More Precious than Gold… Precious than Gold.pdf · 2010. 1. 5. · More Precious Than Gold… 4 As a result, the Canadian mineral industry generates one million tonnes of waste

More Precious than Gold…Mineral Development and the Protection

of Biological Diversity in Canada

Prepared byEnvironmental

Mining Council of BC

On behalf ofWorld Wildlife Fund Canada

May, 1998

More Precious Than Gold: Mineral Development and the Protection of Biological Diversity in Canada© 1998 by Environmental Mining Council of BC

ISBN 0-9683841-0-2

For more copies of this publication, or to find out more about the subject matter, contact:

Environmental Mining Council of British Columbia1216 Broad St.,Victoria, B.C.CanadaV8W 2A5

Phone: (250) 384-2686

Fax: (250) 384-2620

E-Mail: [email protected]

Internet: http://emcbc.miningwatch.org

For information on the Endangered Spaces Campaign, contact:

World Wildlife Fund Canada90 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 504Toronto, OntarioCanadaM4P 2Z7

Phone: 1-800-26-PANDA

Phone in the Toronto area: (416) 489-8800

Fax: (416) 489-3611

E-Mail: [email protected]

Internet: http://www.wwfcanada.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://emcbc.miningwatch.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.wwfcanada.org

More Precious Than Gold… 1

More Precious than Gold…Mineral Development and the Protection

of Biological Diversity in Canada

THE BIG PICTURE ON MINING AND THEENVIRONMENT .......................................................2

Introduction .........................................................2The Impact of Mining ...........................................3The Agenda for Change........................................4

BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION AND THEENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MINING .........6

MYTH #1: “MINING-RELATED IMPACTS ARE LIMITED

TO A VERY SMALL FOOTPRINT” ..................................7Tenure Troubles ...................................................7Getting it Right from the Start...............................9Compensation Questions ....................................10Leave Nothing but Footprints…..........................10

MYTH #2: “MINING IS A TEMPORARY LAND USE .......12Infrastructure Impacts........................................13Acid Mine Drainage ...........................................13Accidents Happen… ...........................................15

MYTH #3: “THE MINING INDUSTRY IS BEING CHASED

OUT OF CANADA”....................................................15Global & Canadian Trends in Mining.................15Implications of Global Competition for Canada..17Canadian Exploration Trends.............................17Taking Stock… Linking Access to Money andAccess to Land ...................................................19

PATHS OF CONFLICT AND COOPERATION....20

The Whitehorse Mining Initiative (WMI).............21A Science-based Approach to Cooperation .........21The Manitoba Cooperative Experience ...............22When the Carrot Fails… Linking Stakeholders toShareholders......................................................22

ENDANGERED SPACES CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS..........................................23

Principle 1 - Mineral Development Should BeProhibited in Protected Areas.............................23Principle 2 - Interim Protection Measures AreRequired to Protect Candidate Sites....................23Principle 3 - Assessments of Candidate ProtectedAreas Must Consider Natural Values ..................24Principle 4 - Mineral Resource Assessments ShouldProceed Under More Stringent Conditions .........24Principle 5 - Ensure that Areas of High MineralPotential Are Not Immediately Excluded.............25Principle 6 - Mineral Exploration Standards MustBe Broadened and Enforced ...............................26Principle 7 - Governments Should Be Encouragedto Reform the Mineral Tenure System .................26Principle 8 - The Protected Area EstablishmentProcess Must Be Open and Transparent .............26Principle 9 - Conservation Organizations MustUnderstand Their Government’s Mineral Policyand The Rationale for Protected Area Boundaries..........................................................................26Principle 10 - Ensure That Regional Prospectingand Mining Associations Support the WMI..........27

APPENDIX 1 ............................................................28

GUIDELINES FOR A RESPONSIBLE MINE (OUTSIDE

PROTECTED AREAS) .................................................28

ENDNOTES..............................................................29


The Big Picture on Mining and theEnvironment

Introduction

cross Canada, those seeking to protectbiodiversity and those seeking mineralwealth have often ended up looking up

the same valleys…. For World Wildlife FundCanada’s Endangered Spaces Campaign,mineral development - from exploration tomine closure - poses some unique challengesand concerns.

In the effort to complete and safeguardCanada’s protected areas system,environmental organizations have engagedwith the mining industry many times—sometimes in cooperation, sometimes inconflict.

