Negotiated environmental agreements are becoming common practice in the mining industry. In principle, negotiated environmental agreements are said to respond to many of the shortcomings of environmental impact assessment by providing for improved follow-up of project impacts through, among other things, data provision, engaging stakeholders in the monitoring and management of project impacts, and building capacity at the local level to deal with project-induced environmental change. In practice, however, little is known about the efficacy of follow-up under negotiated environmental agreements between proponents and communities and the demonstrated value added to project impact management. This paper examines follow-up practice under negotiated environmental agreements with a view to understanding whether and how community-based monitoring under privatized agreements actually contributes to improved follow-up and impact management. Based on lessons emerging from recent experiences with environmental agreements in Canada's uranium industry, we show that follow-up under negotiated agreements may be described as ‘comfort monitoring’. While such monitoring does improve community–industry relations and enhance corporate image, it does little to support effects-based management. If follow-up under negotiated agreements is to be credible over the long term, there is a need to ensure that monitoring results are useful for, and integrated with, regulatory-based monitoring and project impact management practices.