Mining and Sustainable Development

CSD18 Review Session, Interactive Panel: Thematic
Session on Mining 6 May 2010 UN Headquarters, New York

 

Mining and Sustainable Development

Victoria Tauli Corpuz

Member, UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
Executive Director, Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples'
International Centre for Policy Research and Education)

 

Introduction

The topic of this thematic section is on the potential contribution of
mining to sustainable development. I would like to address this issue
from the perspective of indigenous peoples and also from the UN
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

I am an Igorot from the Cordillera Region in the Philippines. My region
is where large scale gold, silver and copper mining has been taking
place since the 1900s, during the American colonial period, and
continues up to the present under the postcolonial governments. Until
the early 1980s, almost 75 % of the exports of gold, silver and copper
came from my region. The Igorot in Benguet Province are still suffering
from the legacy of mining adverse environmental and social impacts.
Since mining remains as one of the pillars of economic growth of the
Philippine government, mining operations expanded to many parts of the
country and in most cases, indigenous peoples are the ones most
affected as it is in their territories where these minerals are found.

I was also the Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
from 2005 -2009 and I am on my last term as a member this year. We just
finished our two-week session last Friday, April 30. As it has been
since the Forum started, issues related to mining were raised many
times over during this session. Last year the Forum held an
International Expert Group Meeting on Extractive Industries and the
report of this can be found in E/C.19/2009/CRP. 8 dated 4 May 2009. The
final report of this 8th Session contained several recommendations
which I will talk about later. So much of what I will be talking about
comes from my own experiences in my own country and other countries
which I visited and the discussions which happened at the Forum in its
9 years of existence and also from the UN Working Group on Indigenous
Populations which existed for more than 20 years under the Commission
on Human Rights.

The need to differentiate mining activities

I have listened with interest to the opening comments of Member States
yesterday. There is a widespread agreement that mining is an essential
element of a modern economy. It seems, that we cannot live without it’s
products or at least some of them. It is hard to imagine that there is
anyone who thinks the human need for gold jewellery outweighs the human
need of poor indigenous farmers or hunters and fisher folk to the means
to provide food for their families.

Yet when we talk of mining we are carelessly doing it in a generalised
way as if all mining had similar benefits and similar impacts. It most
clearly does not. Iron ore and copper mining and some others do indeed
provide key core raw materials for contemporary production and
satisfaction of basic needs. Not I think that that would make any more
acceptable the rights violations that are sometimes associated with
these mines. However by contrast gold mining produces a metal with very
limited productive uses and with a vast existing unused amounts stored
in some central banks. Its extraction and processing is associated with
some of the most problematic environmental dangers. Yet over the last
20 years exploration and mining for gold has, with some variations,
attracted a disproportionately large amount of total mineral
exploration expenditure globally. This currently can be seen as a
response to the uncertainty of economic crisis and more generally
because gold mining tends to show quicker returns on capital invested
and lesser average levels of investment than for the base metals
sector.

Uranium, as another example. Uranium mining is not in any sensible
discourse – a credible contributor to sustainable development. Its two
major uses are first in the production of nuclear weapons (clearly
global destruction is not part of any sustainable development strategy.
) |Its other use is in generating nuclear power. Here, from being a
discredited and largely abandoned option, following the Three Mile
Island and Chernobyl disasters, it has seen a recent resurgence as
companies and govts are emboldened by the climate crisis to promote the
nuclear option. However there are serious fundamental problems
associated with uranium.

First, an estimated 70% of the world’s uranium deposits are located on
the lands of indigenous peoples. Uranium mines leave behind huge
amounts of “tailings”, radioactive waste. The tailings, contain
approximately 80% of the original radioactivity of the ore, with half
lives up to 240.000 years. Surely this is the ultimate in
unsustainability! Everlasting potentially deadly pollution. There is no
means of safe disposal of the tailings which in most cases are left in
the open. Exposed to wind and rain, and radioactive and poisonous
materials are contaminating the surface water, groundwater aquifers,
the soil, the air, plants and produce, livestock and wild animals, the
air to breathe, and will continue to do so for thousands of years into
the future.

