Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Values and knowledges in decision-making on environmentally disruptive infrastructure projects: insights from large dams and mines Sharachchandra Lele 1,2,3, Daniela Del Bene 4, ]] ]]]]]] ]] Duygu Avcı 5, Tatiana Roa-Avendaño 6,7, Brototi Roy 4,8, Geetanjoy Sahu 9, Maureen Harris 10 and Deborah Moore 11 Large infrastructure projects generate irreducible Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2023, 64:101346 trade-offs between different societal values towards nature. This review comes from a themed issue on Values for We asked what kinds of values and knowledges are transformative change: The IPBES approach articulated in decision-making around these projects, and specifically how well marginalised are values and Edited by Unai Pascual, Patricia Balvanera and Mike Christie the values and knowledges of marginalised stakeholders incorporated in it. Focusing on dams and mines, we chose Received: 23 March 2023; Revised: 4 June 2023; and systematically analysed a set of well-documented Accepted: 20 July 2023 cases from the Environmental Justice Atlas to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101346 answer this question. We found that there is substantial overlap between the values and knowledges articulated by 1877–3435/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. proponents and opponents of such projects: values for human life, material livelihood and well-being are invoked by both sides, as is modern scientific knowledge, while relational The question value for nature and experiential Major infrastructure projects, including large dams, knowledge are highlighted by ecosystem-dependent mines, ports or highways, pose a special challenge to so­ communities. It is, however, the lack of a value for democratic cietal decision-making. Dams provide irrigation, hydro­ process and for justice towards marginalised people, that power or flood control benefits, and mines provide useful contributes the most to environmental concerns being minerals — all uses of ‘abiotic’ nature that are seen as overlooked in decision-making, thereby obstructing essential to modern ideas of human material well-being. transformative change. But in the process, these projects dramatically and irre­ versibly transform (or destroy) ecosystems (natural or modified). Large dams1 submerge forests and agricultural Addresses 1 Centre for Environment & Development, ATREE, Royal Enclave, Jakkur ecosystems, displace thousands of people and change P.O., Bengaluru 560064, India upstream and downstream hydrological regimes [3•]. 2 Indian Institute for Science Education & Research, Pune, India Large mines2 also lead to loss of forests and/or agricultural 3 Shiv Nadar University, Delhi, India lands, displace communities and generate air, water and 4 Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB), Universitat soil pollution. Other infrastructure projects such as ports Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain 5 Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Sabancı University, Istanbul, Turkey 6 1 CENSAT Agua Viva, Bogota, Colombia ‘Large’ dams are defined as ‘a dam with a height of 15 m or greater 7 Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation (CEDLA), from lowest foundation to crest or a dam between 5 m and 15 m im­ University of Amsterdam (UvA), the Netherlands pounding more than 3 million cubic metres.’ https://www.icold-cigb. 8 Department of Environmental Science and Policy, org/GB/dams/definition_of_a_large_dam.asp, or, in the case of hydro­ Central European University, Vienna, Austria power, of more than 10-MW capacity [1]. Currently, there are more 9 Centre for Climate Change and Sustainability Studies, School of than 7300 large dams in existence and around 2000 large dams under Habitat Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, India construction (using data from Ref. [2]), majority of which will be in the 10 International Rivers, Oakland, CA, USA Global South. Most of the dams that have been built since the 1990s 11 World Commission on Dams (1998-2000), Berkeley, CA, USA are in the Global South. 2 ‘Large’ mines vary significantly by type of mineral (e.g. coal versus Corresponding author: Lele, Sharachchandra (slele@atree.org) gold), method (underground versus open-cast), structure and legality (corporate/formal versus artisanal/informal) and scale (tonnes per year). Here, we refer to all mining that does not qualify as artisanal mining [4]. www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2023, 64:101346 2 Values for transformative change: The IPBES approach or highways have similar positive benefits and negative we used key reviews, namely, the report of the World environmental impacts, but large dams and mines per­ Commission on Dams (WCD) [3•] and Refs. [13,14•] for haps epitomise this situation where trade-offs between