2004, and led to temporary gov­
ernment inaction for over a decade (Allen, 2012, Evans, 2010). An un­
sustainable logging industry has dominated the Solomon Islands’
economy since the 1980s, which has generated a broad range of envi­
ronmental, economic, and social impacts for local communities (Allen
and Porter, 2016, Baines, 2015, Minter and van der Ploeg, 2023). While
the logging industry remains the backbone of Solomon Islands’ econ­
omy, the country has attracted growing interest from multinational
mining companies to prospect due to the abundance of undeveloped
mineral resources and its proximity to key markets, such as Australia
and Asia (Naitoro, 2000). Historically, mining in Solomon Islands has
incited controversy, corruption and community resistance. It reportedly
took about 30 years of exploration and 17 years of negotiations with
landholders before the Gold Ridge Mine, located in Guadalcanal Prov­
ince near the country’s capital of Honiara, was established in 1999
(Nanau, 2014). Despite great initial optimism for the project, its oper­
ation was short-lived due to civil unrest, with the unequal distribution of
benefits and resources from the mine reportedly a contributing factor
(Allen, 2012, Evans, 2010).
Isabel Province, one of nine provinces in Solomon Islands, and with a
population of around 31,000 people (SIG 2023n), has received signifi­
cant interest from multinational mining companies interested in
extracting its nickel resources. Exploration activities for nickel have
principally been carried out in the southeast and centre of Isabel Prov­
ince by two multinational mining companies over a ten-year period to
2020. However, nickel exploration had been complicated due to the
3
The Extractive Industries and Society 17 (2024) 101439
companies competing for prospecting licences in one area of the same
mining tenement, culminating in Solomon Islands’ longest running
court case (Baines, 2015). While a Japanese mining company won the
international tender for prospecting licences in Isabel Province, the
Solomon Islands government cancelled the licences a year later and
awarded similar rights to an Australian mining company (Australian
Broadcasting Corporation 2016). This resulted in social disruption and
tension within local communities, stimulated by bungled land registra­
tion and unmet expectations associated with the multinational mining
companies (Baines, 2015).
In addition to the contested tenement, the same mining companies
had other tenements in Isabel Province under prospecting licences.
Several villages were located within or near to the tenements under
exploration and were subjected to mineral exploration activities by both
mining companies. The villages had populations of between 150 and
350 people and were principally reliant on subsistence agriculture,
including cropping and fishing. The villages also interacted with the
logging industry, with surrounding land subjected to itinerant logging
operations. At the time of research, infrastructure and works associated
with nickel exploration activities included the construction of small
ports, clearing of land and establishment of access roads, geological
surveys and land excavation, community consultation, deployment of
company-sponsored community development initiatives, and the un­
dertaking of environmental and social impact studies to satisfy national
regulatory approval requirements and international good practice.
Company camps were also established, which were principally staffed
and maintained by people employed from nearby villages.
At the time of research, both mining companies were actively un­
dertaking mineral exploration activities at the Isabel nickel deposits. In
August 2017, and after almost a decade of prospecting in Isabel Prov­
ince, the Japanese mining company formally announced withdrawal
from Solomon Islands, citing the country’s challenging regulatory
context, in addition to a then-declining global demand for nickel (SIG
2017). The Australian company was granted a mining lease within Isabel
Province in late 2018. However, a year later, the company had its pro­
specting and mining licences revoked by the Solomon Islands govern­
ment, reportedly due to failing to meet regulatory conditions (Australian
Broadcasting Association 2019). Another Australian mining firm has
since been awarded a mining lease in 2022 to extract nickel from Isabel
Province.
3. Conceptual framework and research methods
The aim of this paper is to identify and understand the social impacts
of critical mineral exploration associated with the Isabel nickel deposits
in Solomon Islands. The research is a qualitative, exploratory inquiry,
and seeks to generate knowledge grounded in human experience (San­
delowski, 2004). The research is broadly guided by Vanclay’s (Vanclay,
2002) conceptual framework in conceptualising social impacts, which
emphasises a fundamental distinction between social change processes
and social impacts. Building on Slootweg et al.’s (Slootweg et al., 2001)
integration framework for social and environmental assessment, Van­
clay’s (Vanclay, 2002) conceptual framework posits that social impacts
typically arise from social change processes invoked by an intervention,
such as a project activity.