The health impacts are serious leading to elevated rates of cancers.
These heightened incidences are not just confined to workers but also
affects communities nearby.
In Niger, according to reports from indigenous peoples, uranium mining
has already contaminated the groundwater (the level of uranium in the
drinking water are 10 110 times as high as the WHO standards), depleted
fossil water aquifers which will never be replenished, and the mining
company announced officially that their planned new mine will have
depleted the local fossil water aquifer about the same time that the
uranium deposit will be exhausted. This leaves the Touareg people from
those communities with nothing to survive on. We have had several
Touareg representatives coming to the Permanent Forum presenting the
problems they face with uranium mining.

 

Uranium mining companies have not found any means to solve
these problems and to store their wastes in any adequately responsible
way. Many uranium and other mining companies have followed a common
strategy and gone bankrupt after the deposits were depleted leaving
their aftermath to the States to clean up.

In my view the only way forward is a global ban on uranium mining and
ensure that the uranium and nuclear industry, monitored by the
international community, clean up their aftermath, pay compensation to
the victims of their activities and allow for a continued monitoring of
the sites in question. And similar efforts are probably the essential
minimum if mining is to regain its social licence to operate.

The case of the nuclear industry raises other issues. As I hope we all
know in the past and up to the present, indigenous people’s lands and
waters have been extensively used as nuclear test sites without regard
or in some cases even warning to the traditional owners. These have led
to catastrophic consequences such as cancers, blindness, stillbirths
and what is now known as jellyfish babies, among others. Within the US,
indigenous lands are sometimes chosen as sites for the most dangerous
and toxic of industries including nuclear weapon manufacture within the
US.

Now some indigenous peoples living in remote areas are obliged, even
when they have recognition of their rights, to “welcome” such dangerous
and polluting industries and dumps because of their absolute poverty
and lack of other cash earning opportunities. So some consent to host
such facilities and some may even allow mines. If and where this is
done consciously clearly it is an exercising of their right to control
developments within their own territories. However I think we should
all be deeply disturbed by the implications of the toxic materials and
poisonous wastes generated by rich industrial societies being dumped
upon the poor and marginal whether these be indigenous or not or
whether they “consent” to such discriminatory actions. Because such
“consent” is clearly in large part an acknowledgement that their
acceptance of the toxic waste is based on the desperation of their
poverty.

So when we speak of mining then we need to be more differentiating in
our assessment. Are we speaking of open pit copper mining, underground
mining, mining for iron or for gold or diamonds.

Environmental and Social Impacts

 

Yesterday I also heard Member States expressing their grave
concern that the environmental and social impacts are regrettable and
disturbing. But my question to us all is what are we going to do about
the clear documented and continuing evidence of the association of some
mining activities with grave human rights violations including, the
disregard for already adopted international minimum standards for the
dignity and welfare of indigenous peoples, such as the UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ILO Convention No. 169?

As I mentioned earlier, in my capacity as Chair of the UN Permanent
Forum on Indigenous Issues from 20052008 and as a member this year, I
have heard numerous and most serious presentations on the impacts of
mining on indigenous peoples. Some involving violent dispersal,
killings, destruction of homes, desecration of sacred sites, the
destruction of subsistence economies constituting a threat to life and
culture and many more. Without naming names these complaints identify
companies small and large including members of the ICMM which is an
alliance, as we heard yesterday, of industry leaders promoting best
practice.

The Mining Industry has an appalling record for environmental and
social impacts going back over a long period. Deeply negative impacts
from mining have been felt on every continent (so far with the
exception of Antarctica). Both past and present mining has generated
environmental impacts that include the devastation of river systems and
valley peoples like the Ok Tedi and Fly rivers in Papua New Guinea. The
impacts of pumping mine waste into these rivers started by BHP
(currently the world’s largest mining company) are predicted by
scientists to generate pollution of the river system and the poisoning
of adjacent forests that are not only killing fish and other life forms
in the river but causing die back in surrounding forests that is
predicted to grow worse and continue to spread for hundreds of years
into the future. Even ancient mining activities can generate lasting
negative environmental impacts that persist long after the demise of
the people and corporations that caused them.

Aluminium, copper and steel production alone account for more than 7%
of global energy consumption. Bauxite is often mined over extensive
areas resulting again in the stripping of surface vegetation disruption
and pollution of water courses and the common range of both
environmental and social impacts. However in addition bauxite
processing on average requires 15 kilowatt hours of electricity for
each kilo of aluminium produced. Recycling of aluminium however on
average requires only approx 5% the energy input of primary production.
Recycling of aluminium currently accounts for approximately 1/3 of
production. Yet large amounts of recyclable aluminium and other
minerals are still lost in landfill. Other recycling efforts also
remain underdeveloped.

