Introduction

In Georgia, weak state supervision over the activities of private actors and neglect of public interest is often manifested in human rights violations and damage to the environment. Mining is not an exception in this regard. In the mining sector, both the issue of communication with and participation of the directly affected population at the decision-making stage, as well as the weakness of state control and monitoring of issued licenses and environmental decisions are problematic.

In the recent period, cases of resistance in different regions of Georgia show that the measures taken by the state for the purpose of community participation are ineffective and cannot ensure prevention of further conflicts. In addition, excluding local people from decision-making processes and non-consideration of their opinion grossly violates fundamental human rights and the principles of environmental democracy.

It is noteworthy that challenges related to participation on environmental issues intersect and expose many other problematic issues; On the one hand, a safe, healthy and sustainable environment is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of various rights and on the other hand, realization of rights such as access to information and participation is vital for the protection of the environment itself. [1]

It should be noted that, naturally, problems in the sector are not unique to Georgia. In other countries as well, when making licensing decisions state agencies usually act with the motive of promoting economic development.[2] However, it should be taken into account that due to the nature of mineral exploitation, both the mining activity and its multifaceted effects, as well as income for the state in the form of taxes and fees, are spread over time. Therefore, due to the nature of extractive activities, a cautious and far-sighted decision-making process in line with the legal framework and institutional arrangements in force, is vital.

However, low-income countries with weak and fragile institutions face additional challenges in regulating extractive industries. Institutional weakness is compounded by issues of political expediency, which prioritizes short-term benefits for the ruling elite and connected commercial entities over the establishment of a regulatory system that protects the public interest in the long term.[3]

Share