Regional implementation of a novel policy approach: The role of minerals safeguarding in land-use planning policy in Austria

The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Extractive Industries and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/exis

Original article

Regional implementation of a novel policy approach: The role of minerals safeguarding in land-use planning policy in Austria Katharina Gugerella,c, Andreas Endlb,*, Sara Louise Gottenhuberb, Gloria Ammerera, Gerald Bergerb, Michael Tosta a

Montanuniversität Leoben, Department of Mining Engineering and Mineral Economics, Leoben, Austria Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Department of Managing Sustainability, Vienna, Austria c University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development, Vienna, Austria b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Resource governance Land-use planning Mineral resources Mineral policy Policy instruments Safeguarding

The sustainable supply of raw materials to an expanding global population and rising consumption requires novel governance approaches. Such approaches have recently come to include the topic of ‘minerals safeguarding’. In Austria, the objective of minerals safeguarding has translated into an internationally recognised policy instrument, the Austrian Raw Materials Plan. Our paper investigates how the novel policy approach of safeguarding is translated into provincial and regional land use planning policy in Austria. Following a comparative approach of nine Austrian provinces via document analysis and interviews with policy makers, the analysis indicates diverse forms of implementation: We identify different degrees of uptake and implementation in land use planning policy across goals, instruments and mechanisms. Given the limited amount of research about safeguarding, this paper contributes to a broader understanding of safeguarding practices in public policy (goals, process and instruments), offers insights of’ strong, mixed, and soft’ safeguarding approaches, and provides input for a conceptual model of safeguarding. Our study highlights the importance of political agenda setting for the deployment of land use planning instruments, the need for coordination and communication (between and amongst different levels of government) in the policy process, and a need to assess effectiveness of safeguarding policies.

1. Introduction

translates into policy goals and instruments. This paper reflects critically on the implementation process followed to safeguard so-called landowner raw-materials (such as aggregates, gravel, slate, limestone, and construction materials; in German Grundeigene mineralische Rohstoffe §5 MinROG, property rights of this group of raw materials belong to the landowner) in land-use planning (LUP) and mineral policy, through a detailed examination of the Austrian Raw Materials Strategy (AMS) of 2002 and the Austrian Mineral Resources Plan (AMRP) of 2010 (BMNT, 2019; Holnsteiner et al., 2015). The Austrian case provides insights into the application of an underutilized approach to safeguarding due to: (i) an almost decade-long existence of a national policy instrument for safeguarding (AMRP) streamlined into provincial and regional policy; (ii) different degrees of uptake and implementation in land use planning (LUP) policy; and (iii) diverse forms of provincial and regional implementation approaches due to heterogeneous jurisdiction of the nine federal states (provinces). We investigate the extent to which safeguarding is applied at different levels of LUP policy at the national through to the regional levels,

Due to the fact that minerals play an important role for the European economy (e.g. manufacturing of environmental technologies to tackle climate change), there are new approaches on how to guarantee their secure and sustainable supply (European Commission, 2013). Several initiatives launched at the European Union (EU) and EU Member States (MS) levels indicate that the approach taken towards minerals safeguarding is receiving increased political salience. This approach broadly encompasses the protection or ‘safeguarding’ of known or unknown mineral deposits (i.e. henceforth referred to as safeguarding) from sterilisation by other land uses (agriculture, housing, nature conservation, etc.). There are ambiguities concerning what the concept actually entails; there is little knowledge on how safeguarding is implemented in public policy in EU MS. During the last decade, however, countries such as Austria, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Norway have introduced the concept of safeguarding and, thus, in doing so, have provided the first insights into how the concept

⁎

Corresponding author at: Welthandelsplatz 1, Building D1, A-1020 Vienna, Austria. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Endl).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.10.016 Received 27 August 2019; Received in revised form 28 October 2019; Accepted 28 October 2019 2214-790X/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Katharina Gugerell, et al., The Extractive Industries and Society, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.10.016

The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K. Gugerell, et al.

spatialised mineral protection or safeguarding areas that are integrated in land-use plans (Gałaś, 2017; Sivek et al., 2019; Weber et al., 2008).

addressing two main questions: (i) to what degree is LUP policy taking up safeguarding goals? (ii) which LUP instruments for safeguarding are being applied by provinces and regions?

2.2. Safeguarding and mineral policy Scientific discourse on how to improve mineral resources governance in mineral policy mostly concentrates on the legal framework for permitting (e.g. Dooley and Leddin, 2005; Tiess, 2011), as well as its framework conditions during extraction and rehabilitation (e.g. Clausen and Mcallister, 2001; Dooley and Leddin, 2005; Everingham et al., 2013; Haikola and Anshelm, 2016; Sivek et al., 2019; Söderholm et al., 2015; Tost et al., 2018). While in the context of mining and land use, most discussions about conflicts of land acquisition (Joly et al., 2018; Mitchell, 2016; Roche et al., 2019) or environmental degradation (Mishra and Mishra, 2017) take place during the exploitation phase and less during the pre-exploitation (e.g. Mitchell, 2016) or pre-exploration phase. Less emphasis is put on mineral resource governance approaches for managing the early stages of exploitation – i.e. exploration and deposits (geological ore-bodies) - in a sustainable way. The current discourse on the management of exploration and deposits highlights ways to protect deposits (i.e. referred to as safeguarding). However, only a few scholars refer to the debate on safeguarding, and there are either ambiguities or no definitions of what the concept of safeguarding actually entails (e.g. mineral deposits of public importance: MDoPI as outlined by Kot-Niewiadmoska (2017); safeguarding that assumes a fair and equal prior assessment of the possible land uses as outlined by Carvalho et al., 2019). Overall, the literature on safeguarding addresses two different aspects: (i) the protection/safeguarding of mineral deposits for future exploitation with appropriate measures (Gałaś, 2017; Henckens et al., 2016; Radwanek-Bąk and Nieć, 2015; Sivek et al., 2019), and; (ii) the avoidance of sterilisation, defined as the loss of the option to exploit a mineral deposit (Pendock, 1984) for future access (Carvalho et al., 2019; Lopes et al., 2018; Wrighton et al., 2014). Even though a discourse on safeguarding exists, there is very little knowledge on its manifestation in public policy. While some authors indicate that safeguarding is highlighted as a concept in the agenda of public policy, such as in EU MS mining policy (e.g. CZ Mining Code: Sivek et al. (2019); PT LUP methodology for mineral resources: Carvalho et al. (2019); Lopes et al. (2018); AT: BMNT (2019); Holnsteiner et al. (2015); European Commission (2013), p.18; PL: Gałaś (2017); UK: Wrighton et al. (2014); Greece, Spain and Norway: Luodes and Arvidsson (2018), there is little evidence as to whether it manifests as actual policy goals and instruments. In this regard, McEvoy et al. (2007) argue that factors impeding safeguarding do not only relate to the conflicting goals and instruments, but also to the question of multi-level governance, such as (i) the lack of mechanisms (i.e. translating policy into practice), (ii) poor levels of consultation between planning authorities, and (iii) the absence of relevant policies in local planning documents. Additionally, given the increased multi-level approaches to governance prevalent in EU MS (Stephenson, 2013) and the nature of safeguarding being a cross-cutting concept of LUP and mineral policy, the policy process becomes more complex. Policies designed in multi-level governance settings require coherency of aims and objectives, calibrations and consistency of tools, as well as congruency and convergence throughout sectors and levels of government to have desired impacts (Howlett, 2009; Rayner et al., 2017; Schneider and Ingram, 1993). We can also draw links to related literature on policy governance, such as environmental policy integration (EPI), where the decisive aspect of realising or defeating policy objectives, such as safeguarding, lies in how policy is translated to local implementation (Lenschow, 2002; Watson et al., 2008). Similarly, Dolowitz and Marsh (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000) investigate how policy transfer on the sub-divisions of policy - policy content, policy goals, and policy instruments – can work on different levels. From these debates, we can draw insights into a broader understanding of how safeguarding