Why conflict? Some mining projectsthreaten the integrity of Canadian wild places,which are being lost at the rate of 100hectares (240 acres) every hour. At risk fromthis loss of habitat are many of the 300,000

species of plants and animals that live inCanada and the ecosystems that sustain boththem and us.

Over the last few decades, society hasbecome more aware of the environmentallegacy of mining. The price we pay for oureveryday use of minerals is sometimes veryhigh. Changes in laws, technologies andattitudes have begun to address some of themost immediate threats posed by mineraldevelopment. However, there are many miningpolicies and practices that continue to requireattention and action.

This discussion paper lays out some of theprimary issues and concerns, particularly froma biodiversity-protection perspective. Itprovides an overview for those concernedabout mining and environment conflicts, andraises questions about future directions. TheEndangered Spaces Campaign helps toconserve Canada’s biodiversity in a network ofprotected areas that represents natural

habitats across thecountry–on the land, in ourlakes and streams, and inour oceans.

The campaign seeks toprotect a representativesample of each of thecountry’s terrestrial regionsand one- third of themarine regions by the year2000, and to complete themarine protected areassystem by the year 2010.

Setting up this networkof protected areas, and

ensuring that the lands andwaters around them are also

AA

Caribou and other wildlife species are vulnerable to roads, habitatloss and other mineral development impacts Photo by Ric Careless


well managed, provides a framework forconservation.

By saving sufficiently large and wholeexamples of habitats, we save the wild speciesin all their diversity.

The Impact of Mining

So where does mining fit into the larger,global picture ofenvironmental impacts?One of the most stunningcomparisons that looks atthe level of global mineralactivity is offered by theWorldwatch Institute.About 24 billion tons ofnon-fuel minerals are takenfrom the Earth each year.Taking into account theoverburden (the soil androck on top of the ore), thetotal is around 28 billiontons of material disturbedeach year. This amounts toabout 1.7 times theestimated amount ofsediment carried each yearby all the world’s riverscombined.

Regardless of thepotential for site reclamation, this figure pointsto the real short- and long-term habitatdisruption concerns posed by mineraldevelopment.

The primary environmental damage fromthe mineral industry happens during theextraction of the raw materials. Unfortunately,our consumption of virgin mineral materialshas increased at a staggering rate over thepast 100 years, despite the fact that mineralsare durable and can very effectively berecycled. The Worldwatch Institute reportsthat, while the world population doubled, theglobal use of minerals increased tenfoldbetween 1750 and 1900. Since 1900, the

increase has been thirteenfold again1.

While the rate of extraction has increasedover the years, the average grade of ore(percentage of useable minerals) has steadilydecreased. With technology making theexploitation of lower grade deposits feasible,the result is a trend to more open pit mines,more waste and greater amounts ofdisturbance per unit of mineral extracted.

While technology and science may beimproving our technicalability to reclaim disturbedland, some of thefundamental, long-termenvironmental questionsare still poorly understood.These questions werereiterated by a recentsymposium of experts onmine waste from acrossCanada. The expertsacknowledged the highdegree of uncertaintyregarding the predictionand treatment of seriouslong-term mine pollutionproblems such as Acid MineDrainage.2

The figures in Table 1illustrate selected primaryproducts produced by theCanadian mining industry.

The figures do not, however, represent thetotal amount of material removed or disturbedin the process of mining. The tonnage includesonly the commodity that is the finalcommercial product of the mining process.

With a mineral like copper, average gradesmined in Canada are under 1%. This meansthat 99% of the material mined is waste. Thiswaste may be in the form of waste rock or thefinely ground “tailings” left after the ore hasbeen extracted. Typically, the amount of goldper tonne of material disturbed is even less.

Volume of Selected MineralsProduced in Canada (1995)Commodity Volume

(000tonnes)

% ofWorldtotal

Gold 149.4 6.6Nickel 166.8 17.3Lead 203.3 6.5Copper 704.9 6.6Zinc 1,093.5 15.1Sulphur 7,975.0 22.0Potash 8,847.9 36.1Gypsum 9,185.0 9.0Iron Ore 37,130.0 3.7Coal 75,720.0 1.7Stone 92,223.5 n/aSand andGravel

239,870.5 n/a

Table 1: Source: Canadian MineralsYearbook 1995


As a result, the Canadian mineral industrygenerates one million tonnes of waste rock and950,000 tonnes of tailings per day, totalling650 million tonnes of waste per year.3 If youfigure that an average dump truck carries aload of around 20 tonnes….