Slootweg et al. (Slootweg et al., 2001) define a social change process
as a “discrete, observable and describable process which changes the
characteristics of a society, taking place regardless of societal context”
(p. 27). As such, a social change process is not necessarily either negative
or positive, but may catalyse both positive and negative social impacts
for a range of affected communities and interested parties, depending on
their social context. ‘Social impact’ refers to the impact experienced by
humans in either a physical or perceptual sense (Vanclay, 2002, Vanclay
et al., 2015). This research takes the position that impacts are socially
constructed and are constructed by contextual factors which shape the
process of change into multiple forms (Aledo-Tur and
J. Ash The Extractive Industries and Society 17 (2024) 101439

Dominguez-Gomez, 2017). Therefore, the ways in which the social Table 1

change processes are perceived, given meaning, or valued, depends on Social impacts of critical mineral exploration.
the social context in which various stakeholders act (Joyce and Mac­ Mineral exploration Social change process Social impact (dependent on
Farlane, 2001, van Schooten et al., 2003). Reflecting this, this paper activity (independent of social social context)
explores the perceptions of affected communities and interested parties context)
to identify the social impacts associated with mineral exploration (Serje, Generation of Acceleration of influx of Diminishment of cultural
2017). It is not the intent of this paper to quantify the identified social employment and cash values and traditions due to
impacts through evaluation of their relative significance. business rise of economic
opportunities individualism (–)
Qualitative data was obtained from 40 research participants through Generation of inter- and intra-
semi-structured individual and group interviews. Research participants community conflict due to
were initially identified via stakeholder analysis, which was informed perceived inequitable
through review of company documentation and publicly available social distribution of employment
and business opportunities (–)
impact studies for other proposed projects in Solomon Islands. The
Increased economic diversity
stakeholder analysis was iterative, in that it was supplemented with and productivity due to
outcomes of networking during fieldwork. The sampling and recruit­ establishment of new
ment of research participants differed to account for cultural power businesses (+)
relationships. Increased anti-social
behaviour in communities
Research participants were grouped into three broad participant due to rise of economic
groups: local participants, government participants, and private sector individualism (–)
and international institution participants. The local participant group Marginalisation of women
involved members from three villages at the Isabel nickel deposits due to rise of economic
individualism (–)
experiencing changes to their social environment because of mineral
Negotiation of land Transformation of Marginalisation of women
exploration activities, including village and tribal chiefs, landholders, rights and access power relations and due to exclusion from
woman leaders and youth leaders (n = 15). The government participant structures decision-making (–)
group comprised officers from national government ministries, Generation of intra-
including those relating to the mining, environmental and development community conflict due to
incompatible framings of
sectors, provincial government officers, and a member of parliament (n
property rights (–)
= 15). The private sector and international institution participant group Disempowerment of
involved representatives from the multinational mining companies that traditional governance
were present at the time of research, and specialists and consultants structures due to deployment
of western approaches (–)
from international financial institutions working in the mining and so­
Community relations, Introduction of new Generation of intra-
cial safeguards space within the Pacific region (n = 10). A tailored including forms of knowledge community conflict due to
interview guide was developed for each of the three participant groups. community differing development
Proposed topics to local research participants focused on identifying and consultation and aspirations (–)
understanding the social and economic changes they have observed in engagement Generation of uncertainty,
confusion and fear due to
their communities due to mineral exploration activities. Proposed topics
inability to plan for future (–)
to government research participants focused on their experiences with Enhanced community
company engagement and their perspective on the distribution of social cohesion due to activities
impacts, while topics to private sector and international institution bringing community together
(+)
research participants similarly focused on the distribution of social im­
Exclusion of local knowledge
pacts in addition to responsibilities around social impact identification (–)
and management. Company-sponsored Enhancement of Improved access to
Fieldwork was carried out over a six-month period in Solomon community community and social community and social
Islands in 2016. Where permission was granted, which was in all but one development development outcomes infrastructure due to
refurbishment (+)
case, interviews were recorded and transcribed. Interviews at the local
Generation of inter-
scale were principally conducted in Solomon Islands pijin and translated community conflict due to
into English with the assistance of a locally recruited research assistant. perceived inequitable
Interview transcripts were then analysed via NVivo software (QSR In­ distribution of community
development initiatives (–)
ternational inc., Melbourne, Australia) which led to the identification of
Increased schooling
social impacts through the process of coding and thematic analysis. All attendance due to distribution
quotes have been de-identified and the participants were given assur­ of secondary school education
ances of anonymity. scholarships (+)
Improved health outcomes
due to enhanced access to
4. Results
health services (+)
Improved overall health due
Four broad social change processes catalysed by mineral exploration to deployment of community
activities were identified from the qualitative data, including the ac­ health education programs
celeration of influx of cash due to employment and business opportu­ (+)
Deterioration of social
nities, the transformation of power relations and structures due to the wellbeing due to
negotiation of land rights and access, introduction of new forms of discontinuation of company-
knowledge due to company–community relations including community sponsored community
consultation and engagement activities, and enhancement of commu­ development (–)
nity and social development outcomes due to company-sponsored +: positive impact. –: negative impact.
community development. Several positive and negative social impacts
were identified from these social change processes (Table 1).

4
J. Ash
4.1. Acceleration of influx of cash
Many of the research participants identified that the generation of
cash-based employment and business opportunities associated with
mineral exploration accelerated the influx of cash at the local scale,
which catalysed a range of positive and negative social impacts. While
exploration activities and associated fieldwork studies were often car­
ried out by international consultants, mineral exploration also generated
a need for local staff in a range of roles, including supporting technical
field studies, managing community affairs, maintaining the exploration
camps, and building access roads. Mineral exploration also stimulated
business opportunities, such as supplying food to the exploration camps
and the provision of local transportation services.
