The Mining Sector and Human Rights

• Published on 14/10/2009
• Business Network

Mining is the source of many of modern life’s benefits, but not everyone is aware of the externalities that mining can cause; poor working conditions, low pay, health risks and disruption to indigenous communities.

Guidelines exist to help mining companies act responsibly, such as the UN Global Compact, which was launched in July 2000, and signed, by thousands of companies. It outlines ten principles covering human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption.

Two principles focus on human rights, clearly stating that businesses will respect International Human Rights and will not be complicit in human rights abuses. Now, just to define ‘complicity’ - this may be direct, through knowingly assisting a state to violate human rights, or it can be more indirect, taking the form of silence or failure to act to oppose human rights violations committed by others.

Take-up of international norms such as the UN Global Compact, and reporting regimes such as the Global Reporting Initiative which support them, is growing. These instruments set expectations for corporate behaviour across international boundaries. Mining companies, being large investors of capital in foreign countries, form a large portion of those signing on.

At the same time national laws continue to evolve in the courts.

Currently an action is underway in the US Federal Court to hold transnationals companies liable for human rights offences committed overseas. Known as the Drummond Trial, the case alleges US coal mining company Drummond collaborated with paramilitaries who killed 3 union leaders in 2001, in La Loma, Colombia, close to a Drummond mine. All were in contract talks, which had stalled over work place safety and wages. Drummond completely rejects any involvement and blames Colombia ’s long civil war.

While it is not the first such lawsuit, the Drummond trial will set a precedent, at least in US law, for resources companies facing similar cases, including ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. The Bush Administration has spoken against the lawsuits stating that they interfere with foreign policy, and promotes ‘frivolous or irrelevant grievances’ but just how frivolous is a human being’s life?

Australia’s large mining sector and many overseas mining investments have produced similar lawsuits. Many would be aware of the Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea , which is now majority-owned by the PNG Government after BHP divested its interests in 2002. Legal actions – and allegations of pollution - regarding the Ok Tedi mine continue to this day. It is instructive, however, that BHP Billiton is now a participant in the Global Reporting Initiative.

Generally, the most common human rights issues raised from mining include mistreatment of local indigenous communities, failure to mitigate pollution from mine tailings, mis-treatment of so-called ‘informal miners’ who dig with picks and shovels adjacent to major mine sites, and breaches of freedom of association.

In spite of these issues, Amnesty International looks to the Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative as reasonably simple ways in which resources companies can make their behaviour transparent to society. This supports an informed society, which can make ethical decisions. It is a simple obligation on mining companies – in return for the ‘social licence to operate’, and the right to derive profits from the current resource boom, society expects them to respect human rights and be transparent about their actions in so doing.

Society won’t and doesn’t have to give up mining. There are ways for resources companies to operate with minimal risk of human rights violations, so that human rights and mining can co-exist side by side.

Originally written for Ethical Investor Magazine August 2007 by Fiona Bachmann, member, and Rohan MacMahon, convenor of the Amnesty International ( Australia ) Business Group. The views expressed are personal.

nsw News