In Canada today, there are roughly 90metal mines, 33 coal mines, and over 300“industrial mineral” operations that includesand and gravel, stone, gypsum, potash, etc.Government forecasts suggest that over thenext several years an average of 20 new mines(including metal, coal and industrial metals)are likely to be openedannually across the country.

As will be discussed later,the potential impacts of thedifferent stages and types ofmineral development rangewell beyond the final hole inthe ground. In trying tounderstand the effect of amine, it has to be consideredfrom the initial explorationphase through to its closure.And it must be understood asbeing at the centre of acomplex energy, water,processing and transportationinfrastructure.

The impacts must beunderstood in both economicand ecological terms.According to the MiningAssociation of Canada, thecurrent cost of cleaning up thelegacy of thousands of pastand current mines acrossCanada is $6 billion.

Each stage of the mining process has thepotential for different impacts of variousdegrees (see Environmental Considerations inMining, below). The impacts depend on avariety of factors including the sensitivity oflocal terrain, the composition of minerals beingmined, the type of technology employed, the

skill, knowledge and environmentalcommitment of the company, and finally, ourability to monitor and enforce compliance withenvironmental regulations.

The potential conflict between theEndangered Spaces commitment to protectingbiodiversity and mineral development startswith the land use competition betweenprotected area candidates and sites withvaluable mineral potential.

Other concerns arise if ecologicallyimportant “buffer” areas adjacent toestablished protected areas suffer impacts

from mineral development.Impacts can range from thedegradation of water or airquality to the loss of importantwildlife corridors anddestruction of critical habitatareas.

The Agenda forChange

The growing popular andscientific awareness of theprinciples of conservationbiology demands a broaderjoint commitment fromindustry, government and thepublic to protect theconnections and componentsthroughout each ecosystem.

Important first steps in thisdirection were undertaken byrepresentatives from different

stakeholder groups who came together at theWhitehorse Mining Initiative, a national forumon the future of mining held in 1992-1994. Allsectors agreed that the future health of oureconomy relies on following conservationprinciples, including the establishment of asecure, representative protected areas network(see Whitehorse Mining Initiative, below).

Acid mine drainage is a seriousthreat to surface and groundwater

Photo by Ric Careless


With some notable exceptions, however,much more work needs to be done by all sidesbefore harmony can be achieved betweeninterests of mineral development andbiodiversity conservation.

To work toward the goal of protectingecological integrity while fulfilling our socialdemand for mineral resources we must,

a) protect representativeexamples of biologicaldiversity throughout each ofCanada’s ecoregions,

b) understand the specificecological risks anduncertainties posed bydifferent mining projects,

c) address the risks with reliable regulatorysafeguards that provide industry with clearand strong incentives for soundenvironmental management and,

d) consider means to (re)use our mineralsmore efficiently so that we maximize theuse of this non-renewable resource.

There is a need for a clearer public agendaon when, where, and under what conditionsmineral development may be acceptable. Suchan agenda reminds decision-makers thatminerals are a public resource belonging to allCanadians, to be exploited in a manner thatcomplements our larger public needs and notsimply the demands of investors.

Integrating mineral development into asustainable economy and environment requiresprotection of the public from the ecologicalliabilities caused by irresponsible andinappropriate mineral development.

The long-term legacy of toxic mine waste,and the disruption of ecosystem-basedplanning by the antiquated mineral tenure

systems that persist across Canada, willcontinue to pose threats and challenges toenvironmental sustainability. The precautionaryprinciple, which is at the root of EndangeredSpaces Campaign and is endorsed by allstakeholders in the Whitehorse MiningInitiative, has yet to be implemented.

This said, it is critical to acknowledge theimportance mining plays in many regional

economies and the fact that weuse metals constantly throughouteach day of our lives. The valueof non-fuel mineral production in1995 was $19.3 billion, withmining, concentrating, refiningand fabricating activitiesproducing about 4% of the GDP.

It is a fact that this central part of the non-renewable resource sector can and willcontinue to be an economic force in manyregions of Canada for the foreseeable future.

Furthermore, simply exporting our industryand its impacts overseas is neither ethically noreconomically desirable. Sending miningcompanies off to largely unregulated southernnations would be applying the NIMBY (Not InMy Back Yard) syndrome at a global level.