A key negative impact identified by some research participants is the
diminishment of cultural values and traditions, with the acceleration of
influx of cash giving rise to economic individualism. Prior to the arrival
of mineral exploration, the presence of cash in the villages were
generally limited to the few employment opportunities associated with
logging activities, remittances from relatives based in urban centres of
Solomon Islands or overseas, and sale of surplus crops. As such, the
villages were largely communal, with economies based on subsistence
cropping and fishing (Maetala, 2008). Villagers worked collectively to
sustain the village and any cash acquired from cropping or sale of sur­
plus goods tended to go back to the village, for example in the form of
funds for celebrations (Gegeo, 2001, Maetala, 2008). However, the
introduction of a large quantity of cash during mineral exploration has
accelerated the shift from a collective-based society to an individualist
society, as this money is often only distributed to individuals, such as
landholders. One local woman leader, in response to the changing
behaviour and culture driven by money, remarked:
Our working together as a community has changed to be more
individualistic, as job opportunities are available and people tend to
value money more than cultural obligations, and [the normal] ex­
pectations of the community are no longer observed by community
members. (Local participant)
Other research participants agreed that individual wealth accumu­
lation is antithetical to the collective good of the village society. A
further key negative social impact identified by many research partici­
pants is the generation of inter- and intra-community conflict due to the
perceived inequitable distribution of employment and business oppor­
tunities. Employment strategies implemented by the two mining com­
panies during the mineral exploration phase differ: one company
employs local people “regardless of which tribe or clan you come from”
(Local participant), while the other company favours employment of
landholders whose land is potentially going to be acquired for the
mining project. This has resulted in some research participants’
perception that only the landholders are benefitting from the mineral
exploration, which has given rise to community conflict, as villagers
believe the benefits of employment should be shared collectively with
“ordinary villagers” (Local participant) to ensure continuation of the
communal nature of the village. The acceleration of influx of cash is also
seen as further marginalising women at the local scale, with a partici­
pant from an international institution noting:
With the rise of money in the villages, it’s also meant that because
money is largely located in the hands of men, it has meant a
diminishing in the role of women. (Private sector/international
institution participant)
Further, the point was raised that the local women often have
different value systems from the men. Some participants said that the
women value production for the family and maintaining a viable envi­
ronment and culture for future generations, while the men, who are
more easily swayed by money, do not. Women in Isabel Province are
traditionally tasked with ensuring that their young children receive and
maintain cultural values and norms to ensure continuity for future
5
The Extractive Industries and Society 17 (2024) 101439
generations (Maetala, 2008). It has been well reported that the social
impacts of mining in the Pacific are often disproportionately felt by
women (Emberson-Bain, 1994, Macintyre et al., 2006) — for example,
Macintyre (Macintyre et al., 2006) found that men at the Lihir Mine
Project in Papua New Guinea often spent their cash on alcohol and
gambling, which led to higher rates of domestic violence in the
community.
Some participants in this research reported that the acceleration of
influx of cash at the Isabel nickel deposits has led to increased anti-social
behaviour in the villages, such as alcoholism, which has led to intra-
community and family conflict. This finding also aligns with social
studies on logging in Solomon Islands, where Minter and van der Ploeg
(Minter and van der Ploeg, 2023) determined that industrial logging
facilitates excessive alcohol use in local communities. In relation to the
case study, a participant from an international institution stated that a
key driver of the negative social pathologies is “the inability to manage
that money” (Private sector/international institution participant). On
the other hand, local research participants also commented that the
mineral exploration has led to increased economic diversity and pro­
ductivity, as they “have found an easy way to market their local prod­
ucts” (Local participant) to the companies. The increase in business
opportunities at the local level is perceived by some research partici­
pants as a benefit of mineral exploration.
4.2. Transformation of power relations and structures
Negotiation of land rights and access typically occur during the
mineral exploration phase, and can result in the transformation of power
relations and structures at the local scale. Negotiation of land rights and
access during mineral exploration typically involves discussions around
compensation for land access and/or relinquishment, physical
displacement and/or loss of livelihood. Land tenure in Solomon Islands
is broadly defined in terms of communal tribal kinship, and these tribal
groups have varying customs and ways of defining traditional re­
lationships to their land (Foukona, 2007, Gegeo, 2001, Tolia and Pet­
terson, 2005). Prior to mineral exploration in Isabel Province, much of
the land had not been systematically surveyed or registered, with
ownership patterns defined through oral history (Foukona, 2007). At the
site of this case study, mineral exploration necessitated the negotiation
of land rights to access areas for exploration and field studies, and to
determine potential compensation arrangements for areas affected by
proposed mining leases. Mineral exploration, in addition to existing
logging activities, therefore introduced the concept of individual prop­
erty rights, in which land has a monetary value, which was previously a
foreign concept for many of the villagers. Incompatible framings of
property rights unearthed by the decision-making processes around land
rights and access have generated intra-community conflict. For example:
With regard to prospecting activities, many of the families owning
the prospecting site were starting to have disputes among themselves
over the prospecting site and royalties. The activity has created di­
vision among families and family members. (Local participant)
In the early years of exploration activity at the case study site, limited
local knowledge and experience of the mining sector led to some land­
holders signing agreements with mining companies without fully com­
prehending what they were signing. This has generated tension and
division within villages. Further, the re-conceptualisation of land
ownership steered by mineral exploration has challenged traditional
understandings and governance of land ownership. This has had an
impact on tribal and village governance. Village and tribal chiefs are
elected by the community based on their ability to act on behalf of the
village or tribe; however, the traditional leaders “don’t have the right to
say, ‘Stop the mining’ to the landowning groups” (Government partici­
pant), which has led to their disempowerment and the disruption of
traditional governance structures.
