Social Impacts of Modern Small-scale Mining: Case Studies from Serbia and Bosnia & Herzegovina

Abstract

This paper analyzes the social impacts of “modern” small-scale mining as perceived by four small communities in Serbia and Bosnia & Herzegovina. The case data consists of 58 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2017–2019. The cases represent examples of old metal mining sites from the Yugoslavian period, recently reopened for exploration and operations. The paper makes a contribution both to social impact research on mining and analysis of the social aspects of new small-scale mining development in Europe. The study revealed that respondents perceived local employment, slowing down migration, and the socio-economic development of the region as the main social impacts of mining development. The study has shown that the “scale” of mining operations is barely regarded by local residents as a determining factor in shaping their attitudes toward the impacts of small-scale mining, while the socio-economic context and historical legacy are important factors in forming social acceptance.

Keywords:

• Social impacts
• mining development
• community perceptions
• social acceptance
• sustainability

Introduction

In recent years, small-scale mining (SSM) has gained increasing prominence in policy discussions relating to the development of the European mining industry. In both the European Union (EU) Raw Materials Initiative and the European Commission on Critical Raw Materials, mining of small deposits has been proposed as one promising approach to developing mining within Europe (European Commission 2008, 2014). The exploitation of small deposits has been considered a viable option in seeking more sustainable mining paradigms (Moore 2018; Sidorenko, Sairinen, and Moore 2020a). SSM has been defined as “extraction from ore or mineral deposits using low-impact, potentially short-term, small-footprint, regulated mining operations for extraction using technologies that are usually not labor-intensive” (Sidorenko, Sairinen, and Moore 2020b). The mining of small deposits has been also conceptualized in geological and metallurgical terms (Moore et al. 2020). Recent studies have analyzed environmental performance of SSM (Beylot et al. 2021; Muller et al. 2021), human resource solutions (Moore et al. 2021), and renewable energy systems for SSM (Paneri et al. 2021); however, yet very little is known about the possible social impacts of SSM. Increase of new modes of mining operations requires close consideration of societal responses, thus the identification of potential social impacts of SSM is essential for further development of SSM practices.

Due to the extreme sensitivity of social attitudes toward mining in Europe, considerations about any kind of mining should be associated with the examination of its social and environmental impacts (Badera 2014; Lesser et al. 2021; Sairinen, Sidorenko, and Tiainen 2021). It is well acknowledged that the mining industry can have significant social impacts on the surrounding communities (Joyce, Sairinen, and Vanclay 2018; Prno & Slocombe 2012; Franks, Brereton and Moran 2011; Tiainen, Sairinen, and Sidorenko 2015). Franks (2012) confirmed that it is important to identify and effectively manage social and environmental impacts to ensure responsible and acceptable mining activities. The development of a new mining concept such as SSM inevitably raises important questions, which must proactively anticipate and mitigate sustainability and responsibility challenges. This discussion requires recognition of the specific technological features of SSM operations, scale of the operations, and the assessment of potential environmental and social impacts (Sidorenko et al. 2020b).

The Western Balkans were selected as a case-study area for EU Horizon IMP@CT poject for testing the viability of the SSM concept. Although the Western Balkans do not hold world-class deposits, the geological map of the area reveals a large number of small and complex mining sites, the potential of which have not been fully realized. These deposits were extensively explored during the Yugoslavian era and abandoned for different reasons after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. We have studied the perceived social impacts and aspects of social sustainability of SSM in four metal mining cases in the Western Balkans, two in Serbia and two in Bosnia & Herzegovina. The cases are Olovo (Bosnia), Novo Gorazde (Bosnia), Zajaca (Serbia), and Veliki Majdan (Serbia) (Figure 1). Novo Gorazde and Zajaca are in exploration phase, while Veliki Majdan has been in operation since 2009 and Olovo since 2018.

In our social impacts study, the main research question was the following: How do local people and various stakeholders perceive the development of SSM and its social and environmental impacts in their communities? Community perceptions of the potential impacts have a direct effect on the level of social acceptance of a project. A local community might consider mining acceptable when the negative effects are mediated and the socio-economic impacts concretely contribute to community’s sustainability (Esteves, Franks, and Vanclay 2012; Labonne 1999; Mononen and Sairinen, 2021).

In this article, we make a comparison of the empirical results of the four cases. After comparing the case-specific results of the social impacts, we discuss the perception of the social impacts in relation to the socio-economic context where the cases occur and in relation to the SSM concept. It should be noted that the study should not be considered as an exact list of measured social impacts; instead, the focus of this paper is on the perceptions of impacts by local communities and exploring how the communities shape their visions of expected social changes and benefits, which mining can bring. To our knowledge, our cases are the first attempts to examine perceptions of local communities with the precise focus of small scale of mining in Europe.