Additionally according to Citigroup "At higher latitudes, high rainfall
may require some operational adjustments, with the integrity of
tailings dams being an issue for consideration, and the potential for
consequential environmental damage." The analysts also asserted that
"Critical infrastructure such as ports may be at risk from small sea
level rises particularly if combined with storm events. "

Other forms of tailings containment may also require a rethink or a
ban. Unpredictable weather shifts may also require additional safety
measures and expenses in arid and semi arid regions. In high mountain
areas there have been some recent attempts to store mine wastes
including potentially toxic materials in glaciers. However in the Andes
and Central Asia global warming has exposed the short-sightedness and
irresponsibility of such claims. Melting glaciers are already posing
problems of containment of potential serious pollution.

Despite increased reference to industry best practice, clearly
unacceptable and widely banned practices including Riverine and Marine
dumping are still continuing. Such practices have resulted in the
choking of rivers and inshore waters including corals. Marine dumping
has been a source of great controversy and is banned in many states.
Companies nonetheless advocate the increased use of marine dumping of
mine waste. This despite the fact that we remain unclear about the full
role of the sea in maintaining a balance in global climate. Research,
however, points to a vital role for small marine organisms as potential
absorbers of carbon. Yet large scale pollution of waterways and direct
marine dumping are adding to marine pollution and putting marine
ecosystems under increased pressure. Marine mining and further dumping
is now also developing.

Clean water is a precious and increasingly scarce resource yet it is
used in vast quantities in mining even in semi arid and arid regions.
Mining in these regions and seasonally dry areas has always posed
severe problems. Mining is a massive user of water. The Citigroup
analysis of climate change risks to mining suggest "availability of
fresh water is critical to most mining and processing operations." In
the USA between 1964 and 2005 Peabody coal has drawn millions of
gallons from aquifers under the deserts of the South West that are a
main source of drinking water for Navaho people and their stock. This
vital life-giving water was used by Peabody Energy to pump coal in a
mixture of gasoline and water in a slurry pipeline operation to
transport extracted coal to the Mohave electricity Generating Station
in Laughlin Nevada .

The report of the DESA for this Session which is entitled “ Trends in
Sustainable Development: Chemicals, Transport, Mining and Waste
Management” states that “approximately 10 per cent of active mines and
20 per cent of exploratory sites are located in areas of high
conservation value, while nearly 30 per cent of active mines are
located in water stressed areas .The increasing consumption of
resources (mostly energy and water) needed to extract metals as well as
the pollution generated by the extraction process are main constraints
to sustainability of mining”.

Pollution problems due to mining are exacerbating in most mining areas.
Direct dumping into rivers is still practiced by major companies. The
Grasberg mine in West Papua, Indonesia for example produces up to
300,000 tons of waste per day. Which dwarfs the problem of a city even
like New York that produces up to 15,000 tonnes per day. Dumping into
the ocean has been and is practiced despite our lack of knowledge of
its full consequences on marine organisms. Depositing on the land is
also practiced mostly in arid and semi arid zones. But in this time of
climate change and unpredicatability this may prove problematic also.
Tailings dams are common and numerous but are subject to collapse and
breaches. Over past 25 years Philippine mines alone have experienced on
average more than 1 serious incident every 2 years. These have included
several incidents resulting in deaths from the slides and lasting
environmental and economic consequences inundating fields, poisoning
rivers etc This is not including the many small spills.

