Social license is being touted as the quid pro quo for a number of contentious mining projects, but it remains far from clear what ‘social license’ actually consists of and who decides when it is achieved. The shape of policy in relation to the various mining projects where conflict has raged for years is yet to be properly formulated.

Two of the most contentious mining projects where community opposition has halted development are Tía María in Arequipa region and Conga in Cajamarca. On both of these, the newly appointed minister of energy and mines, Minister, Miguel Incháustegui, reiterated on 19 August to the congressional commission dealing with extractive industries that the government would only go ahead with the projects if and when ‘social acceptance’ is secured.

Both conflicts date from 2011, and over time new issues and resentments have accrued. Both conflicts concern water use, with associated issues of pollution, and in the case of Conga, land acquisition. The company promoting Conga is 43% owned by the Peruvian company Buenaventura, the US company Newmont being the majority shareholder. Tía María is owned by Southern Peru Copper, a subsidiary of Grupo México.

Inchástegui made clear that the technical permits were ready but would not be activated without consensus among the local population. The need for a social licence has been part of official policy for the last few years, but what it actually consists of remains vague. As a concept it lacks legal force, even if it has considerable ethical and political weight.

Last year’s clashes over Tía María led to the government restating its commitment to consensus, but this was cast into doubt during Pedro Cateriano’s brief period as president of the Council of Ministers. So, it is not without importance that the current minister is committing himself to the principle of social license.

However, achieving such a consensus and resolving nine years of conflict, including legal wrangles in court and episodes of serious violence, looks like a big task. It would require strong leadership and sensitive consultation on the ground, as well as a willingness to enhance the benefits that local people receive from mining development. Even if he sticks to his guns, will Incháustegui’s successors as minister feel bound by his assurances?