The Energy Landscape versus the Farming Landscape: The Immortal Era of Coal?

Abstract

This article explores the land use conflict. Coal exploitation precludes agricultural production and, as a result, mining-energy projects come across NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition from the farming community. An investigation was carried out in two rural communes: Krobia and Miejska Górka in the Wielkopolska Region in Poland. The aim was to obtain an answer to the following questions: (1) if acting in the name of energy security, should we accept the state government interest and start exploitation of the lignite resource? (2) If acting in the name of landowners’ rights, should we accept the local community interest and maintain the current farming production? and (3) is it possible to reconcile the interests of the conflict beneficiaries? The following qualitative methods were used: keyword and content analysis of word data, such as scientific papers, legal documents, and parliamentary questions (PQs), while the discourse analysis was focused on the policy and procedural conflicts. In the results section, possible solutions for heading off the conflict are presented. The results contribute to an integrated understanding of conflicts over mining and farming land use.

1. Introduction

1.1. Introduction to Conflicts over Mining and Farming Land Use

The European Union is a global leader in promoting environmentally friendly energy policy; however, certain countries still rely on fossil fuels [1]. For instance, Poland remains highly dependent on conventional energy sources and, similarly to Germany and the Czech Republic [2], is one of the leading producers of coal-based energy. In Poland, lignite (brown coal), with an annual electricity production exceeding 9000 MW, delivers ca. 25% of the power capacity installed in all power plants in the country [3]. The exploitation of lignite deposits is estimated at ca. 65 million Mg per year until 2030. Aspects of the state energy strategy [4] render lignite a fuel of strategic importance due to its rich coal resources, low cost of mining, security of fuel supply, and stable prices. Though the state government in Poland has stated that it will close down mines from depleted deposits, at the same time, new ones are going to be opened.

Opencast mining (commonly practised in lignite excavation) meets with growing NIMBY opposition [5] due to (farm) land deprivation, forced displacement, unemployment, and social and environmental injustice [6]. In addition, large-size opencast lignite mining contributes to land use conflicts that are posited to derive from differences in landscape values and land use preferences [7]. Additionally, the greater the local community attachment to place, the greater the opposition against mining projects [8].

1.2. Conflict over Mining and Farming Land Use—The Literature Overview

Land use conflicts occur between two or several parties when one land user is perceived to infringe upon the rights, values, or amenity of another land user, and when one party attempts to derive personal gain at the other parties’ expense without their approval [9]. Land use conflicts indirectly result in disagreements over the distribution of certain material or symbolic elements related to the control of, usage of and access to natural resources [10]. Land use conflicts are caused by social factors [11,12], economic interests [13], and dissatisfaction with actions undertaken or planned by private institutions or public authorities [14]. In any conflict, one side will have a feeling of being defeated [15]. This is due to being ignorant of the value systems of defeated actors: an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours [16].

Perhaps no single industry has precipitated more disputes over land use than mining [17,18]. Mining activity changes entire landscapes [19,20], produces temporary land use (which usually transforms farming to mining land use), and finally creates post-mining landscapes [21]. Opencast coal mining, compared with underground coal mining, has a greater scale and degree of landscape degradation [18]. It also contributes to severe land use changes [22,23,24]. Arable land, forests, built-up areas, infrastructure, and supply networks are replaced with large pits, heaps, and landfill sites, which appear at mining areas. Further, while restoration and reclamation methods of post-mining sites have recently been improved, surface lignite mining remains a very controversial land use [25].

Overall, mining conflicts are determined by environmental injustice and externalities [26], by economic and procedural unfairness, and by social injustice [27,28]. Opencast lignite mining projects cause problems with social acceptance [29], as mining has an impact on collective and individual well-being [30,31,32], including the physical and mental health of affected communities [33,34]. In addition, large-scale opencast mining triggers conflicts because of enforced displacement, land dispossession and patrimony deprivation [35], food insecurity [6], loss of (current) livelihood, and higher costs of living [18]. Most of all, however, opencast lignite mining is in contradiction to the existing use of natural resources and land ownership [20].

As the research shows, it is not easy to gain social acceptance for mining projects as the economic justification for mineral extraction often given at the national level is not always sufficient to convince local communities [25]. Studies have proved that to obtain a social licence for mining, it is necessary to have the following: company–community dialogue, procedural fairness around mining and trust in mining [28], and open dialogues and interactions with different social groups [28,36,37]. Other research showed that procedural fairness (a company’s honesty, honouring its promises, listening, and responding to the population’s demands) had the highest positive long-term effect on trust [38]. Thus, for the mining entrepreneur, building trust is very important [27]. In particular, it is crucial to involve the community in this process by listening and responding to people’s demands and needs, keeping promises, engaging in mutual dialogue, and considering people as a relevant part of the collaborative process [39]. Finally, the key to acceptance lies in an understanding of how the local community perceives the role of mining in its region. Nonetheless, the results of the investigations cited here prove that, although agreement is not easy to achieve, it is possible to work out a mutually accepted compromise.

Most mines are situated within rural areas and, considering this, the polarized interests of farming and mining means that farmers (landowners) and mining entrepreneurs will inevitably end up in conflict situations. For this reason, it needs to be explained that for farmers, farmland plays a fundamental role in creating and consolidating the sense of place and place identity [40,41,42]. Attachment to farmland is fostered over time due to several reasons. Farmers spend their whole life in one place (a village) [43,44,45]. For farmers, a family farm is their everyday workplace [46,47]. Farmers are rooted to their farmland via family relationships and dependence on patrimony [48]. Farmland, as land ownership, creates a sense of continuity—it has been passed down through the family for generations [49,50]. Farmland is a reason for pride—farmland can serve as the basis of inheritance for potential heirs [51]. By this, farmland is not only economically valuable; farmland also becomes a means for conveying intangible values [52]. In other words, the relationship of farmers with farmland is based on emotional individual experiences and symbolic meaning, which refers to an unselfconscious bond to a place that is taken for granted [53].

All this means that farmers faced with enforced displacement (inherent in opencast mining) relate reluctantly to resettlement and the loss of patrimony. Emotional bonds that root farmers to patrimony are important not only in decision-making about farmland management [54,55]. Emotional attachment to patrimony supports farmers’ place protection behaviours against place disruption and loss of the farmland [56,57,58,59,60,61]. This explains why farmers can have such a strong reaction to a new opencast mine project. For instance, if a mining project is successful, farmers are forced to resettle. In a case like this, the financial compensation and social support provided is insufficient and very rarely makes up for the loss of family heritage.

1.3. Contribution to Conflicts over Mining and Farming Land Use

The relationships between mining and farming and conflict situations have been illustrated in several works, for example, [1,33,62,63]. Still, however, this relationship between farmers’ attachment to their farmland and new mining projects has not been sufficiently recognised. Thus, my intention is to contribute to the literature on conflicts over farming and mining land use. In particular, the novelty of this paper is its analysis of how the discourse takes place between the state government and the local farming community and local/regional authorities.

In addition to this, while many efforts have been made to explain land use conflicts, and researchers have examined various aspects of conflicts, such as concepts, causes, types, and implications, as well as methods for evaluation and management, there is still a gap in the integrated understanding of conflicts over mining and farming land use. In order to undertake an empirical analysis of a conflict situation, I focused on the Oczkowice case study.

