captured, or institutionalized. Verbal communication appeared to represent the primary
mode of knowledge transfer. The informal nature of this knowledge and its mode of transfer
pose a risk to all parties. There is a significant likelihood that important knowledge was lost
as the project moved from exploration, through feasibility and construction, and into
operation, increasing the likelihood that performance gaps emerge. Finally, limited
knowledge about social performance management systems amongst the site-based
community relations team exacerbates issues associated with mobilizing social knowledge
for influencing senior decision-makers.
Summary points
• The quality and form of Merian’s social knowledge base is not commensurate with
the complexity of its operating context.
• Social knowledge is held by individuals, and shared through informal means.
Studies are either not held centrally (for ease of reference), or not held at all by the
company.
• In the absence of robust and accessible knowledge, the basis for understanding the
project’s impact on the Pamaka and other Maroon tribes’ land and resource rights
is difficult to determine.
5.4
Ensuring equal access to information
A key supposition of FPIC is that affected people understand as much about their own rights
and the implications of the proposed project as do developers and regulators. The Panel
asked members of the Negotiating Committee whether they had access to the information
they needed during agreement negotiations. Members described an open exchange of
information between parties. At the same time, the Committee indicated that more
information was required. The Committee had requested access to other Newmont mine
sites to learn about experiences from elsewhere. Additionally, the Panel heard that general
members of the Pamaka community had requested site visits to see firsthand the progress
being made with construction at Merian. The company had promised to fulfill these
requests, but this did not occur. In a meeting with the Panel, Committee members asked the
Panel for examples of company-community agreements from other contexts. These
requests indicate an interest in accessing additional information about company-community
agreement processes.
The Panel also received questions from members of the community about matters relating
to employment, local business development, environmental impacts, the alternative
informal mine site, and the Merian project more generally. The Panel met with a group of
Surgold employees, for example, most of whom were Pamakan. Many indicated a similar
desire for information about the project, its potential impacts, and its benefits for their
communities. On occasion community members commented about the limited availability
of information about matters of concern to them, and the reliability of information provided
by the company. One of the Village Captains, echoed by others in the discussion,
22