2. Background The sustainable supply of raw materials to an expanding global population, rising consumption rate and the deployment of new environmental technologies requires novel governance approaches in the way we extract, process and recycle these raw materials. Current academic discourses investigate different approaches of how the sustainable development of natural resources is to be achieved: while some part of the debate focuses on a governance approach of minerals extraction (e.g. IRP, 2019; Ali et al., 2017), others look into governance approaches that address the ecological limitations for resource governance (e.g. Biermann et al., 2012; Rockström et al., 2009). Further, other debates focus on the governance approaches irrespective of resource management perspectives (e.g. Bringezu et al., 2016). In the area of mineral resources governance for sustainable primary minerals production, a lively academic debate emerged, due to the ‘wicked’ character and interdisciplinary nature of the policy issue (e.g. Ali et al., 2017; Endl, 2017; Henckens et al., 2019). Ali et al. (2017) and others (Endl, 2017; Henckens et al., 2019, 2016) argue that there is a need to better integrate different policy fields to sustainably manage mineral resources. In this regard, mineral resource governance is embedded in two policy fields: mineral policy and spatial- or LUP policy. This distinction is of particular relevance when dealing with the interconnected topic of mineral extraction, in which competing land-use options are weighed against each other in the decision-making process (Bax et al., 2019; de Groot, 2006d; Lechner et al., 2017), and social and environmental impacts need to be resolved (Everingham et al., 2013). A recent aspect of mineral resource governance, combining frameworks of mineral and LUP policy, is safeguarding, which has prompted policy responses by the EU and EU MS (Wrighton et al., 2014). In the following paragraphs, we investigate the discourse on safeguarding from the perspective of LUP and mineral policy. 2.1. Natural resources and land use planning Systematic assessments of potential land-use options that serve the demands and needs of communities while safeguarding natural resources, such as water(sheds) (Boschet and Rambonilaza, 2015; Plummer et al., 2011), forests, agriculture and food (Ayambire et al., 2019; FAO, 2017; Gosnell et al., 2011; Tassinari et al., 2013), ecosystem services (Albert et al., 2016; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2017) or mineral resources (Bax et al., 2019; Lopes et al., 2018), are core characteristics of LUP. Scarcity of land and the location dependency of certain resources, such as mineral raw materials, accelerate competing demands. LUP systems (i.e. instruments and processes) are expected to balance such competing demands (e.g. nature protection, residential, agriculture (Gałaś, 2017; Hilson, 2002; Mitchell et al., 2004; Mitchell, 2016)) and integrate them into the socio-spatial context (Gustafsson and Scurrah, 2019; Roth and Howie, 2015). Academic debates on mineral resources and land-use tend to focus on: 1) (integrated) modelling of decision support tools (e.g. for Strategic Environmental Assessments) that take into account different social, environmental and economic aspects (Lechner et al., 2017; Ustaoglu et al., 2018); 2) valuation of mineral resources for LUP decision making (EUROMINES, 2011); or 3) linking or integrating mineral resources into LUP policies (Baker and Hendy, 2005; Roth and Howie, 2015; Wagner et al., 2006; Wrighton et al., 2014). Against this backdrop research on LUP instruments related to this topic is comparatively modest (e.g. Gustafsson and Scurrah, 2019). Those few studies address sterilisation through LUP or advocate 2

The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K. Gugerell, et al.

3

Securing conflict-free, high-quality raw material deposits and multifunctional land use

Securing the supply of raw materials from domestic deposits Constitutional Law B-VG Nachhaltigkeit, BGBl. I Nr. 82/ 2019

AMRP (Österreichischer Rohstoffplan)

Achieving supply security and sustainable exploitation of domestic mineral raw materials (§4)

Boosting resource efficiency and promoting recycling to reduce the EU’s consumption of primary raw materials and thus decrease import dependency Set the right framework conditions within the EU to foster sustainable supply of raw materials from European sources EU Raw Materials Initiative (RMI)

Ensuring access to raw materials from international markets under similar conditions as other industrial competitors

RMI Pillar 3 Resource Efficiency Recycling

Table 1 EU and Austrian policy and its relation to the EU Raw Material Initiative pillars.

Austria is an example that employs policies targeting safeguarding on both the national and regional level (AHWG, 2014; Gałaś, 2017; Luodes and Arvidsson, 2018; Wrighton et al., 2014). While the AMS (Austrian Minerals Strategy, Österreichische Rohstoffstrategie) from 2002 reiterates the importance of supply security of raw materials from domestic deposits, it also adds the role and importance of LUP instruments for “securing the long-term access to domestic mineral deposits” (Table 1) and implementing the national strategy (BMNT, 2019; Holnsteiner et al., 2015). The AMS is complemented by the AMRP, a policy instrument supporting LUP for safeguarding. The AMRP is an inventory of mineral deposits (i.e. known deposits of aggregates or landowner minerals) in the Austrian territory. The AMRP is perceived as best practice based on the consideration of other policy domains (e.g. LUP, nature protection) in assessing mineral deposits (European Commission, 2014) and involving stakeholders in its development process (Endl, 2017; Endl et al., 2018). Vertical or diagonal integration is understood as the ‘diffusion’ or ‘uptake’ of the AMS and AMRP in provincial and regional instruments. The AMS’ and AMRP’s intention to achieve safeguarding poses some challenges due to Austria’s federal system and the Austrian constitution: i) due to the Austrian constitution, state, provinces and municipalities must cooperate to achieve sustainable extraction of natural raw materials and to ensure supply (§5 BVG Nachhaltigkeit); ii) the distribution of responsibilities between different levels of government: while the state is responsible for mining, the nine provinces (federal states) are responsible for LUP. Thus, the Austrian constitution divides responsibilities between national and subnational levels, but ties together all levels to meet constitutional objectives. Coordination deficiencies arising from the need for diagonal policy implementation and implementation failure (e.g. lacking knowledge of safeguarded deposits on provincial and national level) are pointed out by the Austrian Court of Auditors (Rechnungshof et al., 2017). Even though safeguarding from both an academic and practitioners point of view is becoming increasingly recognised, whether, or to what extent, it is included in LUP policy, and whether it is streamlined at all levels of governance, is still not clear (AHWG, 2014; Nieć et al., 2014;