Small-scale Mining

The term “small-scale mining” (SSM) allows for some definitional ambiguities. Traditionally, discussions about “small-scale mining” have been mainly associated with “artisanal and small-scale mining” (ASM) activities, which predominantly occur in developing countries. Terms have been employed interchangeably, so that “small-scale mining” has practically become a synonym for “artisanal and small-scale mining.” ASM is characterized by labor intensiveness, small capital investments, use of less developed technologies, and often illegal activities (Hilson 2006; Siegel and Veiga 2009; Asner et al. 2013; Banza Lubaba Nkulu et al. 2018). In research, SSM has been also linked to the poverty-driven narrative associated with ASM in poor rural areas (Bryceson and Jønsson 2010). There has been an attempt to distinguish ASM from small-scale gold mining (SSGM), which is not always artisanal or poverty-driven (Cortés-McPherson 2019).

SSM activities developed in the European context differ significantly from ASM, but also from the conventional mining activities at larger scales. Large-scale mining (LSM) implies extraction from rather large ore or mineral deposits by companies with substantial labor forces that are employed across these sites (Sidorenko et al. 2020b). Modern SSM in Europe utilizes selective small-scale operations with lower labor intensity and a smaller-scale environmental footprint (Sidorenko et al. 2020b). SSM is becoming especially applicable to critical raw materials as they are extracted in significantly smaller quantities than base metals and there are many small metal deposits across Europe, which have not been exploited before (Cassard et al. 2015; Sidorenko et al. 2020; Moore et al. 2020).

The research on SSM in Europe has evolved recently with the studies on the conceptualization of SSM for research purposes (Sidorenko et al. 2020a; Sidorenko et al. 2020b), conceptualization of small deposits mining in geological and metallurgical terms (Moore et al. 2020), studies on environmental performance of SSM cases (Beylot et al. 2021), and the Social Life Cycle Assessment of SSM (Muller et al. 2021). Moreover, the EU-Minerals Knowledge Data Platform has recently updated its database with the inclusion of small, high-grade ore deposits. The latter also have confirmed SSM potential, as the map reveals numerous and diverse metal deposits, suitable for SSM (Cassard et al. 2015, Moore et al. 2020, Sidorenko, Sairinen, Moore 2020a). Despite that, it is worth mentioning that the research on SSM is in the early stages of development, and thorough studies are required to move toward a comprehensive understanding of SSM features and the variety of SSM cases in different settings.

The question of scale cannot be defined as it can be addressed in terms of the size of a mineral deposit, the extent of land use, tonnes of concentrate production, the scale of environmental and social impacts, employment and temporal duration. The production in tonnes or the size of a mineral deposit can be measured for the definitional criteria, however, the scales of the environmental or social impacts are not so easily measured. This illustrates the heterogeneity and dynamism of the operations, which can be called SSM. In this paper, the following characteristics describe SSM in the context of the cases analyzed (Sidorenko et al. 2020b):

• Exploration of, and extraction from, small but high-grade or complex deposits.

• Shorter duration of mining due to the small mineral reserve or economic market conditions.

• Economic costs are moderate for starting and closing the production, minimizing the required investment.

• Mainly underground operations, with selective mining and backfill options.

• Use of advanced extraction and processing technologies.

• A good degree of automation and the employment of small but trained workforces.

• Significantly smaller infrastructure than LSM.

• Depending on technology, the small scale has the potential to be eco-efficient with minimal use of energy, land, water and chemicals for processing.

While other supporting research related to the social and environmental impacts of this kind of mining is lacking, these features of SSM were taken as a definitional technological grounds for approaching SSM in this study.

What Are the Social Impacts of Mining?

During the last decade, the social impacts of mining have appeared more frequently in social-scientific mining studies (e.g. Petrova 2012; Suopajärvi 2016; Mancini & Sala 2018; Sairinen, Sidorenko, and Tiainen 2021). The academic research has been also followed by the extensive knowledge of social impacts from Social Impact Assessment (SIA) studies, conducted for project and policy purposes (Joyce, Sairinen, and Vanclay 2018). According to the international guidance for social impact assessment, social impacts are related to people’s way of life, culture, community, health and wellbeing, fears and aspirations, environment, political system, or personal and property rights and how these changes are experienced (Vanclay et al. 2015, 2). More concretely, the direct social impacts of mining potentially include impacts on people’s employment; socio-economic wellbeing (income and other sources of revenue); traditional livelihoods; sacred sites and cultural heritage; sense of place; housing; social services (access to education, healthcare, etc.); quality of the experienced living environment (e.g. dust, noise, vibrations); land use; access to resources; access to leisure, health, and security; the effective functioning of their place of living, society, and government; the extent of corruption; as well as many other things (Joyce, Sairinen, and Vanclay 2018, 70; Sairinen et al. 2012, 33–34; Franks, Brereton and Moran 2011). Aswani, Diedrich, and Currier (2015) suggested that social impacts are inextricably linked with environmental impacts, especially in societies that are highly dependent on local natural resources for their livelihoods.

