In 2005 the IAEA organised a symposium on uranium production and raw materials for the nuclear fuel cycle. Several participants stated that a perceived increase in public acceptance for nuclear energy production at the time was not met by an increase in public acceptance for uranium mining (IAEA, 2006). By way of explanation, the finger is most often pointed at legacy issues:

legacy issues arising as a consequence of earlier environmental standards that fell well short of responsible industry practice at the time still impact perceptions of the current uranium mining and processing industry. While good progress has been made in some states, problems requiring attention still need to be resolved in several states to create broader confidence in governance and its acceptance of social responsibilities. (IAEA, 2009: 2)

In a 2009 IAEA study considering sustainable uranium mining and processing, both positive and negative economic and social impacts are recognised. Among the most important potential negative effects it counts (IAEA, 2009):

• contamination of the environment (particularly linked to mismanagement)

• displacement or disruption of community institutions and relations

• loss of land and access to natural resources for indigenous communities.

With regard to the issue of community disruption, the report particularly refers to the significant impact of migration into the area and the potential social conflict this brings (Idem, 2009). To counter the negative impact on local communities and the environment, it has become standard practice for the bigger mining companies to engage local communities and landholders from the outset in their plans in a process of environmental and social impact assessment. If taken seriously, this also means investments to enable the communities to participate effectively:

If mining operations are to help communities work towards sustainable development, communities need to be able to participate effectively in decision making processes for establishing mining and milling operations. Enabling communities to effectively participate in the decision making process will generally require a comprehensive communications and education strategy in order to provide participants with sufficient understanding of the issues in order to be able to make informed decisions. (Idem, 2009: 25)

Next to environment and health issues, the IAEA report considers the design of infrastructure to the mutual benefit of the mining operation and the local community, as an important element of an acceptable and sustainable mining development (IAEA 2009: 25). Another proven method to create positive relationships between the host community and the mining company is the engagement of local people in environmental monitoring activity around the site. This has for example been the case in Canada, in the region of Saskatchewan and for a clean-up project of uranium milling wastes in the Port Hope/Clarington area of Ontario (NEA, 2003).

Although major uranium producers Canada and Australia are noted for their long-term stability and good governance (Kovacs and Gordelier, 2009: 4), a problem remains in developing countries, which often do not have regulations covering the social and environmental impact of uranium production. Therefore, the IAEA stresses the importance of providing assistance to these countries to help them develop the necessary tools, and concludes that ‘companies must obtain a ‘social licence’ based on consultation and participation between primary stakeholders’ (IAEA, 2009: 2).