Negotiation of land rights and access further marginalises women
J. Ash
due to their exclusion from the decision-making processes. In Isabel
Province, land is held and transmitted matrilineally (Maetala, 2008).
However, at the time of mineral exploration, women from the villages
residing on the land were unfamiliar with the processes of political
meetings. Maetala (Maetala, 2008) notes that, while in the past the
women of Isabel held a prominent role with respect to land tenure,
“modern changes have resulted in modification of ascribed status of the
genders, with men taking over the role of decision makers in land
matters” (p. 39), as men have become the “trustees, signatories and
beneficiaries of royalty payments without proper consultation with
women” (p. 39). As identified during several interviews, the women
were often not included in negotiations around land and mining
agreements. One research participant noted that:
There is always argument between the two genders, as many of the
well-educated men tend to sign mining agreements without the
consent and permission of the female elders. (Local participant)
One woman elder and land custodian stated that the only time she
was involved in mining discussions “was when I was called to go and
create a bank account and make deposits” (Local participant). Nickel
exploration has thus exacerbated the marginalisation of women at the
local scale.
4.3. Introduction of new forms of knowledge
With increasing emphasis on social licence to operate and the need to
build trust within communities, mining companies now invest in com­
munity relations earlier in a mine’s lifecycle, including during the
mineral exploration phase (Luning, 2012, Mackenzie et al., 2020).
Consultation with landholders and nearby communities also forms a
vital step of the approvals process for a proposed mining project. Ac­
tivities associated with community relations and consultation during
mineral exploration introduce new knowledge on and awareness of
mining activities in affected communities and interested parties. The
villages in this case study were subject to numerous community
consultation activities. Consultation activities were in relation to land
access, the implementation of company-sponsored community devel­
opment initiatives, and to support studies undertaken to inform envi­
ronmental and social impact assessments and other approval
requirements. General mining awareness activities were also deployed
in the villages. These strategies were typically deployed by mining
company representatives and their international consultants, and rep­
resentatives from governmental and non-governmental organisations.
Consultation and awareness activities generated intra-community
conflict in the case study villages due to conflicting development aspi­
rations within and across communities. The villages are remote and
government services are fragmentary. The villagers have not previously
participated in formal development aspirations or community planning
exercises. Consultation about potential future mining occurring near to
their villages has prompted the inhabitants to think about the future of
their communities. While there may be benefits in prompting commu­
nities to think about and plan for the future, such activities have caused,
“more conflict, less unity and overall … confusion — confusion about
what is the reason [for mining] and which is the appropriate develop­
ment path for everybody to take” (Government participant). This finding
aligns with those of other studies, in which scholars have pointed out
that the very meaning of ‘development’ can often lead to conflict be­
tween mining companies and local, often Indigenous, communities
(Bebbington et al., 2008, Kemp, 2011).
A key social impact identified by some research participants is the
passive exclusion of local knowledge, as consultation activities deployed
during mineral exploration by mining company representatives and
their international consultants “use language that is at their own level,
and which the community finds hard to understand” (Local participant).
A participant from an international institution described the consulta­
tion at the Isabel nickel deposits as too limited, raising the question of
6
The Extractive Industries and Society 17 (2024) 101439
“How are people going to, for the very first time, hear about a project,
and in the same meeting, give feedback on it, without having any
knowledge of the mining sector?” (Private sector/international institu­
tion participant). This flawed consultation technique prevented the full
recognition of local knowledge by the environmental and social studies
undertaken during mineral exploration. Further, communication mate­
rials, including environmental and social assessment reports, were
written in language that was too complex for villagers to comprehend:
“It would take us villagers, to read and try to understand the content,
probably a year” (Local participant). On the other hand, a local research
participant noted that mineral exploration activities had brought the
village closer together as they had to work collaboratively: “So far, the
social benefit that prospecting activity has brought … is that it brings us
to work closely with each other” (Local participant).
4.4. Enhancement of community and social development outcomes
There is increasing consensus that company-sponsored community
development should begin early in the exploration phase for companies
to obtain a social licence to explore (Fraser et al., 2018, Luning, 2012,
Mackenzie et al., 2020). Company-sponsored community development
in the mining sector often takes the form of social development pro­
grammes, including sponsorship of health, education and cultural ac­
tivities (Martinez and Franks, 2014). While there is considerable
literature on company-sponsored development in the areas of corporate
social responsibility and social licence to operate as it relates to the
mining industry, much of this literature fails to engage with the impacts
of such activities at the local level (an exception is (McLennan and
Banks, 2018)), even though such programmes are sometimes the only
viable option that remote communities have for social development
(Kemp, 2010).