The different scales of mining are not equally presented in social-scientific mining research. The research has been largely focused on large-scale activities (e.g. Mudd 2007; Giurco & Cooper 2012; Mancini & Sala 2018). Thus, a focus on LSM has influenced certain trends in interpreting mining sustainability. The tendency to operate on the basis of assumptions about LSM has been also recognized by scholars in relation to ASM issues (Kemp and Owen 2019). There is a body of the research on the interface between ASM and LSM which could be used to open the discussion on the notion of “scale” in the mining industry. These studies provide insights into the differences between ASM and LSM in terms of impacts (Yelpaala and Ali 2005), land-use disputes (Andrew and Hilson 2003), and the application of LSM terminology in relation to ASM (Kemp and Owen 2019).

In these comparisons, formal medium-scale mining and SSM operations have remained largely invisible, particularly in comparison to large-scale mines often operated by big or multinational corporations (Arias, Atienza, and Cademartori 2014; Aubynn 2009; Sidorenko et al. 2020b). Small and medium mining projects are almost neglected from the current studies. There is little systemic research on the impacts of SSM on communities. In comparison to the impacts of LSM on the affected communities, the impacts of medium-scale mining and SSM might be rather moderate. They could not compete with LSM in terms of revenue amounts, while their environmental and social consequences are also not as significant as in other operations. In terms of sustainability performance, Jenkins (2006) proposed that today the approach to small and medium mining companies is based on the assumption that they are just “little big companies” and that the agenda can simply be simply “scaled down.”

Research on the matter of scale in resource management studies suggests that patterns or processes that occur on one scale may not be visible on another scale and may even contradict each other (Silver 2008). Moreover, the validity of findings on large scales has been questioned in relation to its extrapolation to another modes (Silver 2008). Therefore, when thinking about the possibilities for developing more SSM in Europe, there is a clear need for social impact and sustainability studies.

Materials and Methods

A good deal of research on social impacts has been conducted with or as part of social impact assessment (SIA) processes (Vanclay et al. 2015; Joyce, Sairinen, and Vanclay 2018). This has emphasized the applicability of social impact analysis for planning and management processes. This article utilizes a more research-oriented way to study social impacts (Sairinen, Sidorenko, and Tiainen 2021). In comparison to SIA, which closely links to project planning and implies a high degree of practice-oriented knowledge interest, the social impact research framework (Sairinen, Sidorenko, and Tiainen 2021) allows the application of more social-scientific purposes with a focus on a deeper understanding of the social processes in place. The framework is based on “step-by-step” guidelines for the stages and content needed when designing scholarly research on social impacts. It consisted of four stages: (1) research preparations, (2) background studies, (3) fieldwork, and (4) analysis, and interlinked substages (Sairinen, Sidorenko, and Tiainen 2021).

Following the proposed research framework, the data collection started from the extensive research preparations and background studies. This included desktop study of the socio-economic context of Serbia and Bosnia and mining policies of the countries. Additionally, all possible information about the case-study areas, including history of the municipality, current economic situation, and history of the mining site, was collected. Various secondary sources, including publicly available documents, mass media reports, historical literature and statistics were utilized.

The research design, including the selection of the case studies and methods for gathering and analyzing information, was formulated prior to the first case study and then repeated through next three cases studies. The main source of primary data was semi-structured interviews conducted in 2017–19. A total of 58 interviews were conducted: 15 in Novo Gorazde, 16 in Olovo, 13 in Veliki Majdan, and 14 in Zajaca, In four of the interviews, there were two people from the same family present. The number of the interviewees did not aim to reach an equal amount of the interviews in each case, as this is a qualitative study and the main criteria for completing interviews was data saturation (Guest et al. 2006). Additionally to these individual interviews, two group interviews were conducted (one in Zajaca and one in Veliki Majdan), with five and six respondents and in all four cases the data from the interviews was complemented with the discussions during formal meetings with company representatives and municipality and government officials.

The interviewees were identified using stakeholder identification and snowball sampling. This included representatives of villages and housing close to the mining site, stakeholders which could possibly be affected by mining (farmers, small businesses, leisure and hobby associations), representatives of local government and public sector services. Some of the respondents had previously worked or were currently working at the mining site. To ensure the inclusion of different perspectives, respondents in each case represented different social and ethnic groups, different age groups and different genders.

The interviews, each lasting between 25 to 80 min, were conducted in the native language of respondents with the help of an interpreter. The interview framework included, for example, questions about awareness of the current mining operations, the perceptions of the mining project and the company, expectations about possible benefits, and concerns about the environment. The interview questions were elaborated. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed in English. The aim of the interviews was to gain an understanding of expectations, concerns, and wishes of residents regarding mining in general and SSM, as well as their overall perceptions of the area’s development. All participants were guaranteed of anonymity and opportunity to withdraw from the study at any time. Interviews were recorded, and all interviewees provided written consent prior the interviews.