The Oczkowice lignite resource, located in the Wielkopolska Region, is a lucrative target of the mining industry in Poland. Its geological resources are estimated at 966 million Mg, while the operational resources at approximately 785.0 million Mg. Bearing in mind the annual coal extraction at the level of ca. 18.0 million Mg, a power plant would deliver up to 3000 MW [3]. This rich coal deposit is a potential future mining project. The planned opencast mine and energy power station are going to be located in a traditionally farming-oriented region. This is the reason why the mining project is the subject of much controversy among the local community that is highly attached to patrimony (farmland). To be more precise, this land use conflict results from different preferences for resource utilization: soil (for food production) and lignite coal (for energy supply). The analysed region stands out for having the richest soil resources in the country, and farming production significantly contributes to the supra-regional economy. At the same time, the analysed region stands out for having one of the richest domestic lignite deposits; it is estimated that its energy power would meet supra-regional demand.

The aim was to obtain an answer to the following questions: (1) if acting in the name of energy security, should we accept the state government interest and start exploitation of the lignite resource? (2) If acting in the name of landowners’ rights, should we accept the local community interest and maintain the current farming production? and (3) is it possible to reconcile the interests of the conflict beneficiaries?

2. The Methodological Context of Analysis

2.1. How the Methodological Framework Was Developed

The investigation over farming and mining land use conflict started from the following assumptions: (1) mining is always spatially limited to the geological location of natural resources, which as a rule, is in conflict with current land use; and (2) most lignite mines are situated within rural areas, which usually conflicts with farming activity. Consequently, regions of the extraction of lignite coal are sites of immense contestation over value and place attachment [64].

The analysed land use conflict is specified as follows: two different natural resources overlap in the same space (soil and lignite coal), and at the same time, two different public necessities and interests in resource utilisation contradict each other. On the one hand, the analysed region stands out as having the richest soil resources in the country, and farming production significantly contributes to the supra-regional market-oriented economy. On the other hand, the analysed region stands out as having the richest domestic lignite deposits; it is estimated that energy power would maintain supra-regional demand. The planned location of the opencast mine and energy power station in a traditionally farming-oriented region is the subject of much controversy among a local community that is highly attached to patrimony (farmland).

The analysed conflict involves many actors. There are local, supra-local, and province authorities, businesses, entrepreneurs, and farmers on the one hand. The local non-farming residents of the affected community, however, do not speak with a common voice. There are those who are against and those who are in favour of the mining investment. The local community is conflicted, but still, most of them support the non-mining opinion. The opposing side of the conflict is represented by the state government and the potential mining investor, both interested in the lignite coal project.

2.2. How the Conflict over Farming and Mining Land Use Was Analysed

This paper explores conflict over farming and mining land use as a function of unequal access to natural resources. To meet this aim, the following specific questions were pursued: (1) if acting in the name of energy security, should we accept the state government interest and start exploitation of the lignite resource? (2) If acting in the name of landowners’ rights, should we accept the local community interest and maintain the current farming production? and (3) is it possible to reconcile the interests of the conflict beneficiaries? The analysis explores procedural and policy contexts, as well as social and environmental issues (Figure 1).

The following qualitative methods were used: keyword and content analysis of word data, such as scientific papers, legal documents, and parliamentary questions (PQs), while the discourse analysis was focused on the policy and procedural conflicts. In the results section, the conflict over legal procedures relates to the licence for the investigation of the Oczkowice lignite deposit, the licence to mine the deposit, environmental hazards and social injustice, and spatial planning and regional development under farming-mining interests. These issues were selected due to the frequency with which they appear in the media discourse.

The analysed conflict involved many actors. For the sake of simplicity, this paper presents the arguments of the opposing sides of the conflict: the local community and authorities versus the state government and mining entrepreneur. The ‘sociological’ arguments were confronted with ‘scientific’ and ‘legal’ arguments, which by nature are more objective. The purpose of the directed content analysis of documents (such as reports targeting the farming sector and concerning the mining condition in the study area, as well as different variables describing the profile of the territory from the point of view of the social dimensions, of environmental issues, and of the economic dynamics) was a comprehensive and systematic review of selected sources in order to explain the conflict situation.

The information and data gathered from scientific research and expertise concerned issues on the economic and ecological consequences of lignite mining. The analysis of these documents was aimed at finding arguments for and against the construction of the mine. Legal documentation (acts and regulations) served as the basis for the procedural and policy context: property rights versus exploration and exploitation of mineral resources, and the results of environmental and social impact assessment. In addition, the collected data provided information about the different administrative decisions that are liable to give rise to opposition (e.g., the concession to the investigation of the lignite deposit). The commitment in the conflict was also manifested in less institutional ways, such as parliamentary questions (PQs) that concerned questions about what the state government position to the analysed lignite deposit is.

2.3. Case Study

During the 1970s, mineral exploration was carried out within the tectonic formation in the Poznań Rift Valley. Rich lignite deposits were discovered and highly recommended by the central authorities for a potential coal basin and energy purposes [65,66]. However, before taking appropriate steps, the province authorities (in cooperation with regional governments) outsourced a comprehensive analysis. In 1978, an interdisciplinary council of experts (established among the researchers of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Poznań) expressed their scientific opinion on a potential mining-energy project. The elaborated document, ‘Natural, social and economic consequences of potential exploitation of lignite deposits in the region of Mosina-Czempiń-Gostyń’, presents the environmental and social hazards as well as the economic losses that would result from lignite exploitation in the Poznań Rift Valley [67].

From the beginning of the next decade, the potential mining operation met with strong opposition from local residents, farm owners, and enterprises, as well as academics and journalists. Additionally, the administrative and political province authorities concurred with the social anti-mining movement, when in 1989, they accepted the environmental protection program, stated as follows: “The Provincial Council recognises the project of the Poznań Rift Valley for energy purposes as being contrary to social and economic interests, and considers this issue to be finally resolved” [67]. Relevant resolutions were also established by supra-local governments. This decision was upheld when adopting further spatial development plans for the Wielkopolskie Province for the years 2001–2010. However, the authorities’ definitive stand on mining investment could result from the fact that in the 1980s, sufficient energy security was fully guaranteed by other domestic lignite deposits. Only over the last decade, when it turned out that the current resources of lignite deposits are becoming depleted, has the matter of the coal deposits of the Poznań Rift Valley re-entered the conversation.

One of the lignite resources located in the Poznań Rift Valley is the Oczkowice deposit. This coal deposit is situated within the borders of two rural communes: Krobia and Miejska Górka (the Wielkopolska Region, Poland) (Figure 2). The Krobia commune is inhabited by just over 13,000 residents, including 8900 rural dwellers, and covers 129.59 km². Agricultural land occupies 87% of the total area of the commune (11,274 ha). The number of agricultural farms is 1189, in which 11.3% are made up of large-size holdings that exceed 15 hectares. As for the Miejska Górka commune, the number of inhabitants is ca. 9500, of which 6200 are rural dwellers. The total area is 103.62 km², of which 88% covers agricultural land (9119 ha). The number of agricultural farms is 916. In both communes, good quality soil predominates, consisting of soils in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th classes [68]. The unemployment rate is low and fluctuates around 4.1% [69]. It is estimated that mining activity would have an influence on the degradation of ca. 90 km² of farmland [70], including agricultural and grasslands (approximately 90% of the total surface), woodlands (5%), and residential areas (10%).

