The Global Mining Initiative

Economic growth, the essential condition of sustainable development, depends on the products of the mining industry. It is our responsibility to meet that demand, while at the same time addressing the environmental and social implications of our actions. We need to minimize the physical footprint of our activities and mitigate adverse environmental effects.

The economic, environmental and social aspects of the sustainable development agenda are constant challenges. Furthermore, our investments and our thinking tend to be more long-term than in many industries so the inter-generational framework, inherent in sustainable development, is our routine planning horizon.

But the mining industry recognizes that we have not always done a good enough job in handling these challenges. This led a group of leading mining companies to decide to work together to try to define how we, as an industry, should respond to the transition to a more sustainable future.

The starting point of the Global Mining Initiative (GMI) was to listen to and understand what others, including our critics, thought about the mining industry. Through the Swiss-based World Business Council for Sustainable Development, we commissioned an independent analysis of the industry entitled Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD).

This was an ambitious move with wider terms of reference than had been attempted in other sectors. The MMSD project, for two years, consulted extensively with those with an interest in mining in an open and transparent process.

A second element of the GMI was a conference held in Toronto in May 2002 to reflect on the findings and framework for action recommended in the MMSD report. The conference brought together industry, governments, intergovernmental agencies, indigenous communities, unions and non-governmental organizations. The 3-day conference made significant progress in breaking down barriers of mistrust.

But the dialogue and engagement did not end in Toronto. We made a commitment to continuing the process of interaction with others. So a third element of the GMI established the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). This body was designed to keep stakeholders talking about sustainable development and mobilize industry’s response to its agenda.

The GMI is an attempt to demonstrate that a sometimes controversial industry can respond constructively to the challenges of sustainable development. Indeed, in a message to the GMI conference in May the United Nations Secretary General linked the project with the aims of the UN Global Compact and wondered whether it might form the basis of a “sectoral Global Compact.”

Several aspects of this exercise are relevant to the wider debate at this summit: First, progressive companies acknowledge that they should contribute positively to the issues raised by the sustainable development debate. To those shareholders who question whether business should be proactive, my response is that there is a strong business case in terms of stability, risk management and employee motivation. There has been a remarkable increase in the level of public reporting by businesses. Doubters need only go to Rio Tinto’s Web site with its 1,700 pages of reporting on its environmental and social activities last year.

Secondly, we need to recognize that there are often complex trade-off decisions to be taken between the economic, social and environmental consequences of a project. It would be very nice if economic progress and the alleviation of poverty could be achieved without any adverse implications. But it is often unrealistic. Every new development in mining, or any other sector, is likely to involve an environmental price for the potential economic benefits and socially there may be some offsets to the obvious gains. In an ideal world, those tradeoffs would be accepted by informed and democratically accountable governments. But where government lacks the expertise and experience to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of projects it needs help to build its economy, it turns to disinterested third parties which often provide guidance which suits their own agenda.

This leads to my third point: the need for partnerships. I just referred to one area where governments and multilateral organizations need to work together.

There are plenty of other areas where business, government, intergovernmental agencies and NGOs can engage in constructive partnerships.

At an industry level, ICMM has formed a partnership with IUCN, the world conservation union, on biodiversity. It will also be working with the World Bank and others on community development.

Of course, I, and other leaders in our industry, are well aware that much remains to be done, but the process of making positive change has begun. For instance, Rio Tinto is incorporating sustainable development criteria into key business decisions. New projects are designed with this in mind and long-established operations are redesigning management strategies to incorporate sustainability issues.

ICMM is expanding its current Sustainable Development Charter to include areas in the MMSD report; assisting members to understand and apply sustainable development concepts; promoting the concept of integrated materials management within the sector; and promoting science-based regulatory decisions on the choice of materials to be used by consumers.

The creation of a more sustainable mining industry is not always going to be easy, but in the long-term it will make us stronger and better understood.

— The preceding is an edited version of a speech presented at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in early September. The author is executive chairman of London-based Rio Tinto.