When projects fall short of their development promise

The Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI) is a great resource for insight into economic development issues related to mining projects. About two weeks ago, CCSI reported on takeaways from the first session of a webinar series called Candid Discussions on Resource-Based Development. The series is exploring mining governance and why many projects fall short of their development promise. A summary from session 1, recently shared by Center Director Lisa Sachs, resonated. 

The takeaways are relevant for many types of economic development projects and incentive policies in general, so I am sharing several here.

• A deal that’s “too good” isn’t sustainable. Whether heavily favoring investors or states, asymmetric deals prove politically or economically untenable. Negotiators are incentivized to get the best deal at the time rather than the most durable for decades-long projects. And that mismatch becomes combustible when market conditions or political leadership inevitably change.
• Impacts and benefits fall on different shoulders. Those who live with the environmental and social impacts of mining projects are often not the ones receiving the benefits—and those impacted communities are internally diverse among themselves. Yet cost-benefit analyses and legal frameworks often ignore this misalignment entirely.
• The promise of transformational revenue is rarely met. Time and again, mining projects have failed to deliver the fiscal windfalls governments expected. Optimism at the outset routinely outpaces financial reality, leading to disaffection.
• The trust gap must be acknowledged. Decades of unmet expectations, social and environmental harms, and opaque decision-making have eroded trust among communities, governments, and companies alike. Rebuilding that trust is possible—but only if it’s done honestly, and only if the underlying causes of mistrust are meaningfully addressed.
• Social license is not a box to tick. It must be renewed over time—through genuine, continuous engagement—not assumed based on early consultation rounds that quickly fade from memory.
• We still haven’t built lasting capacity. Despite years of technical support and training, capacity within governments remains fragile—because the systems are complex, the support often short-term, and the people constantly changing.

CCSI is continuing to explore what a truly fair deal looks like for states, communities and companies. This aligns with our goal in incentives policy. Sometimes, it requires us to step back and evaluate the impact of our efforts, questioning whether our programs and policies are achieving their intended goals. If they are not, it is our responsibility to lead the charge in rethinking and improving what we offer.