dams, and Refs. [15••,16] for mining to help us understand the (largely) instrumental or material values3 of (largely decision-making processes around such projects, then used abiotic) nature and the instrumental, intrinsic and rela­ the Environmental Justice Atlas (www.ejatlas.org) to iden­ tional values that ecosystems or biotic nature provided tify well-studied cases. The lead author then approached earlier are inevitable.4 These trade-offs between values scholars who had engaged in-depth with these cases in are accompanied by trade-offs between different stake­ various ways — multi-year research, multi-year engagement holders (local communities face the costs, while regional in action and policy advocacy, analysis of academic and grey and national populations get the benefits). Moreover, the literature and interactions with decision-makers — and socio-economic positions of these stakeholders are in­ sought their responses to a set of questions about value and variably unequal, since large dam and mining projects knowledge articulation in decision-making around these disproportionately affect marginalised communities, in­ projects. Where necessary, the authors conducted additional cluding Indigenous Peoples [7,8••]. Transformation to­ interviews with multiple stakeholders to fill gaps. We ended wards a just and sustainable future thus requires better with five specific in-depth cases: Sardar Sarovar dam in decision-making, leading to better outcomes vis-à-vis India (SSD), Ilisu dam in Turkey (ID), Hidrosogamoso dam such projects. in Colombia (HD), Niyamgiri bauxite mining (NBM) and North Karanpura Coal mining (NKCM) in India. In addi­ Given the inevitable trade-offs, ‘better outcomes’ in this tion, two authors (Harris and Moore) pooled their experi­ context could range from mitigation of post-project en­ ence from International Rivers and the WCD to provide vironmental impacts, scaling down of the project to re­ inputs to the same questions for multiple sites globally and duce adverse impacts or better resettlement or specifically the Klamath River dam conflict. Overall, the compensation for affected communities, if there is a discussion is focused more on countries of the Global South, relative consensus on going forward with the project to because new large dams and mining projects are almost rejection of the project if local inhabitants decide so or if entirely located in this part of the world, and future large wider environmental impacts are considered un­ mining projects are also likely to come up in this region acceptable by a wider set of stakeholders. In other (along with Canada and Australia). The literature covered in words, the question is not whether such large infra­ each case study is listed in Ref. [12]; here, we only cite a few structure projects can be carried out without any adverse key references. socio-environmental impacts, but how well are margin­ alised values (such as relational or intrinsic value) [9] and associated knowledges of nature on the one hand and the values Values articulated and knowledges of marginalised stakeholders on the other ar­ We find that there is substantial overlap between the va­ ticulated and eventually included in decision-making processes. lues articulated in favour of large projects and those ar­ This becomes particularly relevant in the context of ticulated in calls for their modification or rejection. In promoting transformative change towards just and sus­ particular, values for human life, material livelihood and tainable futures as visualised in the Values Assessment human well-being, which may be called instrumental va­ of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for lues, are expressed by both sides and dominate the dis­ Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [10]. course. Dams and mines are proposed for their instrumental values: electricity to urban consumers, metals We explored this question as part of the Intergovernmental to industries and their consumers, irrigation water to Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem farmers, and jobs. Those negatively affected also highlight Services Values Assessment (https://www.ipbes.net/the- most prominently the material impacts on their lives, values-assessment), specifically as part of the chapter on health and livelihoods — whether it is loss of agricultural ‘Value expression in decision-making’ [11]. The metho­ and forest-based livelihoods and displacement (SSD, dology we used is explained in detail in Ref. [12]. In brief, ID and NKCM), fishing (HD), livestock rearing (ID) or threats due to air pollution (NKCM). The attention drawn 3 to the negative climatic impact of forest loss from such Mines and dams may admittedly create their own relational values projects is also based on an instrumental value for nature. [5], but these get created post facto. 