All such waste disposal systems are also confronted by new threats from
climate change. Again in the Philippines our best tailings pond (lake
better describes it) were built to withstand a 1500 year event. However
in the last 10 years the Philippines has recorded an increase in the
number and the intensity of typhoons last year two major typhoons hit
the northern Philippines within 10 days causing tremendous devastation
. Dams were protected by releasing as much material as possible before
and during the typhoon .We are increasingly concerned that climate
change will make the impacts of mining more severe and the lives of
those downstream less secure. Acid mine drainage and other damages to
rivers resulting in their death, skin lesions and other health problems
for people, fish, livestock caused by downstream pollution of mines,
air pollution by dust from the mining operations and many others In the
21st century I say frankly that in a time of review and policy
recommendations for a sustainable future we have to be more forthright
in terms of identifying what the real problems are and make
recommendations on how these can be addressed. Majority of the UN
member states have obligations under International Human Rights Law and
under Multilateral Environmental Agreements which they should meet and
compliance with these obligations is one of the steps in addressing
issues of human rights violations and adverse environmental and social
impacts of mining. Within the framework of CSD, we cannot turn a blind
eye to these bad consequences because we are hooked on mining providing
a cheap, too cheap perhaps, supply of raw materials.

At the last year's 8th Session of the Permanent Forum we came up with a
recommendation which supported the framework which John Ruggie, the
Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of Human
Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises,
developed on Human Rights and Business. This recommendation states;

12. The Permanent Forum supports the conceptual and policy framework
proposed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the
issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business
enterprises. This framework rests on three pillars: first, the duty of
the State to protect against human rights abuses by third parties,
including transnational corporations and other business enterprises,
through appropriate policies, regulation and adjudication; second, the
corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means acting
with due diligence on all matters to avoid infringing on the rights of
others; and third, greater access for victims to effective remedies,
both judicial and non-judicial. ( E/2009/43 E/C.19/2009/14)

I hope the CSD 18th Session and the member states will reiterate this
framework and further elaborate on it as it applies to the mining
industry. There are other Special Rapporteurs who also made comments on
mining and how this affects the right to food and subsistence, housing,
freedom of religion, among others. The past and present Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of
indigenous people, (Rodolfo Stavenhagen and James Anaya), also made
several references on their annual reports on mining and indigenous
peoples.

There are clear signs that the mining industry is moving on in
important areas. We would acknowledge that some companies –including in
Australia have made welcome advances in the employment of Aborigines.
These have been conscious policies resulting in significant
improvements and benefits for local people. Companies like Rio Tinto
and others conduct some trainings on Human Rights for their staff. This
is most welcome as a start and if it could be rolled out elsewhere I
think it would be widely welcomed and would contribute positively.

However in the area of respect for basic human rights, the recognition
of basic rights like the need to secure the Free Prior and Informed
Consent of indigenous peoples before operating on their lands, despite
discussions and explanations this is not, as I understand FPIC is not
yet endorsed to by the ICMM. And the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining
and Sustainable Development has had no interaction with the UNPFII nor
with UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples Rights. Even if this
is an intergovernmental forum it should not remain as an exclusive
intergovernmental body. The CSD is an example of inclusiveness and this
practice should be followed by the IGF.

Some companies have taken the welcome step of announcing their
individual commitment to human rights standards and I can quote from
the Rio Tinto Annual report for 2009 as one example. It says “Rio Tinto
operates in a manner consistent with the UN Declaration on Indigenous
Peoples and sovereign obligations. We respect the land connection of
indigenous communities and work with them on their land in a spirit of
reciprocity, transparency and recognition of their culture…..”

Now there are indigenous brothers and sisters of mine who would dispute
if in fact Rio Tinto does fully operate in such a manner and there is a
problem we face generally of the absence of credible independent
monitoring of corporate behaviour which means such claims remain
unconfirmed. However I am sure that such commitments are a welcome
development in so far as they go and can be, if supported by actions
and independent verification the foundation for reductions in conflict
and greater mutual respect

The Rio summit nearly 20 years ago and Agenda 21 which will soon to be
remembered and built on, popularised and inspired millions with its
call for sustainable development. The situation was so serious then
that there was a willingness to contemplate new and different
approaches. For indigenous peoples we were hailed for our sustainable
living our walking gently on the earth which is both the philosophy and
practice of indigenous societies throughout the world. We were hailed
and acknowledged in those documents as a model for the future no longer
consigned as so often before into being remnants from the past.

However there is often a gap, a time lag, between words and actions. At
the time indigenous peoples were already suffering great hardship as
the result of the insatiable and unsustainable demands of the global
economy. Through logging, mining, industrial fishing and other assaults
our praised models of sustainable living were and remain under a severe
attack. Indigenous peoples who have contributed the least to the
generation of this current global economic and ecological crises, are
however the first to suffer its impacts and most of the times, left
with no recourse or redress. This is because most of us live closely
with and depend on nature. Our regard of earth as our mother, which
always was the source of our security, now becomes the source of our
greater vulnerability as the earth strikes back.

