EDITORIAL PAGE — The Sword or the Shield?

The North American mining industry should put down its shield and take up its sword when it comes to excessive environmental regulations, according to several industry experts who spoke at the recent conference of the Northwest Mining Association in Spokane, Wash.

This tough stance was urged by several noteworthy speakers who argued that the environmental agenda has been hijacked by extremists who are not concerned about loss of jobs or economic opportunities.

Many warned that unless there is co-operative teamwork and a strong public voice, resource industries and communities will continue to be overwhelmed by public policy-making at the hands of “no-growth” preservationists. Robert Freas, president of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, argued that the purely defensive position taken in the past will gain the industry nothing. He also made the case that the “perception problem” is partly the fault of the industry:

“As an industry, we have not spoken with a unified voice; we have not done a good job of public relations; and we have all too often been unwilling to admit that we have committed errors in the past.”

Freas’ remarks were echoed by John Fitzpatrick, a director of Pegasus Gold, who said the mining industry’s response to the environmental attack has been “weak and unsuccessful” as a result of “timidity and lack of sophistication.” The speakers made it clear, however, that they were not dismissing the importance of maintaining responsible environmental standards. But they argued that the time had come for governments to subject environmental policies and decisions to the same critical judgment that is applied to other policies, which would entail closer scrutiny of potential cost impacts. “The thesis of environmental preservation at all costs is no more valid than the thesis of development without constraint,” Freas said.

Even the former director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines, T.S. Ary, urged that the industry needs to become more active in the area of environmental responsibility. He said he hopes the newly elected Republican majority in the U.S. Congress will be reasonable in its approach to regulation, and added that he is encouraged by the tendency to include cost-benefit studies in future regulations.

So what can be expected from these vigilant, vocal and fired-up miners south of the border?

They will be demanding institutional reform, a reduction in single-purpose agencies and more accountability. Another requirement will be more balanced decisions from government, as companies become less and less inclined to patch together unenforceable agreements.

In a nutshell, U.S. mining representatives will be fighting hard to prevent bad laws from being passed, to encourage good new ones and to recapture public support. We can also expect a vastly improved public information effort, and a stronger, more unified political presence.

All this does not mean mining interests will be giving a cold shoulder to environmental groups. “Accommodation between competing interests must occur,” Freas said, “and all parties should sit down at the table and work together.” Perhaps, just perhaps, the tide will begin to turn in 1995. We agree that the industry should avoid getting into a head-butting act with its adversaries. But at the same time, it should start responding aggressively to inaccuracies and misinformation.