4 This is, theoretically speaking, in contrast to payments for eco­ Additional values such as national energy security, revenue system services programmes reviewed in a companion paper in this generation, promoting industrialisation or more broadly issue [6] that claim to bring about a ‘win–win’ between an environ­ ‘development’ or ‘nation-building’ are often invoked to mental benefit (biodiversity conservation, soil/water conservation, further bolster support for the projects [16]. pesticide use reduction or carbon sequestration) to a wider society and some livelihood or economic benefits to the ecosystem owner/manager. This means that decision-making around large infrastructure projects is Relational values, not surprisingly, are largely expressed perhaps destined to be the most contested and conflictual of all en­ by local communities opposed to the project: high­ vironmental decisions. lighting ties with the forest, farm, river or fishery that is Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2023, 64:101346 www.sciencedirect.com Decision-making in dams and mining projects Lele et al. 3 to be modified or destroyed [17]. Moreover, relational Similarly, project-affected groups more prominently values are not limited to ecosystems — the ID oppo­ raised the two other dimensions of justice, namely, re­ nents highlighted the cultural value of the historical cognition and procedural justice [25]. They used dif­ town of Hasankeyf, which is being submerged by the ferent articulations that are not commensurable with reservoir created by the dam. Biodiversity con­ material values, let alone being measurable in monetary cerns — which may represent instrumental, relational or terms: human rights, democratic rights, due process and intrinsic values — were raised largely by regional and ‘social justice’ for marginalised communities. In most global stakeholders. The intrinsic value of nature, cap­ cases, however, the concept of ‘eminent domain’ of the tured by the idea of ‘rights of nature’, has gained pro­ state and the ‘larger public interest’ overrides such minence in recent times [18], but is yet to achieve considerations. In exceptional cases where the judiciary visibility in the discussions around specific projects. On supported the demand for procedural and recognition the other hand, the ‘intrinsic value of human life and justice (NBM), the project ended up getting can­ livelihood’ (i.e. human rights) has been commonly cited, celled [26•]. usually against [19] but occasionally in favour of [20] the project as well. Knowledge mobilised Sustainability (as a concern for the future or future Decision-making regarding environmentally disruptive generations) is invoked in all cases by the negatively projects is fundamentally framed by values, but it also affected groups, citing the destruction of biotic nature involves knowledge about the form and magnitude of (forests, riverine ecosystems and agriculture), which is the impacts and the trade-offs, measured in various renewable and therefore can provide sustained flows of ways. Therefore, understanding the process of gen­ benefits across generations. This of course presumes that erating or mobilising knowledge about the impacts of the current users of biotic nature are doing so sustain­ such projects in terms of the different values that society ably, which may not always be the case,5 but they are holds is also needed. In most countries, public decision- certainly potentially much more sustainable than say making regarding environmentally disruptive infra­ mining. Again, the current value that is to be sustained is structure projects has, for several decades, required some largely instrumental use of nature for human well-being. form of formal appraisal of environmental and social Interestingly, proponents of hydropower dams also point impact analysis/assessment/appraisal, coupled with to the renewability of this energy source and invoke its public consultation or hearings. contribution to ‘sustainability’ in this narrow sense [22]. More generally, proponents of such projects argued that The case studies we examined in-depth echo the find­ the loss of natural capital is compensated by the increase ings of a separate review [27], namely, that there is a big in human-made capital, thereby ensuring non-declining gap between theory and practice of these formal ap­ human well-being in the future, thus implicitly invoking praisals (usually conducted by project proponents), in the ‘weak sustainability’ principle [23]. terms of the dimensions included, the technical rigour of appraisal and the openness to ex ante and ex post public The sharpest difference in the value positions of the input. proponents and opponents of these projects emerges in their commitment to and articulation of intra-genera­ Interestingly, the project opponents also mobilised tional distributive justice [16]. Those negatively affected modern