Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Free Prior Informed Consent the right of a community to grant or withhold consent to projects which will affect them and places communities as equal partners with companies during negotiations. It enables companies to demonstrate their social aspects and risk are appropriately managed. Three key parties: State, Community, Company each have important individual roles in implementing FPIC but will achieve greater success through collaboration. Agreements are required at various stages of a project. A paradigm shift in how in planning is required based on securing and maintaining the right to develop a project early in the project cycle in a transparent, participatory and inclusive manner. Exploration and feasibility work needs to be integrated in this approach, not the other way around. Northland gained it social licence through early proactive engagement with the Muonio Sameby. But lost it by not keeping its promises including failing to sign an MoU, and diminishing engagement once permits were received. Beowulf are implementing a similar approach, and are unlikely to obtain their social licence, putting at risk their ability to successfully develop their project.
Citation preview
Free Prior &Informed ConsentWhat it is, where’d it come from, where it’s going
+ Lessons from Norrbotten
Geoarena, Uppsalla, Oct 2014
geckoENVIRONMENT
What is Free Prior Informed Consent
• Communities’ right to self-determination• what kinds of developments affect them
A powerful method to reduce project riskProves social aspects ’managed’
• Equal partners during negotiations
• Safeguard vs veto?
• Agreement or ’super’ consultation?
Where’d it come from
• Social externalities – society ’subsidise’
mining projects
• ILO 169 (1989) – Indigenous & Tribal Peoples• FPIC when relocation unavoidable • Norway & Denmark ratified• Sweden & Finland not• Binding if ratified
• UNDRIP (2007)• FPIC ”prior to the approval of any project”• Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden signed• Non binding – toothless Tiger• 25 years in the making – contentious issue
Newmont’s Conga – irreversible changes to ecosystem services to be borne by social receptors
Where’s it going
”the trend is unmistakably towards strengthening the rights of IndigenousPeople”
ICMM IP & mining good practice guide 2010
• All communities … not only Indigenous People• Common Law – everyone does it therefore
everyone must do it.• Race to the bottom?
• Who’s not doing it gets the investment (Sweden?)
• Democracy & demographics – major challenge
http://www.federacionminera.cl/portal/?p=1441http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29531430
Chilean Supreme Courts halts development on Goldcorp’s El Morro mine “until indigenous communities are consulted”
7 Oct 2014
Who’s it involve& their role
+ financiers
Tripartite Advisory CommitteeHow mining should be done (in Sweden): convergenceBest practice – definition & guidelinesAdvisory – communities & companiesInformation repositoryExamples of SIAsList of expertsGrievance mechanism & Conflict resolutionFacilitation & mediationm.m. …
Policy framework;Strengthen miljöbalken
& mineral strategy;Development priorities
Consent prior to granting concession;
SEA
CollaborationEngagement;Best practice;Information
Commitment;Human & financial
resources;Best Practice/
Standards;Engagement.
Social Licence - Agreement Agreement on development
Legal Licence
Tripartitecommittee
State : Company : Saami Responsibilities & inter-relations
http://www.321an.se
Brev till CPM (engelska):
To Patricia Sheahan, Chairman of the Board, Continental Precious Minerals Inc. To Ed Godin, Chief Executive Officer, President, Continental Precious Minerals Inc.
We, the undersigned, are landowners on the mountain Billingen in Sweden. We have all from you received letters telling us that you want to make test-drillings for uranium in the alum shale on our property. To this we strongly oppose … (and) we will NEVER give up our resistance against test- drillings and uranium-mines! ….The only long-term result for your company will be a bad reputation.
http://vastgotabergen.se/skrivelser-och-brev/
Would Continental Precious Minerals have spent 12 million CAD on exploration
if it knew the municipalities would veto a uranium mine
& that locals would ”NEVER” give up opposing one?
SEA = 12 m CAD?
How to do it
Metallogenic areas ofSweden
Source: SGU
• Start early – paradigm shift in planning: all parties
• State – consent (via SEAs) prior to granting exploration licence
• Company – S&E team before exploration
Community (Saami) – proactive engagement
”We are here: This is who we are”
• Agreements – specific stages of project life-cycle
Paradigm shift in planning05, 06 1 q 07 2q 07 3q 07 4q 07 1q 08 2q 08 3q 08 4q 08 1q 09 2q 09 3q 09 4q 09 1q 10 2q 10 3q 10 4q 10 1q 11 2q 11 3q 11 4q 11 1q12 2q12
Traditional
Improve value through exploration until resource identified, commence feasibility studies & based on results commence S&E and Permitting.
Geology
Feasibility
Social & Environment
Permitting
Mine Permit
FPIC Compliant
Social & Environment Agreement
MoU -process MoU - exploration MoU - Permitting MoU - Feasibility Agreement - construction Agreement - operations
IBA
Exploration
Permitting Proj milestone
Mine Permit
Feasibility
Northland Resources
Geology exploration work
Social & Environmental Social & Environmental
MoU - process (how impacts to be managed) baselines
Tapuli & Kaunisvaara permitting IA
0803 Tap BAK submitted 0811 BAK granted 0904 GVT submitted 1008 GVT granted Consultation
Drafting permits
Feasibility - Tapuli Mine & Kaunisvaara Mill Feasibility
0806 PEA finished 0904 PEA start 0909 PEA KAV finished PEA
3 Key Assets Kaunisvaara 0909 DFS start 1009 DFS finished DFS
Northland – what went right
• Commitment (to collaboration)
• S&E team resourced early
• Best Practice & Internationally recognised standards• Equator Principles, ICMM 10 SD Principles, UNDHR
• Engagement & consultation• inclusive, timely, informative, transparent, participatory
Muonio Sameby – good faith negotiations
Critically Important
• Promised an MoU
Northland – what went wrong
Promises not kept:
• Commitment reduced - consultation
• Focus on permits not relationships/partnerships
• Miljobälken, not international standards
• Information in place of collaboration • Consultation & engagement with Muonio Sameby
reduced
• Project changes not consulted – truck transport ofconcentrate
• MoU not signed
Muonio Sameby
• No longer a ’Partner’
• Sidelined – media only about project,
• Vilkor not honoured - Årligs Samråd
• SIA (2008, 2010) – not updated
Investement by collaboration & land
has not paid dividends
Social Licence to Operate = lost
• Next mining company will not enjoy the same level of cooperation.
http://www.sametinget.se/61172
2013
Beowulf’s Kallak project – perils of compliance
• Compliance & socio-economic benefits to community – but which one?
• The local (Saami) community does not provide its consent
• Beowulf - negative reputation• no social licence
• challenges for future expansion
• regulatory & financial oversight
• Mining sector – Beowulf project also impacts sector’s reputation
geckoENVIRONMENT
innovation & expertisein sustainability
+31 641 658 649+358 403 218 638