Solomon Islands faces many development challenges, and private
sector-led community development was viewed by some research par­
ticipants as necessary to fill the gaps left by inadequate or absent gov­
ernment services: “I think there are some gaps in our culture which may
overlook some areas, and therefore it’s good to have community
development address those” (Government participant). More generally,
government participants reported that there is a need for social devel­
opment in the villages associated with the Isabel nickel deposits, in areas
including education, sanitation, health education, and reducing gender
disparity. Thus, the company-sponsored community development
associated with mineral exploration was welcomed by some informants
as a contribution to filling the development gaps that government ser­
vices are unable to fill.
In two of the villages in this study, there was a clear preference for
one of the mining companies because of its community development
initiatives, which included the provision of education scholarships,
implementation of nutrition programs, provision of emergency trans­
portation from the villages to the regional hospital, and improvement of
church, health and education infrastructure. Many local participants
spoke positively about these community development initiatives. For
example, one participant said:
Although only prospecting has been done, [the company] has helped
us so much already. They’ve paid for school fees, churches, schools
and clinic infrastructure, [and] provided fuel and transportation for
emergency situations. (Local participant)
However, as with the distribution of employment opportunities,
research participants also said that a perceived inequitable distribution
of community development initiatives during exploration has generated
inter-community conflict. Company-sponsored community develop­
ment was only delivered to the immediate community of impact, to the
landholders or to those villages that ‘consented’ to mining companies
exploring on their lands. One village, which had not expressed alle­
giance to either company due to competing interests among village
leaders, had not been a recipient of any CSR benefits, with one research
J. Ash
participant noting that, “It’s been more than seven years of prospecting,
yet we’ve received very little from the companies” (Local participant).
This has generated conflict among the leaders and villagers as they have
witnessed nearby villages receiving community development benefits
while they miss out.
One key recurring theme in the interviews is the unsustainability of
company-sponsored community development during mineral explora­
tion. One mining company provided annual education scholarships for
secondary school aged residents across the province for more than five
years during its mineral exploration phase. When the company elected
not to proceed to mine development, the scholarships were dis­
continued, which meant that some of the scholarship holders had to
leave school. Thus, these villages are susceptible to the abrupt termi­
nation of community development initiatives on which they have
become reliant during the mineral exploration phase.
5. Discussion and conclusions
The results demonstrate that exploration for critical minerals on
Indigenous peoples’ lands inevitably has social impacts on affected
communities and interested parties. While the pursuit of a low-carbon
future is anticipated to deliver benefits globally, the ensuing increased
demand for critical minerals to fuel the energy transition will exacerbate
social burdens and inequities for communities subjected to mineral
exploration, particularly for communities on or near to Indigenous
peoples’ lands (Owen et al., 2022). Solomon Islands ratified the Paris
Agreement to contribute to efforts to limit the global average tempera­
ture increase to 1.5◦ C by 2050, and it had already reached net zero in
2023 (SIG 2023a). At the same time, the country is experiencing
increased interest from multinational mining companies to explore and
extract its critical minerals to support global energy transition (Lèbre
et al., 2021). Thus, while energy transition may contribute to global
goals and benefits, the social burdens related to the exploration of
critical minerals to supply the transition are disproportionately placed
on Indigenous people, as is the case for Solomon Islands.
While many of the social impacts identified at the Isabel nickel de­
posits in Solomon Islands have also been reported during the construc­
tion and/or operation of mining projects elsewhere in the Pacific region
(Bainton et al., 2022, Banks et al., 2013, Filer, 1999, Imbun, 2000,
Macintyre et al., 2006), this paper provides evidence that these social
impacts can occur earlier in the mine lifecycle, at the exploration stage,
with the bulk of the identified impacts being negative. Through the
acceleration of influx of cash, mineral exploration intensifies the shift
from traditional mechanisms of economic distribution from the collec­
tive to the individual, which generates negative impacts in local com­
munities. Further, mineral exploration drives the re-conceptualisation of
land ownership through negotiations around land access and compen­
sation agreements, which challenge traditional governance and Indige­
nous understandings of land ownership. Community consultations and
the conducting of environmental and social studies associated with
mineral exploration passively exclude local Indigenous knowledge and
generate community conflict due to differing development aspirations
within and across communities. On the other hand, mineral exploration
enables deployment of company-sponsored community development,
which enhances social and wellbeing outcomes in the local commu­
nities, at least for a while. However, in the case of the Isabel nickel
deposits, neither mineral exploration project proceeded to full-scale
development, leaving behind a negative legacy for the local Indige­
nous communities of abruptly terminated community development
initiatives on which the communities had become reliant.