scientific knowledge. Environmental Impact by the projects, which are also by and large the more Assessments (EIAs) were contested heavily by oppo­ marginalised in society, highlight strongly the values of nents (all projects except SSD and NBM, where no EIA environmental and social justice (a Rawlsian perspec­ was carried out, but environmental impacts were con­ tive), whereas the proponents invariably adopt a utili­ tested nevertheless), alternative cost–benefit analyses tarian ethic (the greater good of greater numbers), as were done (SSD) using modern scientific data, social evidenced also from their espousing the use of cost–­ impact assessments and extra pollution studies were benefit analysis or by their measuring or invoking con­ demanded (HD, NKCM) and fresh biodiversity in­ tributions of the project to gross domestic product. The ventories were carried out (ID). Affected communities simple aggregation of economic costs and benefits in­ also articulated their experiential knowledge (HD), but evitably undervalues the socio-environmental costs of they sought to integrate it with modern science (e.g. at such projects because most of the costs are faced by HD, fisherfolk demanded an ecological study on water poorer communities [24]. quality and fish decline and a seismological assessment of earthquake risk). Alternatives or modified designs were proposed in several cases (SSD, ID and HD). 5 For instance, in SSD, Baviskar ([21], chapter 7, p.168) points out Those opposing mining have also looked for alternative that indigenous communities were not particularly conservation-or­ development strategies [28–30]. But they typically iented or gender-equal. lacked the resources to flesh out alternative proposals in www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2023, 64:101346 4 Values for transformative change: The IPBES approach detail. Whether such detailed alternative proposals represents one of the few multi-stakeholder efforts that would have actually influenced the ultimate decision were successful to an extent in influencing the trajectory remains unknown, but appears unlikely for reasons we of the project [40,41]. now outline. A somewhat more effective alternative strategy for get­ ting marginalised voices heard was mobilising public Decision-making processes, institutions and opinion across regional, national and international scales power relations and building cross-national networks to put pressure on Decision-making involves more than the articulation of project funders. In two cases (ID and SSD), funders values about nature and technical or pluralistic impact withdrew from the project. But this method of value assessment. Hence, the WCD sought to outline a set of articulation appears to be less effective in mining pro­ principles for a good decision-making process [3•]. Key jects, which are less capital-intensive. Moreover, funders among these are recognition of the rights of affected are not decision-makers, even if they do exert some in­ communities, inclusion of stakeholders in decision- fluence over decision-makers. Thus, in both ID and making, free–prior–informed consent from affected in­ SSD, national governments made it a point to go ahead digenous peoples and local communities and transparent with the project using their own funds or other national processes. The Extractive Industries Transparency In­ funding sources. itiative (EITI) has also adopted some of these principles for mining [31]. The WCD template is often seen as a Another institution that has been explored and appears ‘gold standard’ for sound decision-making pro­ to provide space for broader value articulation is the cesses [32,33]. judiciary. In countries where the judiciary has inter­ preted the fundamental right to life to include the right Reviews indicate, however, that the on-the-ground im­ to be safe from environmental harm, or have upheld the pacts of the WCD report have been limited [34], and need for due process in general and for special protection that of the EITI even more so [35–39]. Our case studies for the rights of indigenous communities to have a say in also indicate that these principles were rarely followed. decisions affecting them, the eventual decision-making In all cases, the ‘in-principle’ decisions to go ahead with process has been more rigorous and democratic than the the projects preceded socio-environmental appraisals by original one. The one case in this set where the project years or decades. Public hearings were not carried out was dropped (NBM) was a case in which the Supreme because they were not legally required at that time Court of India upheld the right of the indigenous com­ (SSD, ID) or were carried out after construction had munities affected by the project to have a veto over commenced (HD) or were carried out perfunctorily projects that affect their customary environmental re­ (NBM, NKCM), reflecting