The data was analyzed using thematic analysis to identify themes within the gathered data (Boyatzis 1998; Braun & Clarke 2006). The transcripts were read and reread by two researchers and initial themes were identified. After that, the data was collated into 10 potential themes and a draft report was prepared. After the next rounds of working with the data and reviewing the themes, 10 initial themes were compiled into four themes: Perception of mining, Socio-economic expectations and employment, Perceived environmental risks, and Perceived scale of mining. During data analysis, respondents’ anonymity was ensured by stripping out all personal details and information from the data, and the participants were referred to numbers in the report on the research. Particular attention has been given to ensure that the data presented in this paper are not attributable to particular individuals, who participated in the study.

Mining Projects and Local Context

Olovo and Novo Gorazde are small towns in Bosnia, and Zajaca and Veliki Majdan are villages in Serbia (see Figure 1). The mine sites located in these communities represent different phases of the mining cycle (see Table 1). The exploration licenses for all four mining sites are owned by mining company Mineco Ltd, which is an international group operating in the West Balkans. Table 1 introduces the features of these mines and the communities.

Table 1. Description of four mining case areas.

Description of study case areas
	Olovo	Novo Gorazde	Zajaca	Veliki Majdan
History	Small town in Bosnia known as a traditional mining town from the Middle Ages.	Rural town in Bosnia on the border between Republika Srpska and the Federation.	Rural village in Serbia with continuous mining operations and recent environmental issues.	Rural village in Serbia with mining activities in the past.
No. of permanent residents (1991)	3,311	− (16,273)	721	1,373
No. of permanent residents (2018)	2,586	3,117	561	951
Largest employer	Textiles	Raspberry farming	Mining	Mining
Mining history	Reopened after 20-year break. (Previous mining activities before 1991.)	Previous mining activities before 1991. Antimony was discovered during the 1970s by a construction enterprise.	Continuous mining history. Previous mining activities in 2015. Less than 4 years between mining activities.	Continuous mining history. Less than 5 years between mining activities.
Mineral reserves	Lead	Antimony	Antimony	Lead, zinc
Start of operations by current mining company	Exploration started in 2013. Underground operations started in 2018.	Exploration started in 2014.	Exploration started in 2019.	Start of production in 2011.
Number of employees	200^a	<10	<10	288^a
Description of mine	Small high-grade mineral deposit	Small high-grade mineral deposit	Small high-grade mineral deposit	Small high-grade mineral deposit
Type of mine	Underground	Underground	Underground	Underground

^a According to the public information on the mining company’s website, see www. minecogroup.com.

All the mine sites are located in rural areas and are relatively close to each other. The maximum distance between these sites is 150 km. Previously, when Bosnia and Serbia were parts of Yugoslavia, some of these mines were operationally connected with each other. For example, when antimony was found in Novo Gorazde it was transferred to Zajaca for processing. Veliki Majdan and Zajaca were owned and operated by the same enterprise during the 1970s.

Although these mining sites are now located in two different countries, they share the same socio-economic context and the same legacy of the Yugoslavian socialist era during the 20th century. During the Yugoslavian period, these mines were operated and managed by state-owned companies. During 1990−2005, each site encountered challenges or ceased due to the wider societal challenges related to the war (as in the case of Bosnia) and/or economic crisis following the privatization process. Among the studied cases, only Novo Gorazde was not an official mining site during Yugoslavian times, though the exploration still occurred for several years by the construction company.

The socio-economic situation of these areas is challenging: there are problems of out-migration, limited opportunities for employment, and investments in village development are scarce. Moreover, mining sites in Bosnia were affected during the ethnic conflict, so some postwar-related issues are clearly visible.

From the societal perspective, it is also important to note that BiH and Serbia are both transition economies, which have moved from the socialist to the market system. Transition economies have some specifics such as their system transformation, new institutional frameworks formation and deep structural reforms implementation. The potential revenue and employment from mining are usually perceived as a new source of wealth for transition societies: they can stimulate renewal of the economy and provide government revenues, economic growth, and employment (Bridge 1999; Uberti 2014; Sydd 2022).

Results

Acceptance of Mining and the Company

In our interviews, respondents generally had positive attitudes to the mining projects implemented in their communities. Mining being of central importance to the social and economic aspects of local wellbeing was acknowledged by the respondents in each of the four cases. In Olovo, for example, where historical data has proved that lead was exploited as early as in the 15th century, the respondents describe it as a “mining town for many centuries”—even though during the 20th century the mining activities in the town were quite moderate. When mining is part of the more recent history of the region, like in Veliki Majdan, most respondents had some family member, usually the father, working in the mine.

Based on the interviews, mining in the past is generally connected with positive impressions. In Novo Goražde, for example, many respondents stated they remember the state-owned company Drina, which was the largest from their childhood either from the 1970s or 1980s. The times of Drina being in operation were described in predominantly positive terms, when the local community has lots of social benefits and extended infrastructure, including swimming pools in what is a small village or developed medical services in the area. “Even if they say it (Yugoslavia) was a lie, it was nice to live in that lie, there was social stability, so all the shifts that are happening today are very painful.”

