Geotechnical News • December 2017
33
GEO-INTEREST
Mining and Sustainability – the State of Play
R. Anthony Hodge
Introduction
Just over 15 years ago in May 2002,
the Global Mining Initiative (GMI)
reported out after 2 years of inten-
sively reviewing mining’s social and
environmental practices. GMI activi-
ties spanned the world through its flag-
ship initiative, Mining, Minerals and
Sustainable Development (MMSD).
Some 50,000 people participated from
all corners of society – mining compa-
nies, consultants, suppliers, communi-
ties, civil society, indigenous people,
and academia.
The 1990s had seen a high and
increasing level of criticism levelled
at the industry, something that has
continued until today. When the waves
of public criticism coincided in the
mid-1990s with depressed prices and
a low in the boom–bust cycle, inves-
tors reduced their focus on mining in
favour of investment in clean, green,
and innovative information technol-
ogy which offered more profitable
and socially acceptable options. Ian
Thomson and Susan Joyce, who have
worked on community-mine relation-
ships across the Americas point out
(2006) that by the late 1990s:
mining was an industry whose
role and contribution to society
was in question in many parts of
the world with well-organized
grass roots opposition to mineral
exploration projects and new
mine developments. A series of
high profile tailings dam failures
and an explosion of conflicts
around mining projects in Latin
America had cast the industry in a
very negative light.
In short, a significant gap had opened
in the social and environmental
values of society and those reflected
in mining industry practices. The turn
of the millennium found the mining
and metals industry reeling from the
combined effects of public criticism,
investor hesitation, unfavourable
economic conditions, and changing
laws and regulations, all of which
added significant complications to the
process of mine planning, financing,
and decision-making.
It was a perfect storm. And the
industry faced increasing regulation
and public scrutiny for which is was
ill-prepared. Many industry lead-
ers felt discomfort and expressed an
attitude of hostile resistance, adopting
a black-and-white, ‘us–them’ position.
This attitude of resistance only served
to fuel the strong sense of ‘unfairness’
that already existed outside the indus-
try. By 2005, resource nationalism,
spawned at least partly by this sense
of unfairness linked to the high com-
modity processes characterizing the
2002 – 2012 super cycle, was high on
the list of ‘risks’ facing the extractives
industry. Meanwhile, on-the-ground
conflict between operations and host
communities was on the rise.
The August 2014 tailings failures at
Imperial Metal’s Mount Polley mine,
near Likely, British Columbia and
Southern Copper’s Buenavista del
Cobre mine, Sonora, Mexico, and the
November 2015 failure at Samarco’s
(jointly owned by BHP and Vale) Ger-
mano mine in Brazil once again cast
doubt on the integrity of the industry
and its regulators.
In an October 2017 report, “Mine Tail-
ings Storage: Safety Is No Accident”
the United Nations Environment
Programme reviewed 40 tailings
accidents in 15 countries since 2008
(UNEP, 2017). Since 2014 alone there
have been eight failures significant
enough to make global news. These
occurred in Canada, Mexico, Brazil
(twice), China, USA and Israel. The
report estimates that since 2008, mine
waste failures have killed several
hundred people, damaged hundreds
of kilometres of waterways, affected
drinking water sources, wiped out fish
populations, destroyed heritage sites
and monuments and jeopardized the
livelihoods of many communities.
In their assessment, Canada stands
second only to China as the worst
performer. In their report, UNEP urges
governments and the mining indus-
try to improve safety, accountability
and oversight.
Over the past 50 years, societal values
related to people and the environment
have greatly evolved. With a time-lag,
rules (some formal, some voluntary)
have also evolved. There is no doubt
that leading mining companies have
sensed this change and worked hard
to improve their social and environ-
mental practices. But in some ways,
it seems that the sum of societal value
changes and overall reality of mining
industry practices leaves us not a lot
farther ahead than 20 years ago – if
at all. And often a refrain arises that
the financial and legal framework that
governs the industry and that entrench
the dominant role of shareholder
value, production rates, and rate-of-
return, stand as the major barrier to the
