Lessons for community-based management approaches to mine water pollution problems: a comparative study of four cases in northeast England

Abstract

This paper examines the role of community-based management (CBM) in dealing with the problem of mine water pollution (MWP) in four ex-pit sites in northeast England. The outcomes of CBM can be divided into two categories: ecological (environmental improvement) and social (community improvement). The ecological outcomes range from problem recognition to investigation and remediation; the social outcomes range from community awareness to participation and enhanced cooperation. Both kinds of outcome were completely achieved in only one site (Quaking Houses). In the other three sites, varying degrees of success were achieved in each category. The main lessons learned are two-fold: first, even if CBM does not achieve its ecological aims, it may nonetheless be valuable in achieving social outcomes; second, its chances of achieving either ecological or social outcomes are linked to the resources (human, technical, financial, experiential, structural, legitimacy and network) that the community possesses.

Keywords:

• community-based management
• mine water pollution
• northeast England ex-pit sites

Notes

This figure includes shallow workings as well as deep mines, and compares with the Coal Authority's figure of 168,000 mine works recorded in the UK since records began, supplemented by many more unrecorded mines that are known to have existed (Doyle 1997).

Though the term “ecological” is substituted for Steelman and Carmin's term “substantive” to refer to ecological improvement.

The remedial advice offered by NU to the group varied from low key measures, which might be implemented by the group, to a full-scale scientific intervention, which would depend on technical involvement and significant funding.

One FoHWD member (interview 7 July 2005) claimed that it was “a little bit top down – not big on democracy … Issues are identified and driven by the chair – it is a bit too dominant in that respect”.

Significantly, one tension between FoHWD and NCC occurred over the role of community involvement in MWP remediation. For NCC, public involvement was not the central issue; its priority was to get the technical aspects of remediation right. But the FoHWD chair (interview 23 September 2005) stated that “PURE was about participation and water quality, the idea was to get as many people involved in finding a method of solving the problem at East Cramlington”.