a pattern highlighted in the sources/landscapes. The Supreme Court of Colombia broader review of environmental appraisal [27]. Deci­ has also upheld the right for full consultation of sions to proceed were endorsed by expert committees Indigenous groups [42], but not exactly the right to veto. and finalised at the political level without any wider But it is noteworthy that the judiciary has focused on consultations. It was taken for granted (or explicitly recognition and procedural justice, and not on placing claimed) that the political system as it stood (re­ relational or intrinsic value claims such as ‘sacredness’, presentative democracies in all cases) adequately re­ ‘intrinsic value of nature’ or ‘rights of nature’ as being presented the wishes and interests of the stakeholders. superior to instrumental ones, even when the latter va­ In that sense, procedural justice was repeatedly under­ lues have been invoked by local stakeholders (NBM). mined, just as a utilitarian focus on aggregate benefits Thus, the role of the judiciary appears to be key [43–45], undermined distributive justice. but accessing judicial remedy remains a practical chal­ lenge even when green courts have been set up [46]. Alternative forums or processes were invoked in all cases, and were effective to some extent in a subset of Finally, the option of street protest has been pursued in cases. The first step was typically to explore the formal most cases. In SSD, the anti-dam movement conducted mechanisms involved, such as demands to hold statutory mass actions and street protests at various scales for more environmental impact analysis/assessment/appraisal that than two decades; these protests, combined with litiga­ were skipped (ID), public hearings that were missing tion, led to better rehabilitation. In some mining con­ (HD), or to conduct fresh studies (NKCM). These ap­ flicts, the innovation has been to call for local proaches yielded some modifications or mitigation referendums on the issue [15,47]. Unfortunately, gov­ measures (ID) but did not go much further. The wider ernments have usually responded with repressive mea­ literature supports these conclusions that formal ap­ sures: refusal of permission for protest marches, counter- praisal and consultative processes largely result in only propaganda and arrests [48]. That is, even the ‘right of minor mitigative measures [27]. The Klamath river basin democratic expression’ has often been rejected by pro­ programme on decommissioning of dams perhaps ject proponents and suppressed by elected governments. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2023, 64:101346 www.sciencedirect.com Decision-making in dams and mining projects Lele et al. 5 Finally, the gold standard of setting up multi-stake­ being, justice and sustainability, that is, a shift towards holder platforms to decide upon the rights and risks ‘transformative change’ visualised by the Values As­ associated with the project and the alternatives available, sessment [10]. But such improvements are unlikely to as suggested by the WCD, was never met in the case happen unless the extreme power imbalance between studies reviewed or the sector at large. The Klamath growth-focused governments and profit-focused cor­ River Basin programme on decommissioning of dams porations on the one hand and adversely affected com­ represents perhaps one of the few multi-stakeholder munities on the other is redressed [54]. Social efforts in recent times that built a multi-stakeholder movements have sought to redress this imbalance platform through sustained efforts and reached an through various means, building networks, coalitions and agreement. But it is still held up for various reasons discursive strategies [55]. But this is likely to be in­ [40,49] and has in fact been criticised for watering down sufficient unless there is a larger shift in the discourses, the rights of indigenous communities [41]. In the mining away from utilitarianism and towards stronger formula­ sector, no equivalent of the WCD proposal even exists. tions of equity, social justice and democratic process in The EITI assumes that mining will occur, and focuses decision-making [56–58]. Thus, within the broad on transparency vis-a-vis mining company payments to strategy of seeking convergence among the values and the government [36]. Even the broader Global Mining worldviews of different stakeholders [59], particular at­ Initiative assumes that mining is essential for sustainable tention needs to be paid to building convergence on development [50]. ideas of equity, justice and democracy. Our analysis perforce focuses on the values and knowledges articu­ One element of the WCD principles that has found lated by individual stakeholders in decisions on in­ some acceptance is free–prior–informed consent. The dividual projects. Given, however, that values held by NBM case is one