RMI Pillar 1 Access to mineral deposits

2.4. Case study: Austrian Minerals Strategy and Austrian Mineral Resources Plan

RMI Pillar 2 Framework Institutions

Sustainability Environment

Over the last decade, safeguarding as a policy agenda has found its way into different levels of EU and EU MS policy to varying degrees: The Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Raw Materials stresses the importance of fostering access to known and unknown mineral deposits, as well as safeguarding ‘mineral wealth’ for future generations (European Commission, 2013), p.18). However, as minerals are considered national assets, EU mineral policy (The raw materials initiative–meeting our critical needs for growths and jobs in Europe. Brusesel, COM 2008 699) recommends the development of EU MS level policies and strategies to foster sustainable supply from European sources (2nd Pillar of the RMI). In particular, resource governance approaches have highlighted the importance of local assets and capacities (Vanthillo and Verhetsel, 2012), and the need for regional level mandates to govern resources (Cooke et al., 2011; Gustafsson and Scurrah, 2019). The increased responsibilities of regions to design and coordinate policy, as opposed to adapting national policies, also comes with a new set of challenges in terms of both vertical and horizontal integration and demands regarding regional and local capacity (Jordan and Lenschow, 2010; Vanthillo and Verhetsel, 2012; Wu et al., 2018; Zuidema, 2016). So far, several EU MS (AT, CZ, ES, GR, PL, PT, UK) have followed the RMI approach and applied the concept of safeguarding in national and/or regional level policies.

AMS (Österreichische Rohstoffstrategie)

2.3. Policy responses to safeguarding at EU and MS level

Efficient handling of raw materials by increasing resource efficiency and improving recycling

Achieving supply security and sustainable exploitation of domestic mineral raw materials (§4); Preservation of the natural environment as the basis for livelihoods (§2)

can manifest on different levels and different sub-divisions of policy.

The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K. Gugerell, et al.

conducted with civil servants at the national and provincial levels between 07/2018 and 04/2019. Interviewees were selected based on their involvement in land-use planning (incl. mineral resources) at either the national or provincial level. Informed consent was received from all interviewees and the interviews were recorded, transcribed and a qualitative content analysis was performed (Gläser and Laudel, 2010; Mayring, 2015).

Sivek et al., 2019). Consequently, our research addresses this gap by investigating how safeguarding made it into the Austrian policy agenda and, in different forms, has been diffused to regional LUP goals and instruments.

3. Method and material As outlined above, the aim of this paper is to investigate how policy content is integrated in different levels of governance and translated into concrete goals and LUP instruments applied in the Austrian provinces and regions (provinces: 9 provinces and their jurisdiction responsible for LUP; regions: administrative, mostly geographically delimited spatial-administrative units within provinces). We analysed national, provincial and regional mining and LUP policy for content, goals and instruments to determine how ‘safeguarding’ (explicit or implicit) became part of the political agenda (content), how the concept was perceived (goals) and, lastly, how it translated into practice (instruments). The policy analysis, together with the mapping of the policy network, provided the empirical underpinning of the study, which was complemented by interviews with relevant civil servants from the provincial and regional levels. We analysed policy content, goals and instruments on the provincial and regional level in order to discern to what extent the content, goals and instruments of the AMS and AMRP have been introduced into provincial, regional and sectorial LUP policies. In this sense, we looked into vertical integration that is understood from the ‘diffusion’ or ‘uptake’ of the concept of safeguarding of the AMS and AMRP in provincial and regional LUP policies and instruments. LUP instruments are distinguished based on their coercive (hard planning/statutory) or cooperative (soft planning) mechanism (Faludi, 2013; Mäntysalo and Bäcklund, 2018). The deductive content analysis enabled: (i) an overview of safeguarding (implicit or explicit) in regional, provincial and national policies (policy content); (ii) a distinction and frequency of goals (policy goals), and; (iii) LUP instruments applied in Austrian provinces and regions. Considering the two challenges for safeguarding in public policy – i) introducing safeguarding goals and instruments into LUP and; ii) translating and streamlining these into all levels of governance responsible for LUP – we used the following analytical framework (Table 2). Furthermore, the mapping of instruments and institutional mechanisms and complementary interviews enabled the identification of certain characteristics of the instruments related to safeguarding practices. Following a comparative analysis of provincial and regional LUP instruments, we further differentiated the policy sub-division with respective analysis criteria within the above-mentioned analytical framework (Table 3). Data collection and analysis followed a qualitative approach, including a comparative policy analysis in which sub-divisions of policy policy goals, policy content and policy instruments - in safeguarding were analysed. All 69 analysed policies being currently applied were mapped for analysis (Fig. 1), covering integrated and sectoral policies on mineral resources, mainly aggregates/land-owner raw materials, on a regional and provincial level. The boundary was set at the regional level (excluding the local/municipal level), as the supply and demand of mineral resources and safeguarding is a strategic regional and provincial responsibility. Seven complementary expert interviews were

