204
assisting communities to meet their wellbeing needs as well as assisting them to
evolve and improve their living conditions. However, the mining industry’s narrow
understanding of the potential of entrepreneurship for improved community wellbeing diminishes the possibilities of achieving locally relevant development: “We do
not implement capacity-building initiatives different from mining because we do
not have direct relationship with other sectors … we think that tourism or agriculture are sectors in which we do not fit. For this reason we focus on education for
mining” (Table 13.2, Row, 3) (Senior Corporate Representative). Thus, this narrow
understanding appears to be strong at the corporate level. However, in an interview
with a miner and former educator, he strongly criticised the existing system and
expressed his concern regarding community sustainability: “communities in the
region find it very difficult to become self-sustainable. I am a miner but I do not
think mining can be a driver for development” (Community leader, Interview,
February, 2014). Another community member commented: “I think in the coming
years this town will disappear” (Table 13.2, Row 1).
Despite the large number of programmes in place, most of them target employed
miners, and only a few involve the broader community. This is a third factor that
leads to the irrelevance of many approaches to community wellbeing in Antioquia.
“A domestic mining company operating in the region is currently building capacity
Key Features:
-Multidimensional wellbeing goals
-Local entrepreneurship based on wellbeing deficiencies
-Community-level governance of wellbeing strategy
Limitations:
-requires high community motivation
-requires 'soft' infrastructure in
community
-requires community leadership
Benefits:
-local empowerment of destiny
-resilience through variety
-balanced community development
-reduced negative externalities
Fig. 13.2 Entrepreneurship for community wellbeing
I. B. Franco and L. Newey
assisting communities to meet their wellbeing needs as well as assisting them to
evolve and improve their living conditions. However, the mining industry’s narrow
understanding of the potential of entrepreneurship for improved community wellbeing diminishes the possibilities of achieving locally relevant development: “We do
not implement capacity-building initiatives different from mining because we do
not have direct relationship with other sectors … we think that tourism or agriculture are sectors in which we do not fit. For this reason we focus on education for
mining” (Table 13.2, Row, 3) (Senior Corporate Representative). Thus, this narrow
understanding appears to be strong at the corporate level. However, in an interview
with a miner and former educator, he strongly criticised the existing system and
expressed his concern regarding community sustainability: “communities in the
region find it very difficult to become self-sustainable. I am a miner but I do not
think mining can be a driver for development” (Community leader, Interview,
February, 2014). Another community member commented: “I think in the coming
years this town will disappear” (Table 13.2, Row 1).
Despite the large number of programmes in place, most of them target employed
miners, and only a few involve the broader community. This is a third factor that
leads to the irrelevance of many approaches to community wellbeing in Antioquia.
“A domestic mining company operating in the region is currently building capacity
Key Features:
-Multidimensional wellbeing goals
-Local entrepreneurship based on wellbeing deficiencies
-Community-level governance of wellbeing strategy
Limitations:
-requires high community motivation
-requires 'soft' infrastructure in
community
-requires community leadership
Benefits:
-local empowerment of destiny
-resilience through variety
-balanced community development
-reduced negative externalities
Fig. 13.2 Entrepreneurship for community wellbeing
I. B. Franco and L. Newey