2433 Positives: Structural independence from company; predictable resourcing; communities access support as of right; aligns with established ‘polluter pays’ principles; auditable. Caution: Requires legislative mandate; governance design must prevent elite capture within communities; actuarial methodology needed for fund-sizing; may face industry resistance Table 52 – Model 2: Statutory Legal Aid Extension with Industry Levy Model 2: Statutory Legal Aid Extension with Industry Levy A state-level solution that leverages existing legal aid infrastructure while requiring the mining sector to finance community legal services for resettlement cases Mechanism: National governments would extend the mandate of public legal aid institutions to include mining resettlement cases as a designated priority category. A statutory industry levy, calculated as a proportion of annual royalties, mining right application fees, or corporate income tax from mining operations, would fund a dedicated resettlement legal aid programme. Affected households and communities would access services through the legal aid institution, which would manage conflicts of interest and case allocation independently. This model has analogues in environmental legal aid programmes in several jurisdictions. Positives: Builds on existing institutions; state-administered which reduces governance risk; creates legal entitlement for communities; politically tractable as an extension of existing obligations Caution: Depends on state capacity; legal aid institutions may lack specialist mining resettlement expertise; requires ring-fencing to prevent levy funds from disappearing into general government budgets. Table 53 – Model 3: Multilateral Conditionality Model 3: Multilateral Conditionality: Embedding Legal Access in World Bank/IFC Financing A targeted reform of the conditions attached to IFC and World Bank project financing, creating a direct lever for change in projects where multilateral funding is involved. Mechanism: IFC and World Bank project approval would be conditioned on the borrower demonstrating that affected communities have access to independent legal and technical advisors, funded through arm’s length mechanisms approved by the IFC Compliance Advisor Ombudsman or World Bank Inspection Panel. The Resettlement Action Plan would be required to include a Legal Access Framework specifying the funding mechanism, the selection process for advisors (controlled by the community), and reporting obligations. For projects that voluntarily claim PS5 or ESS5 compliance without IFC or World Bank financing, a formal registry and verification protocol would be established. Positives: Immediately actionable within IFC’s current Sustainability Framework review; creates accountability for voluntary compliance claims; leverages international financing institutions financial power; CAO and Inspection Panel provide existing oversight infrastructure. Caution: Applies only to World Bank and IFC-financed projects; does not address the majority of mining operations financed privately or through capital markets; verification of voluntary claims requires new institutional capacity. Table 54 – Model 4: Negotiated Legal Access Protocols Model 4: Negotiated Legal Access Protocols (Enhanced Resettlement Agreement Standard) A market-based approach that establishes minimum standards for legal access provisions in Resettlement Action Plans and Impact and Benefit Agreements, supported by investor Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) expectations. Mechanism: International standards bodies, including ICMM and the Equator Principles Association, would adopt mandatory minimum clauses for Resettlement Action Plans and Impact and Benefit Agreements requiring the following: a community-controlled legal advisor selection process; a specified funding envelope for legal and technical support proportional to the scale of displacement;
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2