Enduring value for remote communities from mining: Synthesising production, employment, populations, and reform opportunities

Enduring Community Value from Mining is an important outcome for mining in regional and remote locations around the world, an initiative lead by the national and global peak mining bodies. This article tracks the connections between mine production, employment and populations in very remote areas of the Northern Territory and South Australia. Mining is an important industry activity in these locations and the results suggest, in the main, these locations are highly dependent on mining for maintaining population levels through employment, not just in mining but in other industrial sectors that indirectly rely on mining. Leigh Creek has recently experienced declining coal production and so its population and workforce, while highly mobile, have been in decline. In contrast, until recently, production at Olympic Dam has been on the increase, with similarly highly mobile population and workforce that has experienced growth. While mining brings jobs during productive times, it can also bring dwindling populations through increased mobile work practices. These remote locations therefore face an uphill battle in ensuring enduring community value from mining. However, a range of policies can help ensure a better transfer of enduring value to remote mine dependent towns including being open to non-mine residents, unrestricted access in land and property markets, an ability of residents to have locally responsible and accountable local governments, and early and shared strategic planning by government, mining companies, and communities around how to manage the peaks and troughs of the various avenues for returns to community. Finally, while each case location is different in its own way, the most different is Yuendumu and it therefore requires careful consideration of how to deliver lasting benefit. Introduction Resource abundance is often proposed as the beacon of hope for improving the conditions of less well-off communities (Dietsche, Stevens, Emsley, & Östensson, 2009; Daniels, 2012; Otto et al., 2006), however the evidence that it reaps benefits is less than favourable. (Freudenburg & Wilson, 2002; Humphreys, Sachs, & Stiglitz, 2007; Sachs & Warner, 2001; van der Ploeg & Venables, 2012). For developing economies the general evidence is mining has not helped communities. However, there are counter arguments which show ‘rich countries’ such as Canada, Norway and Germany have benefited from natural resource wealth due to welldesigned public policy and strong institutions and institutional frameworks (Brunnschweiler, 2008; Brunnschweiler & Bulte, 2008; Davis & Tilton, 2005; Larsen, 2005). Although public policy analysts and prominent economists (Deloitte, 2010; Edwards, 2011; Taylor, Bradley, Dobbs, Thompson, & Clifton, 2012) argue that Australia has not been a victim of Dutch Disease or the Learning Communities | Special Issue: Synthesis & Integration | Number 19 – April 2016