A larger challenge is how we use ourmineral resources more safely and sustainably,reduce our consumption of non-renewableresources, increase our “mineral efficiency”,and minimize the short and long-term impactsof mining. While this is an interesting and vitalarea of policy, it goes beyond the scope of thisdiscussion paper. For those interested inpursuing this area of resource policy andstrategy, the Worldwatch Institute and othershave begun this discussion in a series ofessays on resource efficiency.

“There is a need for aclearer public agenda onwhen, where, and underwhat conditions mineral

development may beacceptable.”


Biodiversity Protection and theEnvironmental Impacts of Mining

hile there have been manyimprovements in mining practices from“the bad old days,” significant

environmental risks remain. Negative impactsvary from small-scale habitat disruption oftrenching in exploration through to large-scaleand long-term threats posed by mine waste andtailings after closure (see EnvironmentalConsiderations for Mineral Development, below).

In the right place - and with the rightcompany, new technologies and some goodplanning - many of the potential impacts areavoidable. History has shown that goodenvironmental performance is most likely whenyou have:

• the cooperation of sound regulations,• freedom of information,• a responsible company and labour force, and• an informed, effective public.

When these factors are in place, there isaccountability and transparency built in to theoperation (see Appendix 1: “Guidelines For aResponsible Mine”).

Unfortunately, this ideal world is still far frombeing implemented, and there are a number oftrends that currently threaten progress to thegoal of environmentally appropriate mineraldevelopment.

Some of the primary areas of concern include

• limited public capacity for independent andequitable participation in developmentassessment processes,

• ongoing uncertainty in assessing cumulativeeffects and long term toxins problems ofmining through the EnvironmentalAssessment process,

• significantly reduced governmentresources/capacity for monitoring and

enforcement of existing environmentalregulations resulting in significant complianceproblems,

• the current trend toward environmentalderegulation, which is seen by many analystsas an erosion of public safeguards andcorporate accountability,

• increased competition for mineral investment,which has resulted in reduced leverage andweighting of environmental and socialissues.4

These conditions, which undermine theintegrity of environmental regulations andassessments, magnify the need for fullprotection of critical ecological areas.

Even if our regulatory system were workingwell to protect the environment, there are someplaces where mining, or any industrial activity, issimply inappropriate.

As noted above, all stakeholder groups in theWhitehorse Mining Initiative (WMI)acknowledged this fact. Industry, conservation,labour and First Nations delegates agreed that,

“Protected areas networks are afundamental part of the sustainable balanceof society, economy and environment….[O]ur goal is to create and set aside fromindustrial development by the year 2000those protected areas required to achieverepresentation of Canada’s land-basednatural regions.” (WMI Accord)

On the remaining unprotected landscape thatsurrounds these vital areas, a challenge we faceas conservationists and consumers of mineralproducts is to know where, when, and how it ispossible to have environmentally sound miningoperations.

In dealing with the land use and ecological

WW


protection issues around mining, there are anumber of claims and assumptions that arecommon and often repeated by miningadvocates. Clearly anyone engaged in this issuemust be prepared to test the validity of these

assumptions on a site by site basis. Thefollowing is a discussion of just three of theseclaims and what they mean for biodiversityprotection efforts.

Myth #1: “Mining-related impacts are limited to avery small footprint”

ining promoters often point to therelatively small size of a mine as ameasure of its ecological impact. And

on the surface the argument sounds convincing.After all, what’s a hole in the ground comparedwith a 1,000 hectare clear-cut?

However, the mine site itself is just one point ina long line of activity before and after thedigging starts. It is also at the centre of ageographical web of transportation routes(roads/barges/air access routes), energyinfrastructure (dams/power lines), tailingsponds, waste rock piles, and processing plants(see Table 3, Environmental Considerations forMineral Development).

The impacts of mining begin, as manyprotected areas activists are only too familiar,with the claim staking process. In itself, stakinga claim does not necessarily disturb the land. Itmay be done by helicopter or even by mapping.However, the act of staking a claim is a kind oftenure that may jeopardize and take precedenceover other land uses.

Tenure Troubles

Eight out of ten Canadian provinces, as wellas both Territories, have a “free entry” tenuresystem. (Only PEI and Alberta use adiscretionary mineral tenure system.) The freeentry approach was developed in Europe in the1500s, largely to serve the military needs ofwarring noble clans.5

The general principle is that the Crown’s

mineral resources are available on a first come,first served basis; those who seek minerals arepermitted to explore and claim tenure of thesub- surface rights for that purpose. Individualsengaged in mineral exploration register as “FreeMiners” and are charged little or nothing for therights of access and tenure to the publicresource.