4. Results In the following chapter, we report how safeguarding manifests in different levels of governance: first, we illustrate whether, and how, safeguarding manifests in policy content and goals; and, secondly, we present whether, and to what degree, safeguarding is implicitly or explicitly mentioned in policy instruments. 4.1. Examining policy content and goals: agenda setting on provincial and regional level The second goal of the Austrian Raw Materials Strategy (AMS) (Table 1) establishes a secured supply from domestic deposits as a core objective, by advocating safeguarding through LUP on a provincial and regional level. Consequently, mineral resources and safeguarding become part of the provincial and regional agenda and are manifest in LUP policy instruments. Preventing sterilisation and securing access, safeguarding mineral deposits, avoiding land-use conflicts, and protecting areas with special physical characteristics from impacts and secure them for future use, are the four prevalent goals identified in LUP policy instruments on both provincial and regional levels (Fig. 2). They illustrate two main approaches: (i) safeguarding, avoiding sterilisation and protection of areas with specific physical characteristics; and (ii) spatial organisation to avoid or mitigate land-use conflicts. Though goals addressing safeguarding and sterilisation of mineral deposits are well represented, Fig. 2 illustrates notable differences between different provinces and spatial scales. While safeguarding manifests itself in all nine provinces, it does so less often in regional LUP policies. In recently designed or updated LUP strategies, safeguarding is manifest on both subnational levels (Styria, Lower Austria), in either integrated or sectoral LUP policies. Where a lack of agenda setting and safeguarding goals are found, the lack of developed LUP policies at the regional level (Burgenland, Vorarlberg) or outdated regional LUP strategies are the principal reasons (e.g. Carinthia, LUP strategies between 1977–2008). Despite the lack of strong manifestation, the interviews revealed that minerals are a part of the political and administrative discourse, where challenges related to departmentalism and coordination exist. Formal processes of agenda setting (e.g. institutional consultation processes) are complemented with informal practices at where public administration and political arena intersect. Clearly, agenda setting, as a societal and political process, is not necessarily related to the technical finesse of developed tools. This illustrates the importance of the socio-political discourse and the need to engage in that discourse to evoke and support agenda setting for safeguarding. In the researched case, in particular, challenges of implementing a national strategy in regional plans, were stressed on national level: “(…) we were too focused on technicalities, technical implementation – and we didn’t take advantage of the political momentum. The political momentum was favourable,

Table 2 Analytical framework, adapted from Dolowitz and Marsh (2000). Policy Sub-Divisions

Analysis

Description

Policy Content Policy Goals Policy Instruments

Political Agenda-Setting: Safeguarding Vertical (goal) coherence: ‘trickle down’ Implicit or Explicit safeguarding in LUP

Existence of policy addressing safeguarding Re-occurrence of safeguarding goals on different levels of governance Existence of instruments implicitly or explicitly referring to safeguarding

4

The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K. Gugerell, et al.

Table 3 Operationalisation of the analytical framework: analysis criteria of LUP policy instruments. Policy Sub-Divisions

Mapping/Analysis criteria

Description

Policy Instruments

Direct/Indirect Spatial/Non-Spatial Coercive/Cooperative Integrated/sectorial Provincial/regional

LUP instrument for implicit and explicit safeguarding Spatial: delineating areas with clear boundaries (polygons), Non-spatial: remaining on a spatially generic level Coercive: obligatory, enforcement and sanctions; Cooperative: voluntary guidance, cooperation between actors needed Integrated: with other policy topics in an integrated policy, sectorial: mineral resources Instrument/mechanism works on regional or provincial scale

stream of safeguarding, enters a broader arena at the provincial level. Different goals, political and stakeholder interests and needs from different policy streams compete at this level (e.g. mineral resources, agriculture, recreation, tourism, residential development, nature values) and are subject to sub-national discretion. The bargaining process illustrates which issues are of local priority, if they have a so called weak or a strong profile compared to other policy issues or local interests (Wu et al., 2018; Zuidema, 2016). Depending on a strong or weak profile, mineral resources are either pushed forward or back as a regional or provincial policy priority: “(…) Mineral extraction is not a regional development topic per se; it is an important to-do, to actually further housing and infrastructure development (…) for regions – saying we are a ‘mineral raw materials region’, nobody will do that – it’s not an asset (…) after 12 or 13 years in LUP and regional development practise, I have never heard a single statement on how important minerals safeguarding would be for a region.” (I8102:0108). Thus, the research confirms that safeguarding manifests in LUP policies and is part of the agenda setting on the provincial and regional level as part of subnational bargaining and socio-political processes. Nevertheless, though manifestations in LUP policy and agenda setting appear as important political and administrative practices, LUP legislation and instruments are needed (Kingdon, 1995) to enable safeguarding ‘on the ground’: “(…) in development plans, the mere mentioning of the “Austrian Raw Materials Plan’ made us rejoice – but you really have to do it in such a way that there is legal certainty and that the result somehow becomes legally relevant, otherwise you can forget it.” (I8102:0101). In the next sub-chapter, we discuss institutional

commodity price crises, and mineral raw materials were on the politicians’ minds; we missed the opportunity to make agreements in time. We considered the issue far too unimportant. (…) and we were discouraged when we experienced the first resistance for collaboration (…) but we have taken this first attempt for the whole federal territory – that there is no chance of success and we didn’t push further (…) we need the political covenant, without, it will not work. That was our biggest mistake. (...) it is important (…) that the discussions about technical implementation on civil servant level are complemented by political discussions.” (I0101:2018), and that the interface of politics and public administration might be contested: “(…) extraction of mineral resources is such a heated issue, that the provincial politicians do not want to be in the spotlight. (…) – from a political perspective (…) we more strongly involve the district administrations (…) since they are implementing authorities and not politicians, and they can achieve quite something.” (I8102:10206). The researched cases illustrate that agenda setting is contextual and subject to regional and provincial discretion, where bargaining and prioritisation between: (i) policy goals of national and provincial level (vertical/diagonal), and (ii) different policy goals and socio-political interests of different sectors (horizontal) occur (see Fig. 3): “(…) from a Mid-term implementation perspective (5–10 years) (…) developing mineral raw materials strategies for the regions of the province, with the objective of long-term raw material supply security. (…) the following can be seen: there are three categories: there are ‘ongoing activities’, some with high priority (3–5 years) (…) and there is a medium priority (5–10 years). Well, the aim is to get that on the agenda, but it was pushed back” (I9102:0069). The case illustrates that the national agenda, limited to a single policy

Fig. 1. Overview of mapped and analysed LUP policies and instruments and complemented expert interviews. 5

The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K. Gugerell, et al.