It should be mentioned that the Biskupian ethnic group has its roots in the Krobia commune. Over the years, the local community, which was isolated from other surrounding regions, was able to create a sense of place and local patriotism. Enfranchisement of the peasants was carried out relatively quickly here, and under more favourable conditions than in other regions (land allocations were much greater here than anywhere else). This allowed the creation of a rich folk culture and a strong place attachment that distinguishes Biskupizna from other regions [52].

3. Facts and Findings

3.1. The Licence for Deposit Exploration and Investigation

The geological documentation for the Oczkowice deposit, based on resource investigation conducted in the 1970s, was approved by the Minister of the Environment (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) on 21 February 2011 (file ref. DgiKGkzk-4741-16/7954/7850/10/AW). On 11 May 2011, the Minister guaranteed to the PAK Górnictwo Sp. z o.o. (the leading coal company in the country) the licence for deposit exploration and investigation (10/2011, amended by the Minister’s decision of 27 September 2011, file ref. DGiKGe-4770-141/43763/11/BG). Whereas on 17 December 2014, the Minister accepted the Supplement No. 1 to the geological documentation of the Oczkowice lignite deposit, which was compiled on the updated geological appraisal.

The licence for deposit exploration and investigation aimed to assess the amount of the Oczkowice lignite deposit via geological investigation. According to the rules, boreholes should be made only with the landowners’ permission. Originally, the licence expected 391 boreholes to be performed. Nevertheless, following the appeals of the landowners, the Minister revoked the licence to 52 boreholes. However, eventually, due to the farmers’ protests and lack of access to the land, only 137 boreholes were carried out [71]. This geological investigation served to elaborate Supplement No. 1. The authorisation of this document, however, found the public outraged and became a matter under discussion. Local and regional authorities, the affected community, and the scientific arena all made an attempt to contest the licence and the results of the geological investigation itself. The opponents of the mining sought support from MPs via parliamentary questions (PQs) to prove how the state government’s decision was detrimental for the local community and the region as well. In addition, they took steps to ensure government assurance that the opencast mine will not be opened.

The local authorities demanded that Supplement No. 1 be revoked due to concerns that this would make it easier to obtain a mining licence. The following arguments justified this position: (1) a cursory geological survey is insufficient to compile such an important document (only half of the planned boreholes were carried out), and (2) the lignite deposit was overestimated (according to the Supplement, the deposit reaches almost one billion tons, whereas previous data suggested a much smaller amount). These crucial issues were raised in PQs. The government’s position in this case is summarised in the following discourse.

The Minister assured the legal correctness of Supplement No. 1 [71]. As he explained, the geological documentation of a mineral deposit defined the deposit’s boundaries, the amount of resources, the geological conditions, and the possibility of mining. Supplement No. 1 met all the requirements, and therefore there was no reason to question it [72].

As for the manner in which the lignite deposit was calculated, the Minister explained: “The fact that the mining entrepreneur made a smaller number of boreholes than provided in the licence meant that the resource’s category was lower than initially assumed. Consequently, the deposit was partly documented in the C1 category and partly in the C2 category. Therefore, the lower than intentional number of performed boreholes only makes the deposit less recognisable. However, the resources are not overestimated or calculated using inaccurate data as the geological investigation eventually covered a much larger area than was originally planned” [71]. As for the latter, the current geological recognition was enriched by 20 archival boreholes (made in the 1970s) purchased by the entrepreneur from the State Treasury. The Minister emphasised: “There is no evidence of any distortion of the geological investigation” [73].

At the same time, self-government authorities appealed the Minister’s decision about granting the licence for deposit exploration and investigation to the administrative court. Alas, it was to no avail. The Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw decided that the licence was definitive (of 2 December 2013, file ref. VI SAB/Wa135/13). In turn, the Supreme Administrative Court (of 17 September 2015, file ref. IIGSK1217/14), dismissed the cassation appeal from the above-mentioned judgment [73].

Another proceeding concerned the annulment of the Minister’s decision to approve Supplement No. 1. Again, this was without success. The proceeding upheld the Minister’s decision (22 December 2016). The local authorities appealed to the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw against this court’s decision. However, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint (14 February 2017) [72].

The failure in the court proceedings prompted local governments to turn to the Minister with a request for the Minister to amend his decision. The explanation was as follows: “The decision on 17 December 2014, is definitive. Pursuant to the principle of the permanence of a decision, regulated by Art. 16 of the Act on Code of Administrative Procedure, revocation or amendment of definitive decisions, declaration of their invalidity and resumption of proceedings may take place only in cases provided in the Code or specific acts. Currently, the Minister of the Environment is not conducting proceedings aimed at changing the decision on 17 December 2014. Only the occurrence of premises enumerated by law would entitle the Minister of the Environment to take action and conduct proceedings that interfere with the content of the final decision.” [72].

In the presented discourse, the state government position is that all decisions and actions taken on behalf of the Minister of the Environment obey the law and operate within the law. The legal rules, however, are enacted, adopted, and revoked under majority rule. Additionally, bearing in mind that the governmental regime supports a carbon-based energy strategy, they created laws in favour of the preferred government policy.

3.2. The Licence to Mine the Deposit

Since it was not possible to overturn the results of the geological exploration, local and provincial authorities took actions on a licence to mine the deposit. As a rule, the licence to mine the deposit is granted by the Minister of the Environment [74]. Additiionally, according to [75], every entrepreneur running a business may apply for a concession.

However, the licence for deposit exploration and investigation is not tantamount to issuing a decision on exploitation of the deposit, as the Minister ensured, e.g., [71,76,77,78]. The Minister, as the licence authority, justified a possible decision to issue such a licence as follows: “The initiative is taken by the investor who submits an application for a licence to mine the deposit. The licence authority who approves the application must operate within the law and maintain impartiality towards all stakeholders” [78]. In the case of the Oczkowice deposit, the procedure for granting a mining licence has not been initiated, as no application has been received. However, the Minister highlighted that: “There are no grounds for refusing to issue a licence” [79], justifying this as follows: “Taking into account the increasing demand for energy, the emergence of new lignite mines is considered, even more so as Poland has rich lignite deposits. The documented resources of lignite are estimated to be 23.5 billion tons and the potential resources amount to almost 1.2 billion tons” [78].

In many responses to PQs, the Minister has ensured that the mining licence must be accepted by the local authorities, otherwise the concession authority cannot issue the licence award decision [71,76,78,80]. This assurance, however, does not reassure local governments. In fact, the role of local authorities is to accept the ready-made decision and to include the mining project in local zoning plans. Thus, it is not an agreement reached through dialogue or negotiation, but a clearly stated obligation that local authorities, in accordance with the law, should have to fulfil [81].

