Constraints on the mineral industry are best treated as
issues that have to be understood and managed in partnership rather than in
conflict with communities. TheZapopan development at Mt Todd in Australia and the Martha Hill development at
Waihi in New
Zealand are but two of many recent successful
examples at the local level.

However, at the national level, the issues are more
complex and more difficult to resolve because the most influential stakeholders
are now the urban electorates and governments defer to their perceptions when
making decisions and policy.
In the developed countries, government policies for
the development of mineral resources have been progressively eroded since
the early 1970s. At the same time policies for the environment and for
native land rights have generally been carried out in a way that has reduced
access to minerals and increased the cost and risks for prospectors and
developers (Hancock, 1995). Since the end of the Cold War, the lesser developed
countries (LDCs) have introduced policies to attract investment in their mineral
resources that remained undeveloped under previous unstable or hostile regimes.
The increased attraction of these LDCs and the decreased attraction of the
developed countries has caused many Australian and North American companies to
outlay increasing proportions of their budgets and capital investment in the
LDCs.

Significantly,
LDC policies for environment protection do not discourage exploration and mine
development, Surveys of the relative appeal of the LDCs and the traditional
mining countries of the developed world, rate
Chile,
Argentina and
Indonesia ahead of
Australia and
Canada
in terms
of risk, delays and ease of doing business (Australian Mining Monthly, February
1994).