Let us assume that the direct community investment (CI) by the Group mostly benefits the local level. Figure two shows that CI was over US$70m during 2003, up from nearly US$48m in the previous year. While exchange rate movements and some methodological refinement explain part of the increase, a significant proportion of this represents a real boost in expenditure.

Figure three summarizes the rationale introduced above for the year 2003. Out of a total direct contribution to the economy of US$11.7bn, over US$5bn can be assumed to be impacting directly at the regional level of the operations; and nearly US$3bn seems to be injected into the vicinities of the mines. US$70m is contributed exclusively to communities, in the form of direct expenditure.

In short: the total economic contribution of mining at the local level is far larger than that encapsulated under CI. While CI is often the foremost focus of critics and advocates of mining at the local level, it represents just above two per cent of the estimates - probably underestimated - for full local contributions.

This conclusion is not to undervalue the significance of direct investment in the communities. On the contrary, it suggests that the greatest direct contribution to advancing local economic development is through maximizing the overall economic impact from mining, including CI. It also points out the importance of further aligning the drives of CI with those of basic business activities, and the need for treating the former with the rigour credited to the latter.

And yet, while we refer to these elements as unidirectional contributions flowing from the mine, the mid and long term impact on the beneficiaries has been much less explored.