On the other hand, the Minister calmed the farming community by ensuring that: “Landowners, whose properties are located within the boundaries of the mining area, are the parties in proceedings for granting the mining licence” [78]. However, the Minister did not specify that when the mining licence is guaranteed, the entrepreneur has to obtain the rights to the land via its acquisition. Then, the landowners’ participation comes down to the consent to sell the land and (if need be) negotiation of the price. Is such landowners’ participation satisfactory since the landowners do not want to leave their patrimonies?

Following the legal rules, before submitting the application for a licence to mine the deposit, the entrepreneur has to present a Decision on environmental conditions [82,83]. Such a Decision includes a number of conditions for implementation of the investment (with particular emphasis on the protection of natural values) and for reducing the negative influence of the planned investment to neighbouring areas. In addition, the Decision obliges the entrepreneur to monitor the environmental conditions (e.g., groundwater and surface waters, soil, noise, air, and electromagnetic radiation). The condition for such a Decision, if necessary, is also to provide environmental compensation. The issuance of the Decision is preceded by the EIA. The EIA analyses, in a complex way, the impact of the planned opencast mine on the environment. Moreover, the Decision is preceded by the Report on the environmental impact of the planned investment.

The dispute around the EIA Report, however, concerns inefficient public participation in the proceedings. The local community demands to be a part of the procedures at the earliest possible stage. In practice, it can only express its opinion on the content of the already elaborated EIA Report. How information about the Report is announced also gives rise to reservations. The announcement is published on the website of the Public Information Bulletin and on a notice board of the Ministry of the Environment, as well as being sent to the seats of the involved communes. As for the latter, the information is posted on a notice board at the commune office and/or on the notice board in localities concerned by the case. Moreover, there are only 21 days to send comments on the content of the Report.

3.3. The Water Issue and Local and Regional Development

In the ongoing dispute, the hydro-geological conditions of the Oczkowice deposit are of the highest interest. According to the scientific research [70], the potential opencast mine would require aquifers to be drained and depleted up to a depth of 115–165 m for at least 50 years. The radius of the depression cone would be up to 3–10 km away from the open pit, although it would be widespread by an additional ca. 20–25 km in the deeper groundwater levels. Depleting both underground and surface water resources would become the local threat as well as a huge risk in the Wielkopolska Region. On the other hand, underground water pumping would reduce the piezometric pressure, and this results in an increase in the chloride levels in the surface water. It is estimated that the share of chlorides in saline underground water is above 500 mg/L, and sometimes reaches even 700 mg/L [70], as compared to less than 50 mg/L in the freshwater zone. In addition, the question of needing a substantial amount of water for the cooling system of the power plant station is raised [84]. Bearing in mind the above, the scientific environment has a number of objections to the way the hydrogeological documentation of the Oczkowice deposit (integrated in Supplement No. 1) was elaborated.

The water issue was questioned (among others, in [74]): “The hydrogeological documentation may raise serious doubts due to the fact that the network of boreholes is too sparse, and due to the fact that the local residents have destroyed several piezometers, as well as the fact that several boreholes were not equipped with piezometers. So where do the results come from?” The Minister clarifies that pursuant to the legal regulation, the hydrogeological investigation (included in Supplement No. 1 and for which the boreholes were made) is not a hydrogeological documentation within the meaning of Art. 88 sec. 2 point 2 [73]. Indeed, it is the geological documentation of the mineral deposit specified in Art. 88 sec. 2 point 1 [73]. This means that extraction of the lignite deposit requires additional hydrogeological research/documentation, which specify the conditions for draining the area before extraction. Such documentation should meet the requirements set out in § 9 [85].

Nevertheless, the concern about water disturbance (both the amount and quality) does not constitute any reason to suspend the opening of the mine. Therefore, the question arises why the opinion of the scientific experts (which mentions the hazardous consequences of establishing a mine) was not accepted in the approval procedure of Supplement No. 1. The Minister clarified that the local authorities did not submit the scientific data when Supplement No. 1 was proceeding. The scientific opinion was submitted only in the course of a request for retrial, which ended unsuccessfully for local governments. The Ministry of Justice rejected the matter (24 October 2016), indicating that pursuant to Art. 78 paragraph 1 [86], a reconsideration is only justified when the subject of evidence is a circumstance relevant to the case. The presented scientific opinion does not meet this premise, as the local authorities are not parties of this case and consequently, the local authorities are not entities entitled to annulment of Supplement No. 1 [72].

At this point, the reason for passing the local authorities beyond the decision-making process needs to be explained. In accordance with [73], only the Minister of the Environment (acting with the assistance of the Chief National Geologist) is able to approve the geological documentation of mineral deposits. Whereas the only party involved in the proceedings is the entrepreneur who submitted the geological documentation [72]. This means that the local government is excluded from decisions made in the field of geological documentation of mineral deposits.

The local authorities demanded an evaluation of Supplement No. 1 by members of the Commission of Resource and Hydrogeological Documentation. This initiative, however, was not taken into account as the Minister ensured that, before issuing the Supplement, an in-depth analysis had already been conducted. In addition, the geological documentation had been positively assessed by an independent peer—a specialist in the field of documenting lignite deposits—and had received a positive opinion from the Mineral Resources Committee, an auxiliary body of the Minister of the Environment [71].

A forecasted depression cone is a very disturbing issue for the proper functioning of the local community and the region itself. To limit harmful consequences of the lignite deposit over drying, the following solutions have been recommended. For instance, special geological isolation, a protection-curtain against drying built into the rock mass that would isolate the aquifers [78]; or an artificial groundwater recharge via canals, ponds and absorbent wells [87]. However, up until now, PAK Górnictwo Sp. z o.o. (the potential mining investor) has not practised any of these solutions in other mining areas, due to economic and technical limitations. Thus, the fact that such protective solutions are implemented in the analysed case study is questionable.

It is worth quoting the arguments that have been raised during public discussion [87]. Among non-mining arguments, the deepening deficit of water resources and the extension of farming drought are the strongest. The counter arguments suggest that considering the current water issue, future mining dehydration may only increase the current water deficit, not create it [87]. The results of hydrogeological analysis presented by academia have also been questioned. Nonetheless, defenders of the farming option argued that the uniqueness of this region is that, despite having the lowest precipitation in the country (450–520 mm), the geological structure provides an excellent condition for farming. Namely, clay materials keep soil moisture throughout the vegetation period without the need for irrigation. On the other hand, PAK Górnictwo Sp. z o.o. points out the development strategy of the province [88]: “The expansion of agriculture in previous centuries caused irreversible changes in water conditions and, indirectly, climate change. […] This is expressed in the deficit of groundwater, insufficient precipitation and its uneven distribution throughout the year. This is aggravated by the progressive drainage of the catchment, including inappropriate one-sided drainage, desiccation and vanishing of moist biocoenoses, and the lack of adequate artificial retention, which results in a decrease in soil retention in favour of surface runoff.”