example of it being rigorously im­ people co-evolve with the institutional structures in plemented, because of judicial support; in subsequent which they are embedded, it becomes necessary to cases in India, however, this has been repeatedly by­ confront the challenge at both ends, individual and passed [51]. Globally, the interpretation of free, prior structural [60]. and informed consent principles as defined in the non- binding United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Data Availability Indigenous Peoples remains contested [52] and has not translated into a veto power over socio-environmentally No primary data were used for the research described in disruptive projects. the article. Declaration of Competing Interest Conclusions It appears that, in the case of large infrastructure projects The authors declare the following financial interests/ such as big dams and mines, the outcomes are generally personal relationships that may be considered as po­ far from meeting any definition of ‘better outcomes’ tential competing interests: Sharachchandra Lele is on outlined at the beginning of this review. To an extent, the Editorial Board of COSUST. the marginalisation of relational or intrinsic values for nature and for sustainability may explain this pattern. Acknowledgements But, by far, the biggest factor is the non-recognition of or The first author was supported by Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies, India. under-representation of the values or concerns of certain socially and politically marginalised communities, who References and recommended reading espouse both material and relational values towards Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have nature. Correspondingly, there is significant inattention been highlighted as: to the knowledge relevant to these concerns, whether •• of special interest generated through experience or by modern scientific •• of outstanding interest methods. In other words, it is the low priority given to procedural and distributive justice, or the broad values 1. Breeze P: Hydropower. In Power Generation Technologies. Edited by Breeze P. Elsevier; 2019:173-201. that society holds ‘for/towards people’ rather than values held ‘for/towards nature’ that play the biggest role in shaping 2. Global Dam Watch: Global Dam Watch. Glob Dam Watch; 2021. decision-making processes and outcomes. Improved 3. In Dams and Development: A New Framework For Decision- • making. Edited by World Commission on Dams. Earthscan; 2000. decision-making, including recognition of rights of af­ A landmark multi-stakeholder report that lays down a template for a fected communities (including resource-dependent good decision-making process that significantly extends current en­ people, women and landless), inclusion of stakeholders vironmental appraisal and public participation norms towards more plural decision-making. in decision-making, free–prior–informed consent from 4. Deb M, Tiwari G, Lahiri-Dutt K: Artisanal and small scale mining indigenous communities and transparency ([53], p.12), in India: selected studies and an overview of the issues. Int J can lead to a better balance between improving well- Min Reclam Environ 2008, 22:194-209. www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2023, 64:101346 6 Values for transformative change: The IPBES approach 5. Della Bosca H, Gillespie J: The coal story: generational coal 21. Baviskar A: In the Belly of the River: Tribal Conflicts Over mining communities and strategies of energy transition in Development in the Narmada Valley. Oxford University Press; Australia. Energy Policy 2018, 120:734-740. 1999. 6. Bremer L, Nelson S, Jackson S, Izquierdo-Tort S, Lansing DM, 22. Moran EF, Lopez MC, Moore N, Müller N, Hyndman DW: Shapiro-Garza E, Echavarría M, Upton C, Asquith NM, Isyaku U, Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century. Proc Natl Acad Sci et al.: Embedding local values in payments for ecosystem 2018, 115:11891-11898. services for transformative change. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2023,. 23. Gowdy J: Toward a new welfare economics for sustainability. Ecol Econ 2005, 53:211-222. 7. Ali S, Behrendt L: Mining & indigenous rights: the emergence of a global social movement. Cult Surviv Q 2001, 25:6-8. 24. Hwang K: Cost-benefit analysis: its usage and critiques. J Public Aff 2016, 16:75-80. 8. Del Bene D, Scheidel A, Temper L: More dams, more violence? A •• global analysis on resistances and repression around 25. Conde M: Resistance to mining. A review. Ecol Econ 2017, conflictive dams through co-produced knowledge. Sustain Sci 132:80-90. 2018, 13:617-633. Using a database of 220 dam related conflicts, the authors analyse how 26. Sahu G: Forest rights and tribals in mineral rich areas of India: communities use non-violent actions to denounce such projects, de­ • the Vedanta case and beyond. In Research Handbook on Law, spite facing direct and indirect violence. Environment and the Global South. Edited by Cullet P, Koonan S. Edward Elgar Pub; 2019:272-285. 