Overlooking or misunderstanding the social impacts of critical
mineral exploration can give rise to community opposition and conflict,
which has been a key factor in many projects not progressing beyond the
exploration phase (Franks et al., 2014, IEA 2021). If community oppo­
sition to critical mineral exploration projects grows, then the energy
transition will stall. Failure to address the social costs and inequities of
7
The Extractive Industries and Society 17 (2024) 101439
the energy transition may delay achievement of the Paris Agreement and
thwart efforts towards just transition outcomes (Skrzypek et al., 2022,
Sovacool et al., 2020). There is therefore an urgent need to identify,
understand, manage, and respond to the social impacts of mineral
exploration as soon as they occur; they should not be anticipated and
addressed solely during the construction and operation of mines. How­
ever, there remains ambiguity on who should be responsible for man­
aging the social impacts of mineral exploration, as governments of
low-income countries such as Solomon Islands generally lack the ca­
pacity to respond to the social impacts, while mining companies may not
have the expertise or the sense of obligation to manage the social im­
pacts. A potential approach is to establish a global benchmark to
incentivise mining companies to consider the social impacts of their
mineral exploration activities. As the number of critical mineral explo­
ration projects on or near Indigenous peoples’ lands continues to grow, it
is timely for the social impacts to be explicitly considered and proac­
tively addressed to ensure just transition outcomes and minimise bar­
riers to the realisation of a low-carbon future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jillian Ash: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing.
Funding statement
This research received no specific grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Albert, S., Bronen, R., Tooler, N.B., Leon, J.X, Yee, D., Ash, J., Boseto, D., Grinham, A.R.,
2018. Heading for the hills: climate driven community relocations in Solomon
Islands and Alaska provide insight for a 1.5◦ C future. Reg. Environ. Change 18,
2261–2272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1256-8.
Aledo-Tur, A., Dominguez-Gomez, J.A., 2017. Social Impact Assessment (SIA) from a
multidimensional paradigmatic perspective: challenges and opportunities.
J. Environ. Manage. 195 (1), 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2016.10.060.
Allen, M., 2012. Land, identity and conflict on Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands. Australian
Geographer 43 (2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2012.682294.
Allen, M.G., Porter, D.J., 2016. Managing the transition from logging to mining in post-
conflict Solomon Islands. Extr. Ind. Soc. 3 (2), 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
exis.2016.01.002.
Australian Broadcasting Association, 2019. Solomon Islands cancels certificate for
Australian mining company. https://www.abc.net.au/pacific/programs/pacifi
cbeat/solomon-islands-cancels-certificate-australian-mining-axiom/11644826.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2016. Axiom Mining loses Solomon Islands nickel
court battle to Sumitomo. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-23/axiom-min
ing-loses-solomon-islands-nickel-to-sumitomo/7269324.
Baines, G., 2015. Solomon Islands is Unprepared to Manage a Minerals-Based Economy
(Discussion Paper 2015/6, State, Society and Governance in Melanesia). Australian
National University, Canberra.
Bainton, N., Banks, G., 2018. Land and access: a framework for analysing mining,
migration and development in Melanesia. Sustain. Dev. 26 (5), 450–460. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sd.1890.
Bainton, N., Burton, J., Owen, J.R., 2022. Land relations, resource extraction and
displacement effects in island Papua New Guinea. J. Peasant. Stud. 49 (6),
1295–1315. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2021.1928086.
Bainton, N., Holcombe, S., 2018. A critical review of the social aspects of mine closure.
Resour. Policy. 59, 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.08.020.
Banks, G., Kuir-Ayius, D., Kombako, D., Sagir, B., 2013. Conceptualising mining impacts,
livelihoods and corporate community development in Melanesia. Commun. Dev. J.
48 (3), 484–500. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26166110.
Bebbington, A., Hinojosa, L., Bebbington, D.H., Burneo, M.L., Warnaars, X., 2008.
Contention and ambiguity: mining and the possibilities of development. Dev. Change
39, 887–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00517.x.
Caron, J., Durand, S., Asselin, H., 2016. Principles and criteria of sustainable
development for the mineral exploration industry. J. Clean. Prod. 119, 215–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.073.
Emberson-Bain, A., 1994. Labour and Gold in Fiji. Cambridge University Press, New
York.
Evans, D., 2010. Tensions at the Gold Ridge Mine, Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands. Pacific
Econ. Bulletin 25 (3), 121–134. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/157983.
J. Ash
Filer, C., 1999. Dilemmas of Development: The Social and Economic Impact of the
Porgera Gold Mine 1989–1994. Australian National University Press, Canberra.
Foale, S., 2001. Where’s our development? The Asia Pacific J. Anthropol. 2 (2), 44–67.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14442210110001706105.
Foukona, J.D., 2007. Legal aspects of customary land administration in Solomon Islands.
J. South Pacific Law 11 (1), 64–72. ISSN 1684-5307.
Franks, D.M., Davis, R., Bebbington, A.J., Ali, S.H., Kemp, D., Scurrah, M., 2014. Conflict
translates environmental and social risk into business costs. The Proc. the Na. Acad.
Sci. 111 (21) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405135111.
Fraser, J., Kunz, N.C., Batdorj, B., 2018. Can mineral exploration projects create and
share value with communities? A case study from Mongolia. Resour. Policy. 63
(2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101455.