Indeed, such a formulation was found in the cited document. Nonetheless, in the current Spatial Development Plan of the Wielkopolkie Province [89], the impact of agriculture on the environment was less harmful. Moreover, an emphasis was placed on the uniqueness of the region due to its long-term farming traditions, favourable agricultural conditions, and the role of the region in maintaining continuity in agro-production. In the scope of the protection of mineral deposits, the Spatial Development Plan clarifies that opencast extraction is limited or excluded from areas of high-quality soils and areas that maintain domestic food security. In relation to potential new lignite mines, this document emphasises the importance of the economic, social, spatial, and environmental conditions that have to be taken into consideration when a new opencast is planned. This document also draws attention to the protection of surface and groundwater resources, agricultural production space, and cultural heritage.

The controversies around spatial planning took varied forms. Representatives of the mining company accused the local authorities of disobeying the legal rules [87]. This concerns the lack of revision of the Study on local planning and development of the communes. Namely, in 2011, the geological documentation of the Oczkowice deposit was approved. According to [73], over the following two years, the study needed to be updated and the actual data and the Oczkowice deposit should be included in the Study. However, it was not. These shortcomings were also indicated in the report of the Government Inspectorate. Instead, a wind farm was constructed in the area of the deposits. The representative of the mining company raised the question: “Who will bear the costs of dismantling windmills if a mine is to be opened there?” [87]. In response, local government officials explained that, in relation to the Study of local planning and development of the communes, farming was specified as the predominant land use and a leading economic function. At the same time, the authorities guaranteed that both communes could produce energy from renewable sources whose amount would be comparable to coal. As for right now, a wind farm (11 wind turbines) produces 82 GWh of electricity annually. However, restrictions imposed by the amendments of the Act on renewable energy resources (2016) became an obstacle to the development of wind farms. Namely, a minimum distance (up to 2 km) of wind turbines from residential buildings made it impossible to introduce new wind installations in such a densely populated region. Instead, a supra-regional energy cluster will stimulate technologies of renewable energy (solar, geothermal, and biomass).

The provincial authority showed solidarity with the local government. Enacting of the Spatial Development Plan protected the case study against easy land use changes. However, drawing up a spatial development plan, the regional authorities had to combine both bottom-up development strategy and top-down regulations (legal and strategic). Namely, the strategic goal was to improve the natural conditions for farming development. At the same time, the legal rules imposed mineral resources to be included in zoning plans, and to obey all limitations reserved for strategic deposits [90]. This was in contrary to the intention of the authorities and led to imbalance between mining and farming functions.

So far, a list of strategic deposits has not been drawn up; however, publishing [91] provoked a discussion on this. The Oczkowice deposit has been assessed as one of the most promising domestic lignite deposits [4]. Therefore, there is a real desire to put the Oczkowice deposit on the list. The possible consequences of this are very disturbing. Specifically, protection of the lignite deposit means that investments within the geological borders of the mineral deposit are prohibited. That is because investments would make future coal exploitation impossible. The protection period for the lignite starts from when the deposit is entered on the list of strategic resources and ends when the mining begins. The protection imposes restrictions and has a number of ramifications. For instance, public support for farming development is ruled out. For the analysed case study, this would have resulted in economic deterioration in farming and the agro-food business. The protection also means a lack of any social investments, which deteriorates social well-being and decapitalises property values. In fact, it is not only the abandonment of activities in the agricultural sector, but also in the non-farming sector. Regardless of this, local authorities plan the successive development of the communes, as the role of the stewardship body is to do this. In particular, the period of deposit protection, while waiting for the decision to start or not to start mining, forces local authorities to take action to protect residents and entrepreneurs against social and economic collapse. In fact, it is a big challenge to maintain prosperity, and at the same time, to stop developing the region.

3.4. Social Injustice

The local community feels that they have been left out of the ongoing discussion over the Oczkowice mining-energy project. This has given rise to a strong sense of social injustice. Additionally, this is not without reason since local residents are both legal (through the land deed) and psychological (through the emotional bonds) owners of the land. For instance, during discussions with the representatives of the state government, an explicit answer has never been received as to whether the planned energy investment is truly necessary, bearing in mind the following arguments: (1) the investment will affect nearly 18,000 inhabitants living in 60 localities, (2) the investment will suspend the functioning of ca. 1300 business entities and annihilate nearly 1800 agricultural holdings, (3) the investment is being planned in an area that provides supra-regional food security, and simultaneously, this region could provide regional energy security based on renewable resources, and (4) the investment will take place in a highly developed region where the local residents have a strong place attachment. Nonetheless, a lack of alternative suggestions for what to offer displaced inhabitants, farmers, and entrepreneurs who will lose their patrimonies, businesses, jobs, and places of living, is the strongest argument. Namely, the name of the area where the displaced population would settle down has never been mentioned. In addition, it should be noted that the entire region is densely populated, and the land is under private ownership.

The local residents argued that, despite collecting ca. 30,000 signatures from residents opposing the drilling of boreholes (in 2011) and ca. 22,000 signatures of people opposed to the construction of the opencast mine (in 2015), public opinion has been downplayed by the state government since the very beginning of the conflict situation. Therefore, in several PQs, the question has arisen whether the Minister of the Environment is going to provide public consultations, e.g., [71,92]. In response to the inquiry of ‘Our Home’ (‘Nasz Dom’), a local NGO, the Minister specifies that it is the entrepreneur who is responsible for social dialogue, while the Minister “Fulfils the obligations resulting from the competencies specified by law and cannot replace the entrepreneur. [In addition, the Minister] must be impartial towards all involved stakeholders” [93].

The Minister points out that, so far, the Ministry of the Environment has held several meetings with representatives of the local community and local governments at which the procedures for issuing the licence for exploration and deposit investigation and the licence to mine the deposit were discussed. For instance, to meet the expectations of the local community and the invitation of the Wielkopolska Chamber of Agriculture, on 26 February 2015, representatives of the Ministry of the Environment took part in the Agricultural Forum 2015 (in Dłoń in the Miejska Górka commune). During the meeting, “The numerous participants were fully informed about the consequences of approving the geological documentation as well as the procedures for granting a licence to mine the deposit, including the participation of local authorities in making this decision” [74]. Therefore, it is not true that there is no dialogue between the government and the local community.

In addition, the Minister ensures that: “The lignite exploitation brings many benefits, including new jobs in mines, power plants and scientific and technical back-up companies. Lignite mining creates opportunities for the development of co-productive companies. Lignite mining increases income for municipalities from licence fees, operating fees, environmental fees, property taxes and personal and corporate income taxes” [71,76]. In relation to the case study, however, the vast majority of the population has farming experience. When the mining operation starts, farming employees will lose their jobs, and they will certainly not find employment either in the mine or the plant power as they are not specialists in these professions. In addition to this, the labour market is saturated with top-class specialists, which means that local residents will not be able to compete for jobs. Furthermore, the economic dimension of income will change; local governments will lose incomes from farming-action taxes in place of revenues from the mining operation. Nonetheless, farming taxes are predictable. From the perspective on changes in land-use and taxes, in 30 years when the lignite excavation will end up, there will be no incomes from mining, while forecasted incomes from tourism (after reclamation of post-mining areas) will be too early.