Fig. 2. Goals and objectives related to mineral resources in Austrian LUP policies and instruments.

zoned land-use (agriculture) safeguards future mineral extraction. Masked mechanisms were considered important at the time of launching the AMRP (2008) to avoid land speculation, which retrospectively is seen more critically: “That’s the way it is. At some point you must ‘confess’ and I don’t believe that our approach at the time, keeping everything under wraps (…) to avoid speculation. In land-use planning, at some point you must (...) publish the material (…) be transparent.” (I8102:0101). What we see is, that those scales are not operating in isolation, but that mechanisms from scale 1 and 2 are complementary: Combinations also include mechanisms combining active safeguarding with spatial organisation or safeguarding of other assets, such as biodiversity or valuable landscape types. The result is either limiting spatialised areas (conflict areas) or prohibiting them (prohibitive areas) (e.g. Styria, Upper Austria). Scale 3 shows the instruments based on the degree of spatialisation (x-axis) and the instruments’ mechanism (cooperation, coercion); this illustrates provinces using entirely coercive (Styria, Lower Austria) or only cooperative methods (Tyrol, Upper Austria). Cooperative instruments are informative and guiding and their effectiveness depends on cooperation and communication between involved actors, such as mining operators and public administration. Flexibility, limited administrative capacity and reducing administrative work are stressed as additional reasons for choosing cooperative formats, since they result in lower or no additional restraints and self-binding restrictions. While the data shows differences in governance instruments and their related mechanisms (coercive/cooperative), a direct relationship between governance mode, spatialisation and spatial scale or type of instrument (integrated/sectorial) cannot be identified.

mechanisms and instruments in LUP and how they are addressing safeguarding.

4.2. Examining policy instruments for minerals safeguarding in LUP We characterised LUP instruments implementing minerals safeguarding on provincial and regional level along three categorical scales (Fig. 4): (i) scale 1 shows if the instrument and/or mechanism targets either the protection of mineral deposits or prohibition of mineral activities, or combinations of both; (ii) scale 2 ranges from explicit (direct) to implicit (by-product, masked) mechanisms dealing with mineral resources in LUP instruments; and (iii) scale 3 illustrates the degree of spatialisation (ranging from spatialised to non-spatialised). Scale 1 shows the range of different operating principles of LUP, ranging from protection to prohibition and combinations thereof. Protective mechanisms either protect mineral deposits from usage or prevent or hamper future mineral extraction (e.g. Styria). Together with suitability zones, they indicate areas containing and protecting ‘mineral wealth’ for future generations. So called ‘negative-zoning’ marks the other end of the scale, indicating areas where mining is adversarial, restricted or prohibited. Safeguarding is not the main goal for applying such mechanisms, but rather the achievement of a spatial organisation that does not result in land-use conflicts. (e.g. Burgenland). Mechanisms that mainly target conflict free spatial arrangements, neglecting or ignoring safeguarding, are problematic regarding the constitutional obligation to provide a secure supply of domestic materials from a strategic, long-term perspective (Rechnungshof et al., 2017): “(…) they operate with a completely different designation system, and its supported by the local gravel industry. In the end they came to an agreement with the province (…) from my perspective, the ‘negative zoning’ does not contribute to long-term safeguarding of mineral deposits, simply because areas becoming scarcer and scarcer” (I8102:0101). Scale 2 sets the degree of spatialisation (x-axis) and whether the LUP instrument works explicitly or implicitly. The provinces indicate a preference for spatialised instruments combining sectoral and integrated instruments on different scales. Spatialised zoning types are priority zones and suitability zones; while the first ones directly implement safeguarding, the latter ones target spatial organisation, and, as a by-product, also indicate reasonable areas (e.g. geological quality) for safeguarding. Implicit or masked mechanisms of spatialised, indirect safeguarding is the application of zoning (priority zones) and land-use types that generally enjoy strict legal protection (forests) or where the

5. Discussion Europe’s rising demand for mineral raw materials requires approaches linking mineral policy to LUP policy, as well as developing instruments and approaches to improve the integration of both. However, such approaches are often characterised by divergent conceptual interpretations and limited uptake in public policy instruments in only a few EU MS. This article bridges the gap by examining the uptake of national minerals policy in provincial and regional LUP and their translation into LUP instruments. Referring to Lenschow (2002) and Watson et al. (2008) on the need that policies must be translated into local implementation, our research illustrated a diversity of (combined) LUP instruments and mechanisms on the provincial and 6

The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K. Gugerell, et al.

Fig. 3. Goals related to safeguarding; first cumulative for all provinces and for all nine provinces on provincial and regional level.

avoid or mitigate land-use conflicts. Whereas the former is quite prominently addressed in academic debates (e.g. Carvalho et al., 2019; Lopes et al., 2018; Wrighton et al., 2014), the latter approach is hardly encountered (Wagner et al., 2006). Only reports for practitioners (grey literature) describe spatial organisation as a goal in LUP instruments (Luodes and Arvidsson (2018): Greece, Norway). With respect to the uptake of safeguarding goals, we found that

regional level: safeguarding manifests in diverse ways on the level of policy content, goals and policy instruments. Furthermore, we have identified three main characteristics in political agenda setting. The identified goals illustrate the diverse picture of policy content on safeguarding in only one country, namely Austria. Goals are classified in two major strands: (i) safeguarding, avoiding sterilisation and protection of areas; and (ii) spatial organisation to 7

The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K. Gugerell, et al.

Fig. 4. Mapping of LUP instruments in Austrian provinces and classification along three scales.

criteria provides ample evidence of uptake and practice of safeguarding in Austria. Thus, our research contributes to the still narrow body of literature outlining the application of safeguarding in public policy. As compared to existing studies (e.g. CZ, Mining Code: Sivek et al. (2019); PT, Land use planning methodology for mineral resources: Carvalho et al. (2019); PL, Evaluation methodology for minerals resources: KotNiewiadomska et al. (2017)), we have identified strong (spatialised – coercive – explicit), mixed (non-/spatialised – cooperative – implicit/ explicit) and soft (non-spatialised – cooperative – implicit) types of safeguarding approaches in LUP policy. However, the selection and combination of instruments are influenced by institutional needs, conditions and local discretion, depending on whether mineral resources have a strong or a weak profile – thus a political priority - in public policy and in the attendant political discourse. Thus, there is no ‘onefits-all’ instrument: the selection of instruments requires taking into consideration governance processes and LUP practises. Opting for a soft safeguarding approach requires significant voluntary self-commitment of involved actors, but provides flexibility, accounts for limited administrative capacity, and provides space for regional discretion of policy goals and contextualised regional/provincial agenda setting. The outcome of soft approaches is related to the local policy arena and the capacities of involved actors (public administration, companies, civil society) and their ability to bargain and negotiate their interests within the overarching legal framework. Cooperative, non-binding instruments demand sufficient willingness and capacity (technical,