The positive image of current mining activities was often attributed to the company being of foreign ownership, as many respondents, especially in Bosnian cases, closely link the “foreignness” of the company to higher performance standards and environmentally responsible mining.

I believe that foreign companies respect workers more in terms of better application of strict occupational safety and environmental regulations, as well as regular payment of salaries. Foreign companies are not affiliated to political structures; they are not financed by the political parties.

Although negative attitudes also emerged, especially linked to the distribution of economic benefits.

As the collected data is qualitative and focused to special groups, this study does not present direct evidence on the variation of the attitudes to SSM in relation to gender, ethnicity, or age of respondents. However, it is worth mentioning that the data analysis has not revealed considerable differences in the interview results in relation to the gender of the respondents in four cases. There were some differences in relation to the age of the participants with older people expressing higher levels of trust to the return of the mining operations. Additionally, in comparison to the Bosnian data, there was a tendency among the Serbian respondents to perceive mining operations and performance of mining companies more critically. A bit more positive attitude to the opening of the mine sites in Bosnia may be explained by challenging economic situation in the country and wish of the people for postwar recovery by the means of mining development.

Socio-economic Expectations and Employment

In Olovo, Novo Gorazde, Zajaca and Veliki Majdan, locals expected the mining operation to have significant positive social impacts, mainly new employment opportunities were considered important. The possible negative impacts, especially related to environmental risks, were also discussed, but they were clearly of lesser importance in the interviews. These details will be analyzed later.

Employment and socio-economic development of the area were perceived as important not only for individual citizens and households but also for the entire village or municipality. The case areas suffer from out-migration and locals perceived mining as providing the conditions to continue living in the area. One interviewee said: “Young people go abroad. It is a disaster. If the mining site would operate, it would stop the migration of young people, they would stay here and it would mean continuation of life for our place.”

On an individual and family level, interviewees often described mining as bringing economic certainty for the locals, which again they perceived as contributing to improved economic conditions for the whole municipality. Overall, the locals from the neighboring villages frequently discussed how the mine would have positive impacts for the local area and even ensure a brighter future. “They [locals] feel some certainty. There is someone employed from almost every house, so people feel safe because they have income, their families feel safe.”

The limited possibilities of hiring local people are not necessarily considered to significantly influence the overall benefits of mining for the locals. It was quite common among locals to state that for their areas suffering from high unemployment, any number of new jobs is likely to be welcomed. As one interviewee said: “If one member of the household works here, it is enough for the whole family. The village will not disappear in this way.”

The interviews demonstrated that expectations regarding the company’s contributions to community development were generally moderate. Although mining companies’ support for and participation in community development issues seems to be a somewhat common and traditional practice in previous times, local residents tend to understand that the political and economic context has changed. Thus, a majority consider mining revenues the main output on the part of the mining industry, emphasizing the role of the government in the effective distribution of mining benefits. The most often-mentioned subject of the additional company’s support was the reconstruction and improvement of village’s roads and some water supply systems.

Perceived Environmental Risks

In our case studies, Zajaca and Novo Gorazde represent mining operations in the exploration phases, while Olovo and Veliki Majdan started operations in 2018 and 2011, respectively. Despite the differences in the stage of the operations, the perception of the environmental risks was rather similar among the respondents.

The risk of water pollution was a concern brought up by all the respondents. In Olovo lead mine, a water spring located in the area of the mine raised concerns about the mining operation’s possible impacts on the quality of water and local fishery. In Novo Goražde, people mostly expressed concern about the pollution of water spring close to the mine site. In Veliki Majdan, perceived environmental impacts included wastewater discharge. This concern is most likely related to past events in the 1990s, when the large outflow from the tailing pond polluted the river. Tailings were also perceived as a risk in Zajaca, where some respondents described how leakages from an old dumpsite of tailings had contaminated surface and underground waters.

The other environmental concerns of the respondents included pollution of soil and air, disturbance caused by noise and dust, as well as harmful impacts on nature and farm animals. Noticed effects associated with noise and dust were expressed only by citizens who lived less than 1 km from the mine, while the residents of the nearest houses were also concerned with vibration.

The benefits of mining, namely, employment, were commonly weighed against the potential negative environmental impacts, and most interviewees considered the benefits of mining to be greater than the risks. This perspective was in part based on previous positive experiences with mining, but also the prevailing confidence in mining activities being conducted following regulations.

Despite being aware of the environmental risks related to mining, the respondents often did not consider the level of risk to be especially high at that moment. The results reveal, however, several different factors that can influence perceptions regarding the environmental risks of mining —either alleviating or aggravating them.