The Minister admitted that “An indispensable consequence of opencast mining activity, which is unfavourable for the local community, is often the change in living conditions and the necessity to relocate the inhabitants. This is the greatest disadvantage for the affected community, and it is often the cause of protests.” Therefore, he explained the role of the mining investor in this regard: “The entrepreneur who applies for a mining licence has to make effort to obtain social consent and should work out an agreement with the local community long before its commencement” [78]. The Minister also added that: “Undertaking social dialogue is a proven way to reach an agreement in a conflict situation” [93]. Furthermore, the Minister ensures that “The analysis of potential pros and cons [economic, environmental, and social] of an undertaken investment has to be performed by the entrepreneur long before its commencement, due to the fact that the responsibility for all kinds of effects of the planned operational activity rests with the entrepreneur” [93].

Nonetheless, the local residents feel that they were disregarded in the formal procedures and decision-making process, from the licence for exploration and deposit investigation to the licence to mine the deposit. The Minister disputed this statement, arguing that: “In the administrative procedure of acquiring a licence for exploration and deposit investigation concluded with the issuance on 11 May 2011, […] the parties to the proceedings were all landowners within whose properties the geological research was conducted, i.e., 277 people. Everyone who was dissatisfied with the decision could submit a reconsideration request to the Minister of the Environment. In this way, several people exercised their rights. The reconsideration procedure, resulting in the decision of 27 September 2011, revoked the creation of 52 boreholes. Again, after this decision, the dissatisfied landowners could lodge a complaint with the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw. Again, several people exercised their rights” [74].

In another PQ, the Minister referred to the involvement of the affected community by ensuring that “The parties to the proceedings for granting the mining licence are also owners of land located within the boundaries of the mining area, who are entitled to participate actively in the proceedings. Without their consent, it is impossible to grant a licence, let alone conduct any activity” [80]. The mining entrepreneur, however, has not initiated the consultation as he admitted it is too early for such actions. Perhaps the mining investor was afraid of unfavourable results coming from the negotiations and this was why he avoided open confrontation since negotiations involve a significant share of the affected community and make decisions unfavourable to the investor. A representative of PAK Górnictwo Sp. z o.o. explains: “It is good to talk about many topics beforehand, but this is not that stage. We do not know yet whether we will open a mine there, we do not know yet whether this deposit is profitable. Anyway, I am glad I was able to speak on this occasion and say a few words about it” [87]. It should be noted, however, that the involvement of the affected community in the proceedings is limited to the enforcement of financial compensation in exchange for the loss of their land. In other words, during the consulting process, there is no space for questions, such as ‘are you for or against the opencast mine?’, as negotiations begin just after the mining licence has been granted. It seems, however, that this is not the answer that the local community expects. Certainly, the Minister’s assuredness that the mine will never be open is an unfulfilled wish.

4. General Discussion

4.1. Mining Context

According to [4] (supported by research findings, e.g., [3,66], lignite is perceived as the cheapest medium of primary energy. From this perspective, lignite is perceived as being competitive with other energy resources, such as hard coal, natural gas, fuel oil, or even renewable resources. This calculation, however, does not include all the externalities of lignite mining, namely the hidden costs of the complex process of coal exploitation, processing, and combusting. The hidden costs that are incurred throughout the full life cycle of coal-derived electricity include social expenditures (welfare deterioration and health care) [63], environmental externalities (hazards associated with deforestation, productivity loss, mining waste remediation, ground and surface water pollution and treatment, over-drying poorly reclaimed soil and its limited future development, destruction of local habitats and loss of biodiversity) [94], and losses in property values and farmland resources, as well as serious limitations on land use [95,96]. In fact, incorporating the full costs of coal-fired power plants, using current combustion technology, nearly doubles the costs of electricity generation from coal [97]. Thus, the argument mentioned here is very biased and, additionally, it downplays the sense of social injustice mentioned in the previous chapter.

Another argument, which in the opinion of the state government is very convincing, exemplified in the studies of [1,57,98,99], is that lignite mining-energy projects bring an economic boom to economically poor areas. However, one should always pay attention to the fact that economic recovery applies exclusively to economically underdeveloped regions. Otherwise, when the investment is planned in an economically developed region (such as the case study), the mining-energy project meets with resistance from local authorities and communities as the mining project has a damaging effect on the local economy. The performed calculations indicate how the Oczkowice coal-based energy project is highly uneconomical and unreasonable in the analysed region. The experts’ analyses have shown the environmental hazards, threats to farming and agro-food processing, harmful land use changes, and deterioration of human well-being, and have proven that the external costs are to the detriment of the planned mine [100,101].

The author of [102] clearly identifies that the competitiveness of the Polish national economy in the European/international arena can be achieved via the coal-based energy sector due to huge domestic deposits of fossil resources. In the opinion of the ruling party, coal is a symbol of energy independence and energy security. Additionally, the long-standing mining tradition (that used to have a key importance during periods of the country’s dynamic development) is also an argument in favour of lignite mining. The discussion below thoroughly analyses the theses presented here.

Coal is a strategic fuel in Poland. Its share of the total energy production is 49.3% for hard coal and 17.8% for lignite coal [103]. Among renewable resources, wind farms (almost 16%) and waterpower plants (almost 5%) are important; the share of other RES is marginal. Due to the fact that the amount of domestic RES deposits is unrealistic, the argument about the self-sufficiency of coal is compelling. Nonetheless, putting coal at the forefront not only belittles the role of the RES, and therefore justifies the carbon choice, but above all, is used for propaganda purposes. Some see this as a reference to the communist slogan when coal used to be called ‘black gold’, and which was underlined by the state government, for example, the Prime minister’s speech in 2016: “There will be no strong Polish economy without a strong mining industry” [104].

In turn, external energy dependence is not in the interests of the Polish stewardship policy. For this reason, however, Poland will hardly be able to proceed with a drastic phase-out of the mining of its coal deposits. In addition, current regulations in Poland subsidize coal-fired options and discriminate against renewable sources [105]. There are a number of studies that have analysed the economic impact of phasing-out the dependence of power plants on coal in Poland. For instance, [106] developed the energy dependence model, which shows the differences in energy sources if coal were completely eliminated from the energy mix and the entire amount of energy originally attributable to coal was imported. In relation to Poland, the difference is very significant and reaches ca. 54%. The author of [105] explains that biomass technology becomes the best option when coal is phased out. Considering the limited capacity of biomass energy, wind and nuclear power should replace it. Emphasising energy independence, the state government has stated that imported RES is not a subject for discussion. Nonetheless, this does not mean that Poland does not import energy resources. Since 2008, imports of hard coal have begun to prevail over exports, where Russia is the main supplier of coal (68% in 2018) [107].

In discussions on energy issues, one thing should be emphasised, namely the monopolistic nature of mining companies that are under the influence and control of the state government. In one of the public discussions [87], the representative of the Ministry of the Environment made the position of the government very clear: “We live in a unitary state, the government is centrally-managed. Poland is not a federation of communes. It is a question of local interests versus state interests, which of course should be in some reasonable way solved by the ruling political class at a given time, and also by a sane political class that takes power according to the normal democratic cycle.” Therefore, such a strategy reduces the role of local governments and essentially deprives them of the possibility of making decisions and thereby gives leading mining enterprises an advantage. The same privileged position is also held by mining trade unions. For instance, to avoid conflict with the mining trade unions, the debate on decarbonising of the national energy sector was blocked [107,108].