9. Raymond CM, Anderson CB, Athayde S, Vatn A, Amin A, Arias- A study of the decision-making process in a rare example where in­ Arevalo P, Christie M, Cantu-Fernandez M, Gould R, Himes AH, digenous peoples’ rights were recognized and led to the rejection of a et al.: An inclusive values typology for navigating major mining proposal. Highlights the role of rights-based legislation transformations toward a just and sustainable future. Curr Opin and the judiciary. Environ Sustain 2023,. 27. Lele S: Value articulation in environmental appraisal: which 10. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Christie M: Leveraging the multiple values, whose values, and how valued? Curr Opin Environ values of nature for transformative change: insights from the Sustain 2023, 63:101294. IPBES Values Assessment. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2023,. 28. Avci D, Adaman F, Özkaynak B: Valuation languages in 11. Barton DN, Chaplin-Kramer R, Lazos E, Van Noordwijk MES, environmental conflicts: how stakeholders oppose or support Girvan A, Hahn T, Leimona B, Lele S, Niamir A, Özkaynak B, gold mining at Mount Ida, Turkey. Ecol Econ 2010, 70:228-238. Pawlowska-Mainville A, et al.: Chapter 4: value expression in decision-making. In Methodological Assessment Report on the 29. Bebbington A, Hinojosa L, Bebbington DH, Burneo ML, Warnaars Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental X: Contention and ambiguity: mining and the possibilities of Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. development. Dev Change 2008, 39:887-914. Edited by Balvanera P, Pascual U, Christie M, Baptiste B, González-Jiménez D. IPBES Secretariat; 2022. 30. Avcı D, Fernández-Salvador C: Territorial dynamics and local resistance: two mining conflicts in Ecuador compared. Extr Ind 12. Lele S, Chaplin-Kramer R: IPBES VA Chapter 4 — Review on Soc 2016, 3:912-921. Outcomes in Big Development Projects (Mining and Dams). Zenodo; 2022. 31. Rustad SA, Le Billon P, Lujala P: Has the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative been a success? Identifying and 13. Scudder T: The Future of Large Dams: Dealing with Social, evaluating EITI goals. Resour Policy 2017, 51:151-162. Environmental, Institutional, and Political Costs. Earthscan; 2005. 32. Dubash NK: Viewpoint – Reflections on the WCD as a Mechanism of Global Governance; 2010, 3:7. 14. Boelens R, Shah E, Bruins B: Contested knowledges: large dams • and mega-hydraulic development. Water 2019, 11:416-442. 33. Moore D, Dore J, Gyawali D: The World Commission on dams + The authors examine the multidimensionality of large dam projects, 10: revisiting the large dam controversy. Water Altern 2010, using the idea of ¨the dark legend of UnGovernance¨ to show how dif­ 3:3-13. ferent cultures and imaginaries of water and hydrosocial territories are 34. Schulz C, Adams WM: Debating dams: The World Commission invisibilized. on Dams 20 years on. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water (5) 2019, 15. Özkaynak B, Rodriguez-Labajos B: Mining conflicts. In Routledge 6:e1396. •• Handbook of Ecological Economics. Edited by Spash CL. 35. Oppong N, Andrews N: Extractive industries transparency Routledge; 2017:414-424. initiative and the politics of institutional innovation in Ghana’s This book chapter lays out mining activities as a universal political oil industry. Extr Ind Soc (4) 2020, 7:1238-1245, https://doi.org/10. problem of social environmental justice, using examples from landmark 1016/j.exis.2020.05.013 cases. The roots of these conflicts are explored alongside relevant so­ cial, economic, cultural, health and ecological impacts and related 36. Van Alstine J: Critical reflections on 15 years of the Extractive community claims. The role resistance movements play is also high­ Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Extr Ind Soc 2017, lighted. 4:766-770. 16. Özkaynak B, Rodríguez-Labajos B, Arsel M, Avci D, Carbonell MH, 37. Sovacool BK: Is sunshine the best disinfectant? Evaluating the Chareyron B, Chicaiza G, Conde M, Demaria F, Finamore R: Mining • global effectiveness of the Extractive Industries Transparency Conflicts around the World: Common Grounds from an Initiative (EITI). Extr Ind Soc 2020, 7:1451-1471. Environmental Justice Perspective; 2012. 〈www.ejolt.org〉. The author, using a dataset of 218 countries, quantifies the correlative performance of the first 12 countries which attained the EITI complaint 17. Urkidi L: A glocal environmental movement against gold mining: status, and compares it with all the other countries based on multiple Pascua–Lama in Chile. Ecol Econ 2010, 70:219-227. metrics over the period 2000–2020. 