Gandhi, S.M., Sarkar, B.C., 2016. Essentials of Mineral Exploration and Evaluation.
Elsevier Press, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2015-0-04648-2.
Garnett, S.T., Burgess, N.D., Fa, J.E., Fernandez-Llamazares, A., Molnar, Z., Robinson, C.
J., Watson, J.E.M., Zander, K.K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E.S., Collier, N.F., Duncan, T.,
Ellis, E., Geyle, H., Jackson, M.V., Jonas, H., Malmer, P., McGowan, B.,
Sivongxay, A., Leiper, L., 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of
Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6.
Gegeo, D.W., 2001. Cultural rupture and indigeneity: the challenge of (re)visioning
“place” in the Pacific. Contemp. Pac. 13 (2), 491–507. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
23717601.
Henckens, M.L.C.M., Worrell, E., 2020. Reviewing the availability of copper and nickel
for future generations. The balance between production growth, sustainability and
recycling rates. J. Clean. Prod. 264 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121460.
Horowitz, L.S., Keeling, A., Levesque, F., Rodon, T., Schott, S., Theriault, S., 2018.
Indigenous peoples’ relationships to large-scale mining in post/colonial contexts:
towards multidisciplinary comparative perspectives. Extr. Ind. Soc. 5 (3), 404–414.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.05.004.
IEA, 2021. The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions. IEA, Paris. https:
//www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions.
Imbun, B.Y., 2000. Mining workers or ‘opportunist’ tribesmen?: a tribal workforce in a
Papua New Guinea Mine. Oceania 71 (2), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1834-
4461.2000.tb02731.x.
Imbun, B.Y., 2006. Multinational mining companies and indigenous workers in Papua
New Guinea: tensions and challenges in employment relations. Labour Capital and
Society 39 (1), 112–148. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43158262.
IRENA, 2021. Global renewables outlook: energy transformation 2050. https://www.ire
na.org/publications/2020/Apr/Global-Renewables-Outlook-2020.
Jorgensen, D., 1997. Who and what is a landowner? Mythology and marking the ground
in a Papua New Guinea mining project. Anthropol. Forum. 7 (4), 599–627. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00664677.1997.9967476.
Jowitt, S.M., Mudd, G.M., Thompson, J.F.H., 2020. Future availability of non-renewable
metal resources and the influence of environmental, social, and governance conflicts
on metal production. Commun. Earth and Environ. 1 https://doi.org/10.1038/
s43247-020-0011-0.
Joyce, S., MacFarlane, M., 2001. Social Impact Assessment in the Mining Industry: Current
Situation and Future Directions (Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development,
Paper No. 46). International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Kabutaulaka, T.T., 1998. Pacific Islands Stakeholder Participation in Development: solomon
Islands. A report for the World Bank. The World Bank, Washington D.C. http://doc
uments.worldbank.org/curated/en/921981468777288988/pdf/multi-page.pdf.
Kemp, D., 2010. Mining and community development: problems and possibilities of
local-level practice. Commun. Dev. J. 45 (2), 198–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/
cdj/bsp006.
Kemp, D., 2011. Understanding the organisational context. In: Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M.
(Eds.), New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological
Advances. Edward Elgar Press, Gloucester, pp. 20–37.
Lèbre, E., Bainton, N., Burton, J., Skrzypek, E., 2021. Pacific Energy Transition-Extractives
Nexus Integrated Dataset. Just Transitions and the Pacific Project. University of St
Andrews and University of Queensland.
Lèbre, E., Stringer, M., Svobodova, K., Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., Cote, C., Arratia-Solar, A.,
Valenta, R.K., 2020. The social and environmental complexities of extracting energy
transition metals. Nat. Commun. 11 (4823) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-
18661-9.
Lewis, M.P., 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth ed.
Lindahl, K.B., Suopajarvi, L., Tulilehto, M., Poelzer, G., Erola, T., 2023. Factors affecting
local attitudes to mineral exploration: what’s within the company’s control?. In:
Resour. Policy., 84 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103715.
Luning, S., 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for exploration: consultants,
companies and communities in processes of engagements. Resour. Policy. 37 (2012),
205–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.02.004.
Macintyre, M., Lahiri-Dutt, K., Macintyre, M., 2006. Women Miners in Developing
Countries: pit Women and Others. Women Working in the Mining Industry in Papua
New Guinea: a Case Study from Lihir. Ashgate Publishing, Oxford, pp. 131–144.
Macintyre, M., 2007. Informed consent and mining projects: a view from Papua New
Guinea. Pac. Aff. 80 (1), 49–65. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40022151.
Mackenzie, S., Everingham, J., Bourke, P., 2020. The social dimensions of mineral
exploration. SEG Discovery 121, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.5382/Geo-and-Mining-
07.
The Extractive Industries and Society 17 (2024) 101439
Maetala, R., 2008. Matrilineal Land Tenure Systems in Solomon Islands: The cases of
Guadalcanal, Makira and Isabel provinces, in: Hutter, E. (Ed.), Land and Women: the
matrilineal factor: the cases of the Republic of Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and
Vanuatu. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, Suva, pp. 35–57.