First, many respondents made a clear distinction between mining and refining activities. This was the case in Olovo and Novo Gorazde, where many consider refining processes as the biggest environmental risk. Therefore, the fact that mining projects in these places include only mining and mineral processing was considered very positive. Respondents distinguished between the effects of excavation and separation, explaining that since the operations at the site do not include separation, mining should not have overly harmful impacts. “If they plan to do separation here, it would upset people. If they plan to do just excavation without separation, it will not be a big problem.”

In Zajaca, where battery smelting activities carried out by previous owners has led to environmental problems, many clearly distinguished between reprocessing and mining activities:

It is only melting of the batteries that was dangerous, but not mining. My wife’s father worked in this mine; the people here live for a long period. As long as Zajaca was there, the mine was there, and there were no problems at all.

Past positive experiences from mining were another factor decreasing people’s concerns about environmental impacts. Residents often referred to positive experiences from the past when discussing the current risks. Positive experiences with just ore extraction (excluding separation processes) in the past were seen as proof that mining is relatively safe.

In addition to the positive experiences from the past, technology can be one factor that alleviates concerns related to mining. This was evident in Zajaca, where many believed that modern technologies can considerably reduce the risks of harmful impacts of mining.

“If preventive actions are taken, in accordance with the law, the harmful environmental effects can be mitigated. As far as I know, they [the mining company] have taken such measures, to prevent pollution.” Technology can, however, also be a factor contributing to doubts and uncertainties, when the locals feel that they do not know enough about the technologies being used. Respondents from Novo Gorazde stated that not being sure about technologies were being utilized meant they could not be sure of the impacts of mining either.

A certain level of uncertainty seems to be a common feature of people’s perceptions concerning the likelihood and nature of the environmental impacts of mining. A respondent from Novo Gorazde stated: “Well, people do not know exactly, but they know that mining sites are harmful; at least they believe them to be harmful.”

Perceived “Scale” of Mining Operations

One of the key questions for SSM in relation to society is whether SSM as an activity will be recognized by local citizens, that is, whether the smaller size of the project will be considered by people in terms of shaping their attitudes. In this research, three features related to “scale” were identified as being critical for the respondents: the size of the project (including the size of the deposit), the duration of the project, and the size of the company.

Our findings suggest that there seems to be a common tendency among respondents to believe that the mining deposits, when developed for operation, are large. Some respondents saw a long history of mining as proof that the deposits would last long into the future as well. Some assumptions of large deposits were also based on hearsay: in Zajaca, for example, many respondents stated they had heard from old miners that the mine would have large ore resources. This made some believe that if started, the mining operations would be long-term: “I believe that if they open it, they will certainly not close it down. I believe that they have ore for the next hundreds of years certainly; it all depends on explorations and research.” In other cases, respondents believed that the whole region is rather rich in mineral reserves and that even if the mining should be withdrawn from one mining site, there are opportunities for opening it in other nearby locations.

The perception of the duration of the mining project has been an important issue, since SSM implies that the mining operation may generally be shorter when compared to large-scale activities. The interviews showed that respondents perceive mining as a long-term activity and do not have accurate information about the expected duration of the mining projects. For example, for the respondents in Olovo, this often seemed to mean at least 20–30 years, while in other cases, estimations related to the duration of operations varied from 5 years upward, with many estimating that the operations would last at least 10 or 20 years. One interviewee said: “…it might create confusion, because people who work here and their families and the entire community expect the exploitation to last at least 30 years.”

In relation to the company size, interviewees declared mining company being large or at least medium. Thinking in traditional (large-scale) mining terms, people understand the arrival of the foreign company to the rural area as proof of the large mining reserves and significant investments made by the company. One interviewee said: “Foreign company will not invest if there are not so many reserves here.” In this sense, they barely evaluated their expectations about the scale of benefits from the new mine in relation to the scale of mining project and financial capacities of the mining company.

Perceptions of Mine Closure

SSM implies a shorter duration of the mine cycle. The interviews show that locals have a strong tendency to perceive mining as a long-term activity and to expect to work for a mine for a longer period.

With regard to mining withdrawal, the main challenges in the Balkans would be in ensuring the resilience of mining companies after the mine site is closed. The majority of the respondents clearly acknowledged possible negative social effects of the mine closure. In the areas where new employment opportunities are much needed, a quick closure could be a significant disappointment for locals, meaning loss of employment and an uncertain future. Some respondents suggested that in the case of a quick closure, there should be a possibility for the employees to receive social care and support. They proposed that such support be provided from, for example, a fund set up by the mining company or through the option of receiving a partial salary for staying in a “standby” position within the company. Despite that, many respondents seemed to think that a shorter period of operations would still be beneficial and thus acceptable, even if a longer duration would be more desirable. Some reasoned that even short-term jobs would be better than no jobs at all: “if it is possible for concessioners to make a profit for such a short period of time and if it is payable, then I have to say it is also good, i.e. better than nothing.”