The dominance of coal in the Polish energy mix also results from the number of domestic deposits. The statistical data regarding lignite coal are very promising [4], although it is not so optimistic as the President of Poland assured people at the Climate Summit in Katowice in 2018: “Coal is our strategic raw material. We have supplies for 200 years and it is difficult for us to completely give it up. […] Coal is supposed to provide energy sovereignty. There is no plan to abandon coal in Poland.”

In addition, the findings of [109] indicate that, despite similar material conditions in the European coal heartland (i.e., Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic), in the media discourse, the paradigm of energy policy is presented in a different manner. Namely, Germany facilitates coal phase-out policies, the Czech Republic presents political uncertainty around lignite mining in the northwest part of the country, while Poland acts as an inhibiting factor for decarbonisation of the energy sector.

4.2. Farming Context

The literature on the attachment of farmers to a place (mentioned in the introductory section) proves that they have strong bonds with their farmland. It is worth emphasising that these relationships go beyond the legal nature of land ownership, as these bonds are marked emotionally. Accordingly, the farmers’ emotional relationship with place has a large influence on how the farmers perceive family farms and farmland, and how they create social bonding and how they build place dependence, which is important in place protection.

Disagreement with the mining operation, in this particular case study, stems from the strong attachment of the farming community to patrimony [52]. The study of [110] confirmed this place rootedness: strong attachment to place was recorded in 33.6% of the farming community, whereas moderate attachment was scored by 54.1% of respondents. However, what makes the attachment to place and farmland exceptional is the following aspects: (1) farms are owned and operated by a family, (2) farms have been handed down from one generation to another, (3) farmers spend their whole life in one place and work on the family farm [35], (4) farm work has been the main source of income for many generations [111], and (5) despite its high price, farmers refuse to sell farmland, being afraid of non-agricultural use of the land [112]. This makes farmland important for both economic and emotional reasons, which is synonymous with non-material richness and a sense of place belonging [35].

Opencast mining results in enforced displacement of the local community and the resettlement of a deeply attached community is particularly problematic. Despite the potential threats, the inhabitants of the analysed region seem to trivialise this matter [96,110]. This ignorance could result from failure to notify the affected community about changes in land use due to the opencast mine. Or this could result from their demand to the rights to the land by arguing: ‘We will never go anywhere from here’, ‘Old trees cannot be replanted’, ‘Whatever happens, we will stay here forever’, ‘As long as we are here, no mine will be opened’, ‘The lignite must remain in the ground. You will not burn our future’, or more bluntly, ‘Get off our land’. Scholars have conducted research on how difficult it is for displaced farmers to adapt to new conditions and accept the loss of patrimony; the ‘new life’ is marked by the stigma of nostalgia. It is worth referring to the argument of the mining lobby, which says that it is the human capital that makes this region outstanding in market-oriented farming production. So, repeating farming success in any other area, after local community displacement, is not a problem. Nonetheless, this is a very selective view on this issue because the mine will interrupt a well-functioning region and the sense of place cannot be reconstructed in any other area. The eradication of family farms means the eradication of small enterprises. Family farms should not be considered as the sum of buildings and hectares of farmland, but as a certain production value of enterprises, of which there are almost 2000 or so. This is a construction of material and immaterial values cemented by the history and memory of the place, generational continuity, and family ties.

As for the mine, the affected community does not speak in a consistent voice. The planned mining investment divided the community into supporters and opponents. Most residents take the view that the opencast mine is a socially harmful and environmentally unfriendly investment. Research conducted in 2016 revealed that as many as 93% of respondents expressed their opposition to the mining project. As time passed, indifference among mining opponents was observed; in 2018, the share of the opponents was 87% [110]. The supporters’ profile indicates people for whom the lignite mine is perceived as an economic regional boost and cost-effective individual benefits. Some of them are satisfied with changing their place of residence and the new quality of the post-mining landscape. What is important here is the fact that more than 76% of the supporters are not involved in farming, nor are they farm owners or workers. Opponents of the mining investment expressed concern about landscape degradation and cultural heritage, deteriorating quality of the environment, loss of employment in farming, and loss of farmland and soil resources [35,110].

A strong link between attachment to a place and oppositional responses (the threat of place disruption) leads to a negative attitude towards the coal mine project. As the results show, high attachment to place was negatively related to support for the mining operation and at the same time, positively related to the support for a wind farm project. The social context (family dependence and patrimony protection) and environmental framework (soil resource protection) build a strong unwillingness to changing place, which is harmful in the opinion of the affected community. Instead, a less harmful and socially accepted solution was proposed. The findings of the survey research [110] show that the majority of respondents (almost 75%) would prefer wind farm instead of fossil fuel investment. Other RESs are also acceptable. A minority (represented by a share of 8%) expressed its opposition to the renewable energy solution (among them, the pro-mining supporters were predominant). In addition, the media report draws the conclusion that energy gathered from bio-waste (so common in agricultural activities) can provide an important chance for the development of the agricultural sector, as they can reduce production costs or increase the local entrepreneur’s income through energy sales [113,114,115]. In this way, the study results propose new insights into the ‘not-in-my-backyard’ attitude due to their twofold perception in the farming-energy landscape: from the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) to the YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) [96].

As noted by [116], the self-interested NIMBYism position is much more varied than the simple opposition to an unwanted project. NIMBY has a pejorative meaning: local selfishness, ignorance, or irrationality regarding developmental projects that appear to serve community needs, projects that are locally perceived as unattractive, dangerous, or a nuisance [117]. However, NIMBY syndrome has a complex nature as it builds on varied land uses and facilities, diverse motivations, and concerns of participants. The causes of NIMBYism should be carefully analysed in each case and the answer to the question of ‘why?’ should be identified (e.g., why the local community keeps its anti-project position? Why the investment raises such strong opposition?). In the analysed case study, it is not the ‘democratic deficit’ speaking in favour of NIMBYism as [118] suggested that it openly happens in NIMBY environments), where a minority takes control of decision making. In the analysed case, this is the majority of the public that expressed opposition to the mining investment and again this is the majority that would prefer renewable energy solutions. Moreover, the local community appeals for a deep place dependence and the responsibility for a place; by knowing the consequences of mining destruction, the affected community proposes less harmful energy options (similar findings were found by [119]. This alternative option that was proposed is a wind farm. Additionally, while wind farms are widely recognised as socially unwanted and landscape-harmful investments, wind farm projects are gaining more and more public approval [57,120]. Further, other studies show that socially, the most desirable energy source in Poland is wind farms (75% of respondents expressed this wish) [107]. This proves that communities demand more transparency and participatory governance in energy democratisation and the need to speed up the low-carbon transition in Poland [121].

5. Limitations and Prospects for Resolution of Land Use Conflict

Each mining location and mining conflict is unique in terms of its physical environment and socio-cultural, historical, political, and economic background [36,98]. On the other hand, Ref. [122] claims that ending a conflict is not always possible, at least at a specific moment in time or in light of some other factors, such as personalities or objectives. As for the analysed conflict situation, one thing is certain: in the analysed conflict, the power of influence seems to be unbalanced as the financial and legislative power to pursue the growth of the energy industry is under state government control, as evidenced by amends in legislation supporting pro-mining interests. The local community and authorities, however, demand their rights. Despite the odds, they do not back down and have one finger on the pulse.