more recently developed LUP policies and instruments show stronger uptake than older or outdated ones. In this regard, our research indicates that agenda setting and the need to engage in the political discourse are important factors in establishing safeguarding goals in LUP policies and instruments. This was clearly not appropriately considered in the AMRP implementation process, where, on the national level, efforts and resources were directed towards its technical setup and data collection rather than integration on lower levels of governance. On this point, we concur with previous work on EPI studies (e.g. Niedertscheider et al., 2018; Steurer and Clar, 2015): Policy uptake and implementation is already challenging in federal systems, but even more challenging if diagonal uptake and implementation is necessary in systems in which responsibilities and tasks are dispersed among independent levels of government and administration. The claim for a stronger role in EU minerals policy making (Tiess, 2011, 2010; Vidovic and Solar, 2018) might be reasonable from an isolated, single top-down policy perspective, but needs a complementary LUP bottom-up perspective examining the ‘goodness of fit’ (Howlett et al., 2014) regarding policy content, goals, instruments and local capacities. However, the benefit in having regionally adapted and contextualised LUP instruments addressing safeguarding comes at the cost of increased efforts for integrated policy approaches (diagonal policy integration). The identification of policy instruments addressing safeguarding content (Fig. 2), the existence of four different goals (Fig. 4), and the classification of policy instruments according to the five analytical 8

The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K. Gugerell, et al.

Acknowledgements

managerial) of the responsible public servants to maintain a trajectory towards the policy objectives (Wu et al., 2015). However, other research shows that non-coercive approaches might limit local willingness to push the agenda, due to low capacity, political back-up and support or enforcement of power to implement an agenda (Wu et al., 2018). Opting for strong safeguarding approaches that protect outlined areas for future mineral extraction poses different challenges: the combination of spatialised polygons and coercive mechanisms are strongly prescriptive (i.e. prescribe the behaviour and possibilities of involved actors). Against this backdrop, strong coercive approaches provide less flexibility for ad-hoc decision making, adaption or changes, but the need to adhere to institutional procedures to implement changes provides more long-term and stable conditions for the private sector.

The authors would like to thank our interview partners for their input and collaboration and Mr. Eric Thomas Mulholland for English language proof reading. References AG Rohstoffe, 2019. Positionspapier: Es ist Zeit für ein sozial-ökologisches Upgrade der Rohstoffpolitik! (Positionspaper). AHWG, 2014. Recommendations on the Framework Conditions for the Extraction of NonEnergy Raw Materials in the European Union. Ad Hoc Working Group on exchange of best practices on minerals policy and legal framework, information framework, landuse planning and permitting. Albert, C., Galler, C., Hermes, J., Neuendorf, F., Von Haaren, C., Lovett, A., 2016. Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: the ES-in-planning framework. Ecol. Indic. 61, 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2015.03.029. Ali, S., Giurco, D., Arndt, N., Nickless, E., Brown, G., Demetriades, A., Durrheim, R., Eriquez, M.A., Kinnard, J., Littleboy, A., Meinert, L.D., Oberhänsli, R., Salem, J., Schodde, R., Schneider, G., Vidal, O., Yakovleva, N., 2017. Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance. Nature 543, 367–372. Ayambire, R.A., Amponsah, O., Peprah, C., Takyi, S.A., 2019. A review of practices for sustaining urban and peri-urban agriculture: implications for land use planning in rapidly urbanising Ghanaian cities. Land Use Policy 84, 260–277. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.004. Baker, D., Hendy, R., 2005. Planning for sustainable construction aggregate resources in Australia. In: Proc. Queensl. Univ. Technol. Res. Week Int. Conf. University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2009.04.032. Bax, V., Francesconi, W., Delgado, A., 2019. Land-use conflicts between biodiversity conservation and extractive industries in the Peruvian Andes. J. Environ. Manage. 232, 1028–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.016. Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Backstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M.M., Bulkeley, H., Cashore, B., Clapp, J., Folke, C., Gupta, A., Gupta, J., Haas, P.M., Jordan, A., Kanie, N., Kluvankova-Oravska, T., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Meadowcroft, J., Mitchell, R.B., Newell, P., Oberthur, S., Olsson, L., Pattberg, P., SanchezRodriguez, R., Schroeder, H., Underdal, A., Vieira, S.C., Vogel, C., Young, O.R., Brock, A., Zondervan, R., 2012. Navigating the anthropocene: improving earth system governance. Science 335, 1306–1307. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217255. BMNT, 2019. Rohstoffstrategie: Austrian Raw Materials Strategy (ARMS). BMNT. https://www.bmnt.gv.at/energie-bergbau/bergbau/Rohstoffstrategie.html. Boschet, C., Rambonilaza, T., 2015. Integrating water resource management and land-use planning at the rural–urban interface: insights from a political economy approach. Water Resour. Econ. 9, 45–59. Bringezu, S., Potočnik, J., Schandl, H., Lu, Y., Ramaswami, A., Swilling, M., Suh, S., 2016. Multi-scale governance of sustainable natural resource use—challenges and opportunities for monitoring and institutional development at the national and global level. Sustainability 8, 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080778. Carvalho, J., Arvidsson, R., Raaness, A., Dinis, P., Lisboa, V., Joao-Figuera, M., Schiellerup, H., 2019. Safeguarding Mineral Resources in Europe: Existing Practise and Possibilities. Clausen, S., Mcallister, M.L., 2001. An integrated approach to mineral policy. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 44, 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560120033722. Cooke, P., Asheim, B., Boschma, R., Martin, R., Schwartz, D., Tödtling, F., 2011. Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth. Edward Elgar Publishinghttps://doi. org/10.4337/9780857931504. de Groot, R., 2006d. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016. Dolowitz, D.P., Marsh, D., 2000. Learning from abroad: the role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance 13, 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/09521895.00121. Dooley, G., Leddin, A., 2005. Perspectives on mineral policy in Ireland. Resour. Policy 30, 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2005.08.005. Endl, A., 2017. Addressing “Wicked problems” through governance for sustainable development—a comparative analysis of national mineral policy approaches in the European Union. Sustainability 9, 1830. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101830. Endl, A., Gottenhuber, Sara, Berger, Gerald, 2018. Setting the Course for Effective Minerals Policy Governance. MIN-GUIDE Project Report (MIN-GUIDE Project Report). Vienna. . EUROMINES, 2011. Mineral Resources in Land Use Planning. European Commission, 2014. Evaluation and Exchange of Good Practice for the Sustainable Supply of Raw Materials within the EUANNEX A–GOOD Practice Cases. European Commission, 2013. Strategic Implementation Plan for the European Innovation Partnerships on Raw Materials [Part I]. Everingham, J.-A., Pattenden, C., Klimenko, V., Parmenter, J., 2013. Regulation of resource-based development: governance challenges and responses in mining regions of Australia. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 31, 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1068/ c10184. Faludi, A., 2013. Territorial cohesion, territorialism, territoriality, and Soft planning: a critical review. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space 45, 1302–1317. FAO, 2017. Land Resource Planning for Sustainable Land Management: Current and Emerging Needs in Land Resource Planning. Gałaś, S., 2017. Assessment of implementation of protection of mineral deposits in spatial planning in Poland. Land Use Policy 67, 584–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2017.06.029. Gläser, J., Laudel, G., 2010. In: Auflage (Ed.), Experteninterviews und qualitative