The importance of the proper economic conditions for the viability of the mine has been widely recognized. In this way, many respondents stressed the role of the metal prices on the world market. Despite the economic risks, however, many still believed that the locals would still be ready to accept the uncertainty and to adjust to the situation in case of an earlier closure, as a respondent from Zajaca described: “People were already getting used to changes. If it has to be done, then it has to be done.”

In our interviews, the concerns related to the possible closure of the mine varied depending on the phase of the mining operations. Where mining had started already (Olovo and Veliki Majdan), respondents seemed to be more worried about the possible negative effects of the quick closure of the mine. In the exploration phase, in Novo Gorazde, only a few respondents considered mining closure as a challenge.

Discussion

Social Impacts of SSM

The results indicate that community members perceived mining to have a significant positive socio-economic impact, even though SSM is unlikely to be the main contributor to the local economy due to the relatively small size of the projects. New employment opportunities were considered very important for the viability of the community, and mining development was also seen to provide conditions for continuing living in the area. Such attitudes were especially visible in post-conflicts areas of Bosnia, where views on SSM were clearly influenced by the potential of mining to increase socio-economic situation of the region.

In terms of demographical social impacts, while traditional LSM activities may typically cause extensive changes in local demographics due to the input of new labor (Kitula 2006; McKenzie 2010; Petrova and Marinova 2013), small-scale mines do not induce notable social impacts in relation to changes in the population structure. Small employment level of SSM operations may lessen many of the negative side-effects related to LSM activities. These include extensive in-migration, housing and accommodation in mining communities (Everett Everingham 2012) and Fly-in/Fly-out (FIFO) issues (Beach, Brereton, and Cliff 2003). Similarly, land-use impacts, which traditionally are part of debates on mining sustainability (Suopajärvi et al. 2016; Owen & Kemp 2015) were not articulated by local communities in all four cases.

SSM can be to some extent considered an activity to prevent migration from the local area but, as a potentially short-term activity, it may not be able to meet this expectation as it is unable to provide long-term employment. In relation to the employment benefits, SSM offers fewer employment opportunities than traditional mining. This is because of the smaller size of mining projects and potential mobility of the educated workforce, deployed with mining solutions into a mine site. Even though the number of employees is modest, for regions with a small population and high unemployment rates, the opportunities provided by SSM can be significant. Disappointments may arise for people who anticipate that mining projects of all scales produce the same level of economic gains.

Our study has highlighted several factors which could influence the perception of environmental impacts. First, people’s concerns about environmental risks may not be related to the current effects of mining on the environment but may be based on the negative experiences from the past or the assumptions about the environmental impacts of mining in general. The latter was especially visible at the cases in the exploration phase, where local citizens do not have clear idea about the proposed operations. Second, the type of mining operations affect the overall environmental attitude. The fact that mining operations in all four cases represent underground mines, and projects include only mining and processing, has a significant positive impact on the perceptions. On the contrary, refining, separation and metallurgy activities evoke more concerns among host communities. Third, use of new and innovative technologies aimed at reducing potential environmental impacts, does not necessarily lead to higher acceptance. They can simultaneously increase the trust toward the safety of mining operations and raise fears among local people. Lacey et al. (2019) suggest that overall acceptance of established mining technologies is commonly higher than that of the novel ones. Our study has shown that poor prior knowledge about new mining technology do not allow local respondents to form certain views on its environmental and safety risks. Future research is needed that assesses public views of range of existing mining technologies and the factors that influence public acceptance.

Perceived Social Impacts of SSM in Relation to the Context/Locality

The findings of this research indicate that perceptions about potential social impacts of SSM activities in the Western Balkans are greatly influenced by two features: historical mining development and the current socio-economic context.

First, our findings suggested that historical experiences and cultural values of the case communities have a strong effect on the perception of mining activity. Our cases illustrated that mining activities in historical mining areas were quite favorable. The case areas were historical mining regions where previous periods of socio-economic development were strongly associated with the development of mining projects. Thinking about current social and environmental impacts, respondents seemed to form their vision of the new mining activities based on past experience and personal social memories about the socialist period of mining. These findings appear to confirm previous studies on the nature of social impacts, and particularly, appearance of nostalgic melancholy about “good old days” (Vanclay 2002). In our case, this was related with positive attitudes toward the return of mining. It is possible that such results were specific due to location characteristics; consequently, the findings may be different in other socio-economic contexts, with different historical legacies.

Second, our findings extend previous research that indicated economic development of the mining communities affecting the way people perceived the impacts, with economically less developed communities focusing more on potential financial benefits (Zhang and Moffat 2015). Respondents in the Western Balkans though worrying about potential environmental risks tend to accept mining operations and the adverse effects they can bring, as they hope mining will contribute to local economic benefits. This is especially true in the Bosnian cases, which have shown the common tendency to accept SSM per se, considering new employment opportunities critically important not only for individual citizens and households, but for the wellbeing of the whole village or municipality. In relation to out-migration, mining was also seen to provide conditions for continuing living in the area in the first place. Thus, the scale of social benefits obtained from SSM can be quite small, but they are acknowledged and discussed seriously at the local level. In the eyes of local people, these benefits can be seen as considerable and people are not likely to compare the extent of impacts to those that have occurred in some other regions.

