Mining is often characterized by regulatory complexities associated with ambiguous allocation of ownership and operational rights and disputed exercise of control by various stakeholders such as the state, corporations and indigenous communities. Governance in such complex situations may feature contexts of limited statehood, in which the control of the formal state is not the only regulatory mechanism in place. This is particularly true for indigenous regions where post-colonial state-building processes need to confront long-standing traditional institutions that exert significant control over social, political and economic lives of its citizens. In many of these areas, states have accommodated different levels of indigenous autonomy (providing special provisions for indigenous people to govern themselves within the broad framework of the state). This has often led to the uneasy co-existence of traditional and state-oriented mechanisms of governance.
In a recent study published in Business & Society, I examine the governance of coal mining by indigenous people in Meghalaya in northeast India. The study showed that the evolution of mining happened through a series of governance settlements. Settlements denote institutional arrangements that facilitate order in a given context. In the context of the study, state-oriented and indigenous community-oriented institutions are involved in these settlements. While each settlement helped to maintain stability of the arrangements for some time, they were eventually replaced through the combined actions of various stakeholders.
In this study, I examine these settlements as a bundle of three factors. First, structural aspects, such as bureaucratic units, legal set-up, customary organizations etc., provided the foundation for governance provisions. Second, softer aspects, such as worldviews, shared meanings and unspoken assumptions that constitute the “logic” of mining, influenced the ways in which these are interpreted. Finally, individual stakeholders with varying degrees of agency acted in ways that supported or opposed a particular settlement. Their actions introduced a high degree of unpredictability in a settlement leading to its eventual change.
The study presented evidence that states can consistently consolidate their influence in these settings despite the uncertainties indicated above. It showed how state-oriented governance mechanisms have penetrated deeper into the domain over various settlements. This has been facilitated by larger projects such as the formation of a separate indigenous administrative region, infrastructure development in the area and the implementation of economic liberalization policies that included the promotion of coal-consuming industries in the region. As a result, subsistence-oriented, low intensity mining, which was regulated by traditional bodies and community organizations, paved way for more extensive commercial mining over time.
While the key right of land-ownership was largely retained by indigenous people, the region featured high levels of disparities in the distribution of mining benefits and adverse impacts on the environment and livelihoods of people. As a result, mining arrangements and associated governance settlements were disputed and opposed by certain stakeholders. These struggles led to changes in governance settlements with the progressive establishment of state-oriented mechanisms. In this process, the structural aspects of governance gradually expanded from the local to the national level. Moreover, public debates were progressively characterized by multiple worldviews, developmental visions and economic assumptions. Further, the actions of stakeholders became more diverse and chaotic.
This study shows that policies which prioritize state consolidation without engagement with indigenous worldviews might not result in better governance outcomes. Policies aiming to promote entrepreneurial activities in indigenous regions should aim to achieve greater alignment with indigenous cultures. Traditional institutions and customary norms hold high degrees of legitimacy among indigenous people. Greater efforts by regulatory authorities to recognize these and incorporate them into governance arrangements might lead to more desirable and equitable outcomes in many situations. This is also applicable to others associated with the activity of mining such as NGOS or managers in mining and related industries in the region. They could aim for greater indigenous participation in key decisions affecting the communities in which they operate. Further, indigenous communities could consider how traditional systems of governance could evolve in a participatory manner to meet increasing pressures on natural resources in their regions. More specifically, they must pay special attention to ensure that the benefits of mining are internally distributed in an equitable manner.
Reference:
Vakkayil, J. 2021. Governance settlements and transitions in indigenous areas of limited statehood: The case of coalmining in Meghalaya. Business & Society, 60(7): 1643-1674.