Martinez, C., Franks, D., 2014. Does mining company-sponsored community
development influence social licence to operate? Evidence from private and state-
owned companies in Chile. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32 (4),
294–303.
McEvoy, D., Mitchell, D., Trundle, A., 2020. Land tenure and urban climate resilience in
the South Pacific. Clim. Dev. 12 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17565529.2019.1594666.
McLennan, S., Banks, G., 2018. Reversing the lens: why corporate social responsibility is
not community development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage 26 (1),
117–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1664.
Minter, T., van der Ploeg, J., 2023. Our happy hour became a hungry hour’: logging,
subsistence and social relations in Solomon Islands. International Forestry Review 25
(1), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554823836902590.
Moon, C.J., Evans, A.M., 2006. Ore, mineral economics and mineral exploration. In:
Moon, C.J., Whately, M.K.G., Evans, A. (Eds.), Introduction to Mineral Exploration,
Eds2nd ed. Blackwell, Hong Kong, pp. 3–18.
Naitoro, J., 2000. Mineral resource policy in Solomon Islands: the ‘six feet’ problem.
Pacific Econ. Bulletin 15 (1), 132–142. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/157580.
Nanau, G.L., 2014. Local experiences with mining royalties, company and the State in the
Solomon Islands. J. Soc. Ocean. 77–92. https://doi.org/10.4000/jso.7089, 138–139.
O’Faircheallaigh, C., Lawrence, R., 2019. Mine closure and the Aboriginal Estate.
Australian Aboriginal Stud. J. 1, 65–81. ISSN:0729-4352.
Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., Lechner, A.M., Harris, J., Zhang, R., Lèbre, E., 2022. Energy
transition minerals and their intersection with land-connected peoples. Nat. Sustain.
6, 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-002-00994-6.
Roche, C., Nawasio, W., Sindana, H., 2019. Human flourishing and extractive-led
development: “The mine will give me whatever I like. Extr. Ind. Soc. 6 (2), 573–583.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.02.002.
Sandelowski, M., 2004. Using qualitative research. Qual. Health Res. 14, 1366–1386.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230426967.
Serje, M., 2017. Social relations: a critical reflection on the notion of social impacts as
change. Environ. Impact. Assess. Rev. 65, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eiar.2017.04.006.
SIG, 2023b. 2019 Population and Housing Census Basic Tables and Census Description
Volume 2. Solomon Islands National Statistical Office. Solomon Islands Government,
Honiara.
SIG, 2023n. Solomon Islands reaches Net Zero. Government of Solomon Islands. https://
solomons.gov.sb/solomon-islands-reaches-net-zero/.
Skrzypek, E.E., 2020. Extractive entanglements and regimes of accountability at an
undeveloped mining project. Resour. Policy. 69 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resourpol.2020.101815.
Skrzypek, E., Bainton, N., Burton, J., Lèbre, E., 2022. The Justice Dimensions of
Extracting Energy Transition Metals from the Pacific. The British Academy.
Slootweg, R., Vanclay, F., van Schooten, M., 2001. Function evaluation as a framework
for the integration of social and environmental impact assessment. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal 19 (1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.3152/
147154601781767186.
Press Release: Withdrawal from Solomon Nickel Exploration Project, 2017. SMM
Solomon Limited, 10 August. http://www.smm.co.jp/solomon/news/pdf/2017081
0.pdf.
Sovacool, B., Ali, S., Bazilian, M., Radley, B., Nemery, B., Okatz, J., Mulvaney, D., 2020.
Sustainable minerals and metals for a low-carbon future. Sci. (1979) 367 (6473),
30–33. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz6003.
Tolia, D., Petterson, G., 2005. The Gold Ridge Mine, Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands’ first
gold mine: a case study in stakeholder consultation. In: Marker, B., Patterson, M.G.,
McEvoy, F., Stephenson, M.H. (Eds.), Sustainable Minerals Operations in the
Developing World, Eds. Geological Society, London, pp. 149–160.
United Nations, 2015. The Pacific Region. The United Nations Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/2015/me
dia/pacific.pdf.
van Schooten, M., Vanclay, F., Slootweg, R., 2003. The International Handbook of Social
Impact Assessment. In: Becker, H.A., Vanclay, F. (Eds.), Conceptualising Social
Change Processes and Social Impacts, 1st ed. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham,
pp. 74–91.
Vanclay, F, 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ. Impact. Assess. Rev. 22 (3),
183–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00105-6.
Vanclay, F., 2020. Reflections on Social Impact Assessment in the 21st century. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal 38 (2). https://doi.org/10.1080/
14615517.2019.1685807.
Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M., Aucamp, I., Franks, D., 2015. Social Impact Assessment:
guidance for Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects. Fargo,
International Association for Impact Assessment.
West, P., 2006. Environmental conservation and mining: between experience and
expectation in the Eastern Highlands of Papua New Guinea. Contemp. Pac. 18 (2),
295–313. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23721824.