The concept was brought into law in Englandin the 18th century and was carried withEuropeans to manage gold rushes in Californiaand eventually British Columbia, where thecolony’s first mining law, establishing a freeentry system, was enacted in 1859.

In North America, the free entry tenureplayed a role as an incentive for opening up newland for settlement and development. This is stillthe case in remote areas. In northern BritishColumbia, for example, the Tulsequah Chiefcopper mine in Northwest BC could be thecatalyst for major, and likely irreversible,changes to a region that is currently withoutroads, development or land use plans.

Areas like this are used extensively by lessvisible renewable resource users, including FirstNations, guide outfitters, recreational andcommercial fishers and backcountry tourismoperators. None of these legitimate land usersenjoys the privilege of tenure in the way amineral exploration company or prospectordoes.

• While it varies to a certain degree acrossCanada, this system universally accords freeminers

M


• the right of entry and access to lands whichhave mineral potential, and

• the right to locate and stake a claim withoutconsultation with other resource users.

• These rights are unique to mining and are

seriously out of place in today’s complex landmanagement challenges. They allow oneinterest group to frustrate others that aresubject to a more modern discretionary tenuresystem.

A discretionary system,such as that often used foroil and gas or other naturalresources, affords theopportunity to consult andhave some measure ofcommunity control over thepace and location ofdevelopment. This isparticularly true in sensitiveareas, and those areas onwhich other users rely foreconomic reasons, such asguide outfitting andfisheries.

Given the increasinglycomplex demands andconcerns for the public landand water, a free entrysystem is an anachronism.

Based on the notion that minerals are rare,unpredictable and unmovable, free entry givesprecedence to minerals over other kinds ofresource development and/or protection. Amodern addition to the free entry rationale isthat exploration is benign, or non-consumptive,and thereby worthy of special status.

This line of argument runs into a variety ofproblems in the real world. First, it is abundantlyclear that the habitats of many threatened andendangered species are at least as rare,certainly no more movable, and much moresubject to irreparable damage than mineraldeposits.

Second, while the ecological footprint from

individual exploration projects may be small, thecumulative impacts of exploration can beextensive. If, as the industry suggests, the ratioof exploration programs to successful mines is1,000:1, this means considerable humanactivity, machinery and fuel being transportedinto a broad area of backcountry by road or byair.

In 1995, the total amount of land staked fornew mineral claims was almost 16 million

hectares (see Table 2). Thiswas then the fourth highesttotal on record. Thirty-ninepercent of the explorationactivity was in Newfoundland,24% in Northwest Territories,and 11% in Alberta.6 Thisstaking activity is part of acyclic process of investmentthat will continue to fluctuateregionally, subject to a varietyof influences, ranging fromgeological research andcommodity prices togovernment tax incentiveprograms.

In the recent staking rush inVoisey’s Bay, Labrador, over250,000 claims were staked,involving over 100 companies.

The NWT experienced a similar frenzy of activitywith its diamond rush. Both events were fueledas much by stock market speculation asgeological assessment. Both rushes haddisruptive effects on native land claims,protected areas and other interests notassociated with speculation and exploitation ofminerals.

Controls on exploration activities and of thesekinds of impacts could and should be better-integrated into tenure systems.

Unfortunately, the current free entry tenuresystem continues to create complications anduncertainty. The lack of balance and integrationwith other interests restricts the opportunity tomake wise land use decisions that meet all

New Mineral ClaimsStaked in CanadaYear Area Staked

(ha.)1989 5,063,569

1990 4,998,490

1991 5,398,340

1992 32,886,339

1993 27,003,430

1994 15,855,435

1995 15,772,035

Table 2: Source: CanadianMineral Yearbook 1995


needs (see Endangered Spaces Conclusions andRecommendations, below).

Getting it Right from the Start

Governments, industry and environmentalistsshould be looking seriously at how to reducemining and environment conflicts early in theprocess. With adequate education, regulationand technology, modern practices could preventmuch of this conflict in the future.

Opportunities to reduce impacts andencourage more extensive use of “green”exploration practices include:

• restructuring tenure to consider other landuse priorities,

• minimizing the construction of ground accessroutes wherever possible,

• identifying and mitigating for ecologicallysensitive areas during exploration permitting,

• prohibiting outdated, destructive explorationpractices

• creating incentives for the use of advancedsensing and testing technologies, and

• linking tenure rights with environmentalperformance.