18. Kauffman CM: Rights of nature: institutions, law, and policy for 38. Yanuardi Y, Vijge MJ, Biermann F: Improving governance quality sustainable development. In The Oxford Handbook of through global standard setting? Experiences from the Comparative Environmental Politics. Edited by Sowers J, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in Indonesia. Extr VanDeveer SD, Weinthal E. Oxford University Press; 2021:0. Ind Soc 2021, 8:100905. 19. Riethof M: The international human rights discourse as a 39. López-Cazar I, Papyrakis E, Pellegrini L: The Extractive Industries strategic focus in socio-environmental conflicts: the case of Transparency Initiative (EITI) and corruption in Latin America: hydro-electric dams in Brazil. Int J Hum Rights 2017, 21:482-499. evidence from Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, and 20. Mehta L: Contexts and constructions of water scarcity. Econ Trinidad and Tobago. Resour Policy 2021, 70:101907. Polit Wkly 2003, 38:5066-5072. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2023, 64:101346 www.sciencedirect.com Decision-making in dams and mining projects Lele et al. 7 40. Austin (Maven) C: Dam removal update: Klamath Dams, Matilija 50. Buxton A: MMSD+10: Reflecting on a Decade. International Dam, and the Potter Valley Project. Mavens Noteb Water News; Institute for Environment and Development; 2012. accessed on 5 November 2020. 51. Choudhury C, Aga A: Manufacturing consent: mining, 41. Schlosser TP: Dewatering trust responsibility: the new Klamath bureaucratic sabotage and the forest rights act in India. Capital River hydroelectric and restoration agreements. Wash J Environ Nat Social (2) 2019, 31:70-90, https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752. Law Policy (1) 2011, 1:42-77. 2019.1594326 42. Corte Constitucional de Colombia: Obras de desarrollo y progreso 52. Haugen HM: The right to veto or emphasising adequate frente a la proteccion de derechos fundamentales de las personas decision-making processes? Clarifying the scope of the Free, — Participación y concertación de personas afectadas por el Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) requirement. Neth Q Hum desarrollo de megaproyectos. Corte Constitucional de Colombi; Rights 2016, 34:250-273. 2013. 53. UNEP: Environmental Rule of Law: First Global Report. United 43. Faure MG, Raja AV: Effectiveness of Environmental Public Nations Environment Programme; 2019. Interest Litigation in India: determining the key variables. Fordham Environ Law Rev 2010, 21:239-294. 54. Morrice E, Colagiuri R: Coal mining, social injustice and health: a universal conflict of power and priorities. Health Place 2013, 44. Sahu G: Environmental Jurisprudence and the Supreme Court. 19:74-79. Orient Black Swan; 2014. 55. Özkaynak B, Rodriguez-Labajos B, Aydin CI, Yanez I, Garibay C: 45. Sahu G: Impact of the National Green Tribunal on Towards Environmental Justice Success in Mining Conflicts: Environmental Governance in India: an analysis of methods An Empirical Investigation; 2015. 〈www.ejolt.org〉. and perspectives. J Indian Environ Law Policy Dev 2016, 3:28-50. 56. Jha-Thakur U, Fischer TB, Rajvanshi A: Reviewing design stage 46. Dilay A, Diduck AP, Patel K: Environmental justice in India: a of environmental impact assessment follow-up: looking at the case study of environmental impact assessment, community open cast coal mines in India. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2009, engagement and public interest litigation. Impact Assess Proj 27:33-44. Apprais (1) 2019, 38:16-27, https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517. 2019.1611035 57. Kohli K, Menon M: The tactics of persuasion: environmental negotiations over a corporate coal project in coastal India. 47. Urkidi L, Walter M: Dimensions of environmental justice in anti- Energy Policy 2016, 99:270-276. gold mining movements in Latin America. Geoforum 2011, 42:683-695. 58. Roy B, Schaffartzik A: Talk renewables, walk coal: the paradox of India’s energy transition. Ecol Econ 2021, 180:106871. 48. Scheidel A, Del Bene D, Liu J, Navas G, Mingorría S, Demaria F, Avila S, Roy B, Ertör I, Temper L, et al.: Environmental conflicts and 59. Ozkaynak B, Muradian R, Ungar P, Morales D: What can methods defenders: a global overview. Glob Environ Change 2020, for assessing worldviews and broad values tell us about 63:102104. socioenvironmental conflicts? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2023,. 49. Allen DN: The Klamath hydroelectric settlement agreement: 60. Ivanova M, Lele S, Akanji AA, Chakrabarty D, Diaz S, Ebi K, Folke C, federal law, local compromise, and the largest dam removal Gong K, Haq S, Inoue CYA, et al.: A Letter to Fellow Citizens of project in history. Hastings West-Northwest J Environ Law Policy Earth. International Science Council, Future Earth, and Stockholm 2010, 16:427. Environment Institute; 2022. www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2023, 64:101346