I would like to conclude by reiterating some of the recommendations
presented by the indigenous peoples' major group statement yesterday.

1 The respect for human rights and aspiration for social justice is an
essential pillar of our shared striving and vision for sustainable
development. It was and is for indigenous peoples and us all the
foundation of their engagement with this multi-stakeholder process.

2 I call on mining corporations both transnational and national, as
well as investors for mining (whether institutional or individual) to
endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I
recommend that mining Corporations and their associations such as the
ICMM and the IGF work with indigenous peoples to elaborate operational
guidelines on how to use the UNDRIP in their day to day operations and
how to monitor and promote its implementation.

 

3 Whatever good or best practices there are, in the main,
mining is such an unsustainable destructive activity which is why I
strongly recommend that stronger regulations in different areas should
be done. Voluntarism is not enough given the seriousness of the
economic, environmental, social, cultural and spiritual impacts for
indigenous peoples. Mining legislation which allows for the unfettered
operations of mines should be repealed and revised.

 

4 One lesson from the financial crisis of great importance
is not allowing speculative hot money to force an artificial
acceleration of the exhaustion of our natural none renewable resources
in mining. Derivatives trading and other speculation against metal ore
stocks may damage both the environment and the mining industry.

 

5 Indigenous peoples and others deeply affected by mining
have raised their complaints in many arenas, whether in the judicial or
non-judicial systems. Still there is a limited capacity to respond to
such complaints. I strongly recommend that information on channels and
mechanisms for complaint, justice and redress at all levels from the
local to the global level, be disseminated widely to indigenous peoples
and these should be made more accessible to them. Relevant capacity
building activities should be done with the support from bilateral
donors, intergovernmental bodies and the States.

 

6 The mining industry and Governments have established an
intergovernmental panel on mining and sustainable development. However,
indigenous and other affected communities are excluded from this body
and other bodies like the ICMM. The threats to and opportunities for
sustainable development posed by the mining industry require a more
balanced standing body representing all concerned sectors to work with
independent monitoring structures to present and disseminate in a
transparent manner more information on the serious issues concerning
mining extraction.

 

7 The World Bank Group and other international financial
institutions should continue to monitor and review their operational
directives and safeguard policies pertaining to indigenous peoples in
conjunction with existing international standards, especially the right
to free, prior and informed consent as required under the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Bank
should also implement the recommendations of its own Extractive
Industries Review. Likewise, other multilateral lending institutions
should include the requirement to obtain free, prior and informed
consent in their safeguard policies on indigenous peoples’ environments
and other concerns.

 

8 With the changing patterns in sustainable production and
consumption, and with consideration of the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities and the ecosystems based approach, all
sectors, especially Governments, should actively promote more
sustainable ways of life, including those practised by indigenous
peoples for generations including small-scale mining. Respect for their
traditional knowledge, practices and innovations, and their customary
governance systems and laws on extraction of natural resources should
be ensured. States, corporations and society at large should work to
reduce and promote the reuse, recycling and substitution of metals and
minerals help minimize mining and related processing activities which
result into toxic wastes. I also recommend that the specific roles and
contributions of indigenous women in developing more widespread
sustainable production and consumption should be strongly supported.

 

9 The CSD, corporations and States should operationalize the
framework on human rights and business developed by John Ruggie which
rests on three pillars: first, the duty of the State to protect against
human rights abuses by third parties, including transnational
corporations and other business enterprises, through appropriate
policies, regulation and adjudication; second, the corporate
responsibility to respect human rights, which means acting with due
diligence on all matters to avoid infringing on the rights of others;
and third, greater access for victims to effective remedies, both
judicial and non-judicial.

10 Finally, I reiterate the proposal of the UNPFII which calls on the
ICMM to invite the members of the Forum, the affected communities and
indigenous experts to visit 10 of their sites which they claim are
doing best practice, so they can see and make their own evaluation of
these. Then they can use the experience to craft more relevant
recommendations for the Policy year in 2011.

 

Thank you very much.

Victoria Tauli Corpuz email: vicky@tebtebba.org
website: www.tebtebba.org