Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/5109

Bill Overview

Title: United States Legal Gold and Mining Partnership Act

Description: This bill requires the Department of State to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat illicit gold mining in the Western Hemisphere, with a focus on artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM), a form of mining typified by labor-intensive techniques, dangerous working conditions, and limited regulation. The required strategy shall include policies, programs, and initiatives to (1) interrupt the linkages between ASM and illicit actors such as drug traffickers and foreign terrorist organizations; (2) deter ASM in environmentally protected areas; (3) build the capacity of foreign civilian law enforcement to counter linkages between illicit gold mining and money laundering, forced labor, sex work, child labor, and trafficking; and (4) support efforts by foreign governments to increase regulation of the ASM sector. This bill also requires the U.S. Agency for International Development to coordinate with democratically elected governments in the region to establish a public-private partnership to improve transparency and traceability in the international gold trade.

Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]

Target Audience

Population: Artisanal and Small-Scale Miners and their Communities in the Western Hemisphere

Estimated Size: 50000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Gold Industry Investor (New York, NY)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I was initially concerned about new regulations affecting profits.
  • The focus on transparency is ultimately good for ensuring ethical sourcing, which aligns with long-term business interests.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Environmental Lobbyist (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Combating illicit mining in protected areas is a hopeful initiative.
  • It would have been ideal to also see efforts reduce environmental harm in domestic mining operations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Supply Chain Manager (Houston, TX)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The new traceability requirements might cause disruptions.
  • Long-term, the policy seems to favor sustainable sourcing which is becoming crucial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's crucial for U.S. policy to promote international law enforcement collaboration.
  • Monitoring impacts on traceability is key to assessing progress.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Human Rights Advocate (Miami, FL)

Age: 29 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy doesn't directly support workers' rights enough.
  • Still, it's a step toward reducing illegal labor practices.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 4
Year 2 5 4
Year 3 5 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 6 4

Tech Industry Worker (Seattle, WA)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The supply chain might be affected negatively initially.
  • Ethical sourcing is beneficial and aligns with company values.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Jewelry Designer (Chicago, IL)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased regulation could initially hurt my supply options.
  • Transparent sourcing improves market trust in the long term.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 4

Gold Recycling Plant Operator (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • There might be a market shift favoring recycled gold.
  • I am optimistic about leveraging this change for business growth.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Graduate Student (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 23 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am hopeful the policy will set a precedent for environmental protections.
  • Interested in studying its outcomes for future environmental policy work.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Freelance Journalist (Denver, CO)

Age: 40 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Excited to investigate the policy's impact on local communities affected by illegal mining.
  • Appreciates the effort to connect policy with practical enforcement.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $45000000)

Year 2: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $50000000)

Year 3: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $50000000)

Year 5: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $55000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations