Seven questions for you

It was at the World Economic Forum in 1999 that nine chief executives of major mining companies put their heads together and realized the public might have preferred those heads on a plate. Thus was born the Global Mining Initiative, to reclaim mining’s “social licence” to operate.

The London-based International Institute of Environment and Development got the call to examine how the industry might ensure it had public support. To develop a strategy, the Global Mining Initiative created a program known as Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD).

It was agreed early on that the plan would have a number of key priorities. It would have to assess the industry’s track record in contributing to the economy, human well-being, the health of the environment, and good government; and it would have to predict whether the mineral industry would serve the goal of sustainable development in the future.

Moreover, the industry needed an action plan, and needed to work out a system of consultation and analysis that allowed communities, the industry, and those ubiquitous “stakeholders” to reach agreement over mineral development projects.

Althought the MMSD program is global in scope, special attention was given to four traditional mining regions. So it was that North America, southern Africa, Australia and South America each was assigned MMSD regional projects. The North American project took on the task of designing a sustainable development framework for the mature mineral industries of Canada and the U.S. Extending the program to Mexico is one of the group’s priorities.

The Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development joined the University of Nevada at Reno’s MacKay School of Mines to co-ordinate research into the implications of sustainable development for North American mining. The program’s work groups developed “seven questions to sustainability,” which are intended as a guide for making sustainability decisions through all phases of mineral exploration and production.

The questions are meant to provide practical guidance for explorationists, designers and operators, from exploration through to closure. The first concern is engagement — are communities able to participate in the decisions that affect them, and, equally important, have they even agreed to these decisions?

The second concern is quality of life. Will people see an improvement in their lives during the life of the project, and after it is closed?

Third is the question of environmental sustainability — will the project preserve “the integrity of biophysical systems?”

Fourth, does the project offer economic opportunities for people, and will it contribute to local and regional economies?

Fifth, will it contribute to non-market activities in the community?

Institutional and governance issues are addressed by the sixth question: can the company, the community and governments provide a way of dealing with the effects of a mining project?

Last, is anyone looking at the big picture? There needs to be a system in place to re-evaluate the project and its effects as time goes on.

Industry issues

The thickest product of MMSD’s regional project here so far is Alistair MacDonald’s book, Industry in Transition — A Profile of the North American Mining Sector. MacDonald, in a 143-page study based on three months of interviews and discussions with people in the Canadian and U.S. mining industries, identified eight key issues facing the business in North America. These are outlined below:

– Senior and junior companies take different attitudes toward the ethic of sustainable development. Senior companies often see “creating a positive social environment” to be in the company’s direct interest, as it reduces outside risk factors — that a good reputation will prevent the protestors from showing up at your gate. Juniors, on the other hand, are in the game at an early stage, and often out before production begins. They have less incentive to build a good reputation locally.

– The industry needs a better reputation. The juniors, particularly, are caught between heavy-handed regulation and a public perception that juniors may be cowboys.

– The facts about mining do not make their way into public opinion. The industry has a benign-to-positive public image in Canada but an overwhelmingly negative one in the U.S., and the popular press usually paints the industry in a bad light.

– Mining companies and the people residing near projects often have different ideas about what the company should be doing. MacDonald sums this up as a need on the part of the company to focus on the “site” and a desire by the community to focus on the “situation.” Frequently people expect the company to provide new services and aid.

– Not everyone agrees precisely what sustainable development means. Sustainable development is often described as a “three-legged stool,” the legs being the environment, the economy and social sustainability. The industry sees economic sustainability as having been left aside, in favour of environmental and social aspects of sustainability.

– Mining companies have to live in a market, but much of the basis of sustainable development is in a planned system. This problem is at the root of many of the industry’s difficulties with the sustainable development concept: the requirements and commitments that come with a planned system simply may not be economically feasible.

– Canada has been a “globally dominant” mining country, but the increasing success of Canadian companies overseas may be eroding the country’s primacy in the metals business. Some in the industry see the creation of global mining centres, possibly based in Toronto and Vancouver, supplanting the national role mining once had.

– While companies may extend their business to other countries, their corporate cultures may not adapt well to the new environment. A firm can jump into international acquisitions and exploration, but operating internationally over the long term requires experience and insight.