This paper presents an overview of recent developments in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process to provide the background for a more detailed analysis of environmental and social constraints that the Heavy Mineral Mining industry has encountered over the past decade. Four cases studies are reviewed to provide a context for further analysis and identification of cross cutting environmental and social issues that either resulted in the projects not proceeding, or in the Australian case study, places existing operations under significant pressure from anti-mining lobbyists. The Xolobeni project, from the Eastern Cape in South Africa, is presented as the primary case study because it is recent, topical, and accessible; and raised numerous issues related to mining in a sensitive environment. A proposal to mine an area adjacent to the Okefenokee swamps in 1997 was also met with strong opposition from various environmental groups in Georgia, USA. This case study is briefly reviewed to further understand what ultimately resulted in the project not proceeding._x000D_
Opposition to mining at North Stradbroke Island is reviewed to identify current issues more applicable to a developed country. A further review of a strategic assessment undertaken at Wavecrest, Eastern Cape, South Africa is provided in support of possible solutions to the challenges identified in the case studies._x000D_
Important common themes were identified, including in some cases unfortunate timing of the environmental studies, but in all cases opposition was due to ecological sensitivity, landscape quality and sense of place. In one case study limitations to the EIA process included inadequate detail in the specialist investigations and insufficient information on mitigation. In all cases public participation was a limitation. It was either insufficient; flawed through possible bias; too top down' and required engagement with mobilised, motivated lobbyists. There was also insufficient investigation of social impacts, particularly amongst rural communities directly affected by a project. Generally alternatives were inadequately considered, a recognised limitation of project level EIA. It is concluded that the EIA process should be started as early as possible (at prefeasibility), and that investigations should be expanded from a typical fatal flaw assessment to one that applies methodologies used in strategic assessment. In particular, opportunities and constraints of the natural and social environment should be assessed in the context of the mining option as well as other options, to allow for a more meaningful assessment of alternatives. Public participation must form an important part of this initial study, despite the potential risks associated with public engagement at an early stage in the project. The application of the IFC Performance Standards; and expanding the scope of the EIA into an environmental, social and health impact assessment will lead to a more rigorous procedure, and result in more defensible products which could successfully unlock the key to the resources in these sensitive areas._x000D_
FORMAL CITATION:Avis, A M, 2011. Environmental and social constraints to mineral mining projects - finding the key to unlock the resource, in Proceedings Eighth International Heavy Minerals Conference 2011, pp 1-16 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).