In addition, there is the need to use mineralstaking restrictions or “interim withdrawals” inselective cases where protected areas are beingconsidered. By using staking withdrawals to limit

exploration activity until the planning process iscompleted, governments can avoid cost andconfusion for all stakeholders.

Creating a level playing field for theassessment of different potential land uses iscritical to sound decision-making for publicresources.

The Whitehorse Mining Initiative Accordnotes that “the granting of permits andenvironmental assessment are made moredifficult [where] issues of compatibility andsuitability of land uses have not been addressed.Dealing with the land use questions earlythrough effective land use decision-makingprocess will enhance the quality and efficiencyof other related processes.”7

A disturbing development away from this kindof level playing field is found in the currentmove to deregulation and industry self-regulation in many regions of the country. Fromone perspective, this move is a positive sign thatsome in industry are adopting environmentalcodes of conduct, and are being encouraged totake more responsibility for environmentalstandards. However, these policies are of limitedcomfort as they bring no mechanism for publicaccountability, are open to broad interpretationand are not applied consistently across thelandscape.

An example of the trend reduce regulation isthe loss of public involvement and permittingcontrol over exploration access construction,trenching and drilling in Ontario. This kind ofderegulation increases the potential for damageto the environment and to wilderness-basedeconomies from mineral exploration anddevelopment.

In the long run, such an approach tomanaging our public resources poses risks to theindustry as well. It allows less responsibleoperators to create the kind of damage that willinvoke a broader backlash, which will be felt bythe industry as a whole.

What is needed is a clear, fair andenvironmentally sound system for permitting

Exploration camp and access roadsPhoto by Wayne Sawchuck


exploration activities that will address the needfor ecological as well as mineral wealth.

Compensation Questions

It is important to note that there are limits tothe rights granted free miners under theCanadian legal system. Industry references tomineral rights as “property rights” obscureimportant factors that affect the public right tocancel or expropriate mineral exploration claimswhere doing so is in the public interest.

According to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund(SLDF) Report on Compensation IssuesConcerning Protected Areas,

Rights to public resources such as mineralclaims are contractual in nature; and arereceived subject to limitations which areinconsistent with traditional views of the

“right of property.” … It is neither useful noraccurate terminology to refer to policychanges in allocation of public resources as“takings.” … In Canadian law, changes inpublic policy which affect land values orbusiness interest do not, as a matter of law,require compensation… most corporateclaims to compensation are not based onexisting legal rights; …Public rights have asmuch status as private rights at this level.8

The limited nature of mineral rightsestablishes an important base from which todiscuss and settle disputes over mineralexploration claims. Public right and corporateright need to be put into appropriate balance.To ensure balance and fairness in public policy,SLDF recommended, as did the WhitehorseMining Initiative Accord, that some level ofcompensation should be considered in land usedecisions involving cancellation of mineralexploration tenure in good standing. Thiscompensation could be considered as a matterof policy, even if it is not legally required.

SLDF suggests that, where it is warranted,fair compensation should be received forinvestment dollars less depreciation. Anydamage done to public resources should bededucted and mitigation of these effects shouldbe required. Compensation should not be paidfor future profits, nor should “the public beforced to buy back its own assets.”

Leave Nothing but Footprints…

Mineral development includes a broad rangeof activities, from exploration to closure, whichmay occur over several decades. The potentialimpacts range from the most benigntechnologies for airborne surveys, to some ofthe most persistent and highly toxic industrialwaste sites in the world.

Improvements in mitigation technologies andtechniques have been significant in recent years.Nevertheless, significant uncertainty remainsabout controlling impacts from many aspects ofmineral development—from our ability tomanage unauthorized access on exploration andmining roads, to the well-documented scientificuncertainty of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD)prediction and prevention.

Even before a mine gets established, thereare “footprint” concerns. A notable example isfound at the Windy Craggy site, in the heart ofthe Tatshenshini-Alsek World Heritage Site.There, independent research has confirmed thatthe pH levels in streams draining from the

Windy Craggy, once site of a proposed coppermine and now in the Tatshenshini-AlsekWorld Heritage Site Photo by Ric Careless


entrance of the “bulk sampling” tunnels or aditsand the exploration waste rock piles are alreadydropping, proof that the AMD process has beenaccelerated by exploration activity.

From a protected areas perspective, theexperience at the Myra Falls copper mine inStrathcona park in BC graphically illustrates