Additionally, our findings reveal that although two studied cases (Novo Gorazde and Zajaca) were in the exploration stage, and the other two (Olovo and Veliki Majdan) have been in operation for several years, no considerable differences in the perception of the impacts have been identified. Generally, similar attitudes to mining both in relation to its environmental and social impacts were expressed by all respondents in case areas of Bosnia and Serbia.

Perceived Social Impacts in Relation to the SSM Concept

One of the key questions for SSM in relation to society is whether local citizens recognize the differences between the modes of mining operations and impacts on local communities. Our findings reveal three dimensions of “scale” through which people approach the notion of “small-scale mining”: the size of the project (including size of the deposit), the size of the company and the duration of the project. Interviewees in the various villages evaluated the size of the project and deposit differently. Very often, a long history of mining in the area served as proof of the large size of the deposit. The formation of opinions about the size of the project is also linked with the perception of the size of the mining company. Thinking in traditional (large-scale) mining terms, people seem to understand the arrival of a foreign company to a rural area as evidence of large mining reserves. In this sense, they barely evaluated their expectations about the scale of benefits from the new mine in relation to the scale of mining operations.

When thinking about the social sustainability of mining, the temporal duration of a mining project is an important issue, since many social and socio-economic issues are dependent on the duration of extraction. SSM implies that the mining operation may generally be much shorter (from 5 to 10 years) than large-scale activities. This means that the mine’s contribution to local development and employment is quite different than longer duration makes possible. Thus, closure planning is highly relevant in SSM and should be included from the earliest phases of the project development. The concerns related to the possible closure of the mine might be dependent on the phase of the mining operations of SSM, being rather modest at the beginning of the project and increasing toward the final stages. Nevertheless, locals perceive that even SSM can increase the vitality of the local area through offering employment and thereby decreasing out-migration, which is a prevalent challenge. For the studied regions, all of which struggle with low populations and high unemployment rates, the opportunities provided by SSM can be significant, even when the number of employees and the duration of the project are modest. The scale of environmental impacts and risks, if legally and environmentally well-regulated, in SSM may be smaller than in traditional LSM. This related to the fact that physical and social area of influence (Vanclay et al. 2015) is potentially smaller in SSM. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the environmental risks in SSM are dependent on the mined metal, technologies, and the use of chemicals.

Conclusion

In this study, we have analyzed social impacts as perceived by the local citizens in relation to the development of mining projects, which can be identified as “small-scale mining” (Sidorenko et al. 2020b; Moore 2018). The cases of SSM from Bosnia and Serbia provided a novel opportunity to explore whether the scale of mining operations affect community’s vision on mining benefits and risks.

One of the main conclusions is that local people have difficulty understanding difference between the impacts of small-scale and traditional LSM. The analysis has demonstrated that the smaller case of mining operations leads to reduced social and environmental impacts has been weakly acknowledged by the respondents. A strong tendency remains to perceive mining as a long-term activity which can be a large engine for regional development. Local people expect SSM mining to bring new job opportunities and to make a visible positive socio-economic impact in relation to community development and migration. On the other hand, we observe that small-scale project does not evoke similar kind of social unrest among the communities as LSM. SSM does not drive significant changes in land use, relocation of communities is not required, and demographic changes are small due to the small workforce. The only discussion related to these categories of impacts related to the potential opportunity of SSM to stop migration from rural areas. There were also no identified conflicting interests between other land-use interests or local livelihoods such as agriculture, forestry, and tourism. However, we assume these findings to be context specific to particular mining settings and the Balkan context; the situation could be different in other more sensitive locations. There is scope to improve understanding of SSM impacts through case studies in other countries.

Finally, there is a clear need for more nuanced approach to understanding social, economic and environmental impacts of mining taking into account the scale of the operations. Future research on social impacts may include consideration of the perceptions in relation to the scale of mining, type and size of the project, and applied technologies. This also raises the question of how sustainability can and should be understood in smaller mining projects. Critical questions for socially sustainable SSM may include whether SSM can contribute to local economic development and employment to the extent that the locals hope for, and whether a company has adequate resources to meet local expectations about their community. The same question about company capacity concerns the quality of environmental management in smaller mining projects.

Figure 1. Location map of Olovo, Novo Gorazde, Zajaca, and Veliki Majdan.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge all respondents in Bosnia and in Serbia who took part in the study. A special thanks is due to IMP@CT team and all the people helped us to carry out the interviews in the case areas. In addition, we thank three anonymous reviewers for their very helpful suggestions and constructive comments which significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Additional information

Funding

This research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant No 730411 (2016-2020).