The current model of social participation in the decision-making process comes down to imposing previously established solutions. Therefore, the affected community demands that dialogue and cooperation are improved. Residents claim that negotiations and mediations will alleviate the conflict. They are of the view that to minimise conflict situations, social participation in the decision-making process should consist of informing, consulting, and co-deciding. They argue that the dialogue should include reasonable arguments and opinions from both sides of the conflict. However, what does a ‘reasonable’ argument mean here? What does an ‘expert opinion’ mean in a case like this? Both parts of the conflict can provide ‘objective calculations’, ‘unbiased data’, and ‘irrefutable proofs’ because, even based on the same raw data, different results and conclusions can be compiled. So, it is debatable who will be the winner in a real round table discussion. As for now, the local residents can exert their rights via public actions, such as protesting and lobbying.

The negotiations aim to work out a compromise that is acceptable for both sides of the conflict. What, then, would the compromise come down to in the analysed case? Which compromise would be acceptable to both sides of the conflict? What would the negotiations change? Would the farmers, with their attitude towards the mine, be satisfied with financial compensation and agree to displacement and to leave their patrimony? Or would the mining investor, being aware of the farmers’ emotional attachment to their patrimony and the framing potential of the region, give up the mining project? Would the government withdraw its plans to create a mine and power plant complex in favour of implementing renewable energy solutions in the region?

It seems, however, that this is not about negotiation as a means of working out compromise, but about a clear message that the local community will not allow the mine to be opened. Additionally, the importance of regional farming (backed up by meticulous calculations) has nothing to do with this. It is about the sacred right to land property, which has been strengthened by family dependence, farming traditions, and local heritage. Residents protect their home according to the principle: “When you feel that this place is yours, you protect the place better”. This self-centred perception of a piece of land, so-called ‘mine-ness’ [61], stimulates the farmers’ feeling of taking control of the place. Nonetheless, private rights to land (legal and psychological ownership) can be pushed into the background when it comes to maintaining the national interest and fulfilling common needs (in this case, energy demand) [123]. It should be emphasised once again that the residents are not passive NIMBYists but being aware of the resistance to the lignite project, they showed understanding for the necessity to propose an alternative energy solution.

It is another matter entirely how the EIA Report is elaborated. Elaboration of this document upon the mining entrepreneur’s request raises further suspicions; commissioning this to an independent specialist would avoid a subjective assessment of the Report’s content [96]. Furthermore, although the contents of the EIA Report refer to human aspects of well-being, the local community insists on a supplementary Social Impact Assessment (SIA is not statutory in Poland). In particular, an SIA would estimate the influence of the planned investment on the local community; social impacts are defined as a change to peoples’ way of life, their culture, community, their environment, health and wellbeing, personal and property rights, and their fears and aspirations. This demand stems from criticism of EIA Reports, which are currently being prepared, where improper recognition of environmental risks at the initial stage and underestimation of threats to human well-being are a common practice. In this connection, the current situation brings frustration and distrust and is the main reason for the division between ‘us’ and ‘them’.

There are also doubts as to the abundance of the Oczkowice deposit as, in the opinion of the mine’s opponents, it was imprecisely documented. It is not known, therefore, whether the deposit is as lucrative as the government assures, although it is known that in Poland, there are richer lignite deposits than the Oczkowice one. For instance, the Legnica deposit that accompanies a copper deposit (Legnica-Głogów copper district). However, as the representative of PAK Górnictwo Sp. z o.o. claims: “KGHM does not want competition at home.” KGHM Polish Copper is a monopolist company of copper mining in Poland.

As a solution to this land-use conflict, the affected community and local authorities offer a wind farm and scattered renewable bio-and-solar energy production spots. However, these sources of energy would not offset the coal-based energy; this would only maintain a supra-regional energy demand. The state government, on the other hand, offers coal gasification. In this way, both land use options, farming and mining, can coexist together. Coal gasification is a very promising technology; however, as for the current experience, carbon dioxide emissions would be incomparably greater than the emissions from coal combustion in a power plant. Therefore, in the long run, both proposals seem unsatisfactory.

6. Conclusions

It seems, however, that throughout the history of coal extraction from the very beginning to advanced extraction since the industrial revolution and continuing through the 20th century, coal has been a symbol of power and profit and, at the same time, of abuse and exploitation [124]. At present, what is under criticism and leads to opposition against the lignite mining industry is dissatisfaction with the generation of external costs that affect the local community, while the benefits are distributed among consumers who do not share the costs. Accordingly, the grassroots movements (permeated with the ideology of place attachment) constitute the social demand to fair access to the land, good quality of the environment, and human well-being [125].

Coal, as this case study shows and confirmed by other studies, e.g., [5], is deeply rooted in political-economic power. This paper contributes to the literature on the field of ‘farming-mining’ land use conflicts by looking at a community that wants development but not the loss of environmental and social well-being. This paper intended to establish the background of the conflict situation by analysing the bottom-up and top-down positions that represent mainstream conflicts. This paper advances the opposition to coal expressed by the affected community, which is deeply attached to farmland. This case study demonstrates that the strength of the place attachment of the local community and its responsibility for the place forces the government authorities to look for alternative measures that effectively reduce the negative impact of coal not only on a local scale but, taking into account all costs and impacts, also on a global scale (e.g., carbon emissions). In a low-carbon society affected by global climate change, coal exploitation has a very negative impact.

This article is an important contribution to understanding the social attitude towards the climate challenge in a country whose energy independence relies on a conventional energy source, such as coal, a country in which social protests against the coal-based energy sector continue. In particular, the presented case study discusses the conflict between farming and mining land use in an area that is distinguished by the strong attachment of the local community to patrimony, and a region that is economically well-developed. To overcome the NIMBY syndrome, bottom-up substitute proposals based on renewable sources have been discussed.

The novelty of this paper is its analysis of how the discourse takes place between the state government and the local community and local/regional authorities. The results show the discrepancy between top-down coal-based energy policy and bottom-up low-carbon economy transition. The presented case study is an example of highly developed social awareness and a willingness to transition to a low-carbon economy, which is ahead of ossified government policy and a vision of state power inadequate for the economic and environmental realities. The findings present a case study, which is an opportunity to respond to the energy transition in a country that has a long tradition in lignite mining and electricity production.

The analysis presented in this paper is not intended to exhaust all issues related to conflict over mining and farming land use. In my research, I focused on the topic of social perception of the proposed coal mine and in this area, I was looking for possible solutions to the land use conflict. Strands of research threads that are worth paying attention to are alternative methods of coal-based energy production. This concerns underground coal gasification, for example, which does not interfere with land use. Although, at present, using this technology is a rather distant prospect, as the experience so far indicates far greater carbon dioxide emissions than in conventional coal combustion, not to mention other environmental and social impacts.

In addition, other technological solutions may be used to resolve the land use conflict in terms of access to energy resources, in particular, technologies that use renewable energy sources. It is worth mentioning the current latest achievements in this area, e.g., [126,127,128,129] and considering the possibility of their wider use as very promising solutions.