6. Conclusions The Austrian case on the implementation of a national mineral resources policy is one of the few examples among EU MS, in which safeguarding provides rich and ample experience on practical implementation. However, due to limited coordination, especially between the national and provincial levels, the uptake in provincial and regional LUP remains limited. The causal link as to whether safeguarding in LUP exists due AMS and AMRP is weak. Although the AMRP is often referred to as a best practice example and emulated ‘ingood-faith’ in several other EU MS, we call for caution: evaluation of the actual policy success (i.e. safeguarded areas for mineral extraction) would be a necessary next step in both research and policy practise. This could serve as valuable input for updating the AMS and AMRP to an ‘integrated national mineral resources strategy’. In addition, for updating the AMS, several NGOs claimed that societal values, such as ecological sustainability in the mining lifecycle, justice and transparency, are fundamental (AG Rohstoffe, 2019; Global2000, 2019). Integrating safeguarding minerals’ wealth for future generations as a societal value would benefit from knowledge on effective LUP policies and practises Although we stress the relevance of a political agenda setting for deploying LUP instruments, the role of politics (e.g. the role of political actors and negotiations) is usually underrepresented in research into minerals policy, where a large part of the discourse focuses on the effectiveness of instruments (the role of policy). Future research into the role of politics in minerals policy would contribute to an improved understanding about which, and why, some policy goals are included in the agenda and get a chance to manifest in actual policies for later implementation. Because of the limited academic discourse in the application of safeguarding in public policy, our paper contributes to: 1) a broader understanding on the concept’s application; 2) insights into its translation in practice in public policy tools (goals, processes and instruments in LUP and minerals policy); and 3) a foundation for future classification and analysis framework in other EU MS. The possible next steps in researching safeguarding, would be first, assessing the effectiveness of different safeguarding approaches (strong, mixed and soft) and whether they lead to the expected impacts (i.e. minerals deposits safeguarded as opposed to the avoidance of other land use) and secondly, further testing the conceptual model of safeguarding in comparative studies of different EU MS.

Funding This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme project MINLAND - Mineral Resources in Sustainable Land Use Planning (grant agreement number 776679) and the REMIX project - Smart and Green Mining Regions of EU(European Regional Development Fund: PGI02400). 9

The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K. Gugerell, et al.

Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen, 4. Lehrbuch. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden. Global2000, 2019. NGOs begrüßen Neuerarbeitung der österreichischen Rohstoffstrategie. Sozial und ökologisches Upgrade dringend nötig. OTS0227. Gosnell, H., Kline, J.D., Chrostek, G., Duncan, J., 2011. Is Oregon’s land use planning program conserving forest and farm land? A review of the evidence. Land Use Policy 28, 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.05.012. Grêt-Regamey, A., Altwegg, J., Sirén, E.A., van Strien, M.J., Weibel, B., 2017. Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning—a spatial decision support tool. Landsc. Urban Plan. 165, 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.003. Gustafsson, M.T., Scurrah, M., 2019. Strengthening subnational institutions for sustainable development in resource-rich states: decentralized land-use planning in Peru. World Dev. 119, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.03.002. Haikola, S., Anshelm, J., 2016. Mineral policy at a crossroads? Critical reflections on the challenges with expanding Sweden’s mining sector. Extr. Ind. Soc. 3, 508–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2016.01.008. Henckens, M.L.C.M., Biermann, F.H.B., Driessen, P.P.J., 2019. Mineral resources governance: a call for the establishment of an International Competence Center on Mineral Resources Management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 255–263. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.033. Henckens, M.L.C.M., van Ierland, E.C., Driessen, P.P.J., Worrell, E., 2016. Mineral resources: geological scarcity, market price trends, and future generations. Resour. Policy 49, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.04.012. Hilson, G., 2002. An overview of land use conflicts in mining communities. Land Use Policy 19, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00043-6. Holnsteiner, R., Reichl, C., Strobl, S., Wagner, S., 2015. Die Rolle Österreichs im Rohstoffbereich. ÖFSE (Hg.): Österreichische Entwicklungspolitik 2015. Howlett, M., 2009. Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: lessons from Canada. Can. Public Adm. 52, 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121. 2009.00070_1.x. Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., Rayner, J., 2014. The elements of effective program design: a two level analysis the elements of effective program design: a two-level analysis. Polit. Gov. 2, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v2i2.23. IRP, 2019. Mineral Resource Governance in the 21st Century: gearing extractive industries towards sustainable development. In: Ayuk, E.T., Pedro, A.M., Ekins, P., Gatune, J., Milligan, B., Oberle, B., Christmann, P., Ali, S., Kumar, S.V., Bringezu, S., Acquatella, J., Bernaudat, L., Bodouroglou, C., Brooks, S., Burgii Bonanomi, E., Clement, J., Collins, N., Davis, K., Davy, A., Dawkins, K., Dom, A., Eslamishoar, F., Franks, D., Hamor, T., Jensen, D., Lahiri-Dutt, K., Petersen, I., Sanders, A.R.D. (Eds.), A Report by the International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. Joly, T.L., Longley, H., Wells, C., Gerbrandt, J., 2018. Ethnographic refusal in traditional land use mapping: consultation, impact assessment, and sovereignty in the Athabasca oil sands region. Extr. Ind. Soc. 5, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.03. 002. Jordan, A., Lenschow, A., 2010. Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environ. Policy Gov. 20, 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.539. Kingdon, J.W., 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed ed. Longman, New York. Kot-Niewiadomska, A., Galos, K., Lewicka, E., Burkowicz, A., Kamyk, J., Szlugaj, J., 2017. Methodology of assignment of Mineral Deposits of Public Importance proposed by MINATURA2020 Project and results of its pilot testing in the Dolnośląskie Province (SW Poland). Gospod. Surowcami Miner. 33, 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1515/gospo2017-0040. Lechner, A., McIntyre, N., Witt, K., Raymond, C.M., Arnold, S., Scott, M., Rifkin, W., 2017. Challenges of integrated modelling in mining regions to address social, environmental and economic impacts. Environ. Model. Softw. 93, 268–281. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/j.envsoft.2017.03.020. Lenschow, A., 2002. New regulatory approaches in ‘Greening’ EU policies. Eur. Law J. 8, 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0386.00140. Lopes, C., Lisboa, V., Carvalho, J., Mateus, A., Martins, L., 2018. Challenges to access and safeguard mineral resources for society: a case study of kaolin in Portugal. Land Use Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.035. Luodes, N.M., Arvidsson, R., 2018. MinLand: Mineral Resources in Sustainable Land-Use Planning, Deliverable D3.2 Case Studies Summary. Mäntysalo, R., Bäcklund, P., 2018. The governance of planning. In: Gunder, M., Madanipour, A., Watson, V. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory. Routledge,Taylor & Francis Group, New York, pp. 237–249. Mayring, P., 2015. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, 12., überarbeitete Auflage. ed. Beltz Verlag, Weinheim Basel. McEvoy, F.M., Cowley, J., Hobden, K., Bee, E., Hannis, S., 2007. A Guide to Mineral Safeguarding in England. British Geological Survey Open Report (OR/07/035). . Mishra, S.K., Mishra, P., 2017. Do adverse ecological consequences cause resistance against land acquisition? The experience of mining regions in Odisha, India. Extr. Ind. Soc. 4, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2016.11.004. Mitchell, D., Buxton, M., Budge, T., 2004. Assessing the role of land use planning in natural resource management assessing the role of land use planning in natural resource management. Sustain. Dev. 1–15. Mitchell, J., 2016. Pulling the rug out from under: the land tenure dynamics of mining concessions in sub-Saharan Africa. Extr. Ind. Soc. 3, 1117–1129. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.exis.2016.10.003. Nieć, M., Galos, K., Szama\lek, K., 2014. Main challenges of mineral resources policy of Poland. Resour Policy 42, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.10.010. Niedertscheider, M., Haas, W., Görg, C., 2018. Austrian climate policies and GHG-emissions since 1990: what is the role of climate policy integration? Environ. Sci. Policy

81, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.007. Pendock, M.J., 1984. Sterilisation and safeguarding of mineral deposits in Britain. Miner. Environ. 6, 23–41. Plummer, R., De Grosbois, D., De Loë, R., Velaniškis, J., 2011. Probing the integration of land use and watershed planning in a shifting governance regime. Water Resour. Res. 47, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010213. Radwanek-Bąk, B., Nieć, M., 2015. Valorization of undeveloped industrial rock deposits in Poland. Resour. Policy 45, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2015.07. 001. Rayner, J., Howlett, M., Wellstead, A., 2017. Policy Mixes and their Alignment over Time: patching and stretching in the oil sands reclamation regime in Alberta, Canada. Environ. Policy Govern. 483, 472–483. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1773. Rechnungshof, 2017. Bericht des Rechnungshofes Sicherung von Rohstofflagerstätten in den Ländern. Rechnungshof - Court of Auditors, Vienna. Roche, C., Sindana, H., Walim, N., 2019. Extractive Dispossession: “I am not happy our land will go, we will have no better life”. Extr. Ind. Soc. 6, 977–992. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.exis.2019.05.006. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472. Roth, B.J., Howie, R.A., 2015. Land-use planning and natural resource rights: the alberta land stewardship act. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 29, 471–498. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02646811.2011.11435276. Schneider, A., Ingram, H., 1993. Social construction of target populations: implications for politics and policy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 87, 334–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2939044. Sivek, M., Kavina, P., Jirásek, J., 2019. New mineral policy of the Czech Republic of June 2017. Resour. Policy 60, 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.01. 003. Söderholm, K., Söderholm, P., Helenius, H., Pettersson, M., Viklund, R., Masloboev, V., Mingaleva, T., Petrov, V., 2015. Environmental regulation and competitiveness in the mining industry: permitting processes with special focus on Finland, Sweden and Russia. Resour. Policy 43, 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.11. 008. Stephenson, P., 2013. Twenty years of multi-level governance: ‘Where does it come from? What is it? where is it going?’. J. Eur. Public Policy 20, 817–837. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13501763.2013.781818. Steurer, R., Clar, C., 2015. Is decentralisation always good for climate change mitigation? How federalism has complicated the greening of building policies in Austria. Policy Sci. 48, 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9206-5. Tassinari, P., Torreggiani, D., Benni, S., 2013. Dealing with agriculture, environment and landscape in spatial planning: a discussion about the Italian case study. Land Use Policy 30, 739–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.014. Tiess, G., 2011. General and International Mineral Policy. Springer Vienna, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-89005-9. Tiess, G., 2010. Minerals policy in Europe: some recent developments. Resour. Policy 35, 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2010.05.005. Tost, M., Hitch, M., Chandurkar, V., Moser, P., Feiel, S., 2018. The state of environmental sustainability considerations in mining. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 969–977. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.051. Ustaoglu, E., Batista e Silva, F., Lavalle, C., 2018. Quantifying and modelling industrial and commercial land-use demand in France. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10668-018-0199-7. Vanthillo, T., Verhetsel, A., 2012. Paradigm change in regional policy: towards smart specialisation? Lessons from Flanders (Belgium). Belgeo. https://doi.org/10.4000/ belgeo.7083. Vidovic, J., Solar, S., 2018. Recent developments in Raw Materials Policy in the European Union: perspective of EuroGeoSurveys as a data supplier. Biul Państw. Inst. Geol. 472, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0012.6902. Wagner, H., Tiess, G., Solar, S., Nielsen, K., 2006. Minerals planning policy in Europe. RMZ - Mater. Geoenviron. 52, 607–620. Watson, M., Bulkeley, H., Hudson, R., 2008. Unpicking environmental policy integration with tales from waste management. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 26, 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0510j. Weber, L., Holnsteiner, R., Reichl, C., 2008. Der Österreichische Rohstoffplan The Austrian Mineral Resources Plan. Joannea Geol Paläont 10, 79–84. Wrighton, C.E., Bee, E.J., Mankelow, J.M., 2014. The development and implementation of mineral safeguarding policies at national and local levels in the United Kingdom. Resour. Policy 41, 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.05.006. Wu, J., Zuidema, C., Gugerell, K., 2018. Experimenting with decentralized energy governance in China: the case of New Energy Demonstration City program. J. Clean. Prod. 189, 830–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.123. Wu, X., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., 2015. Policy capacity: a conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities ScienceDirect Policy capacity: a conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy Soc. 34, 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.001. Zuidema, C., 2016. Post-contingency: Making Sense of Decentralization in Environmental Governance, New Directions in Planning Theory. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0699:FIN:en:PDF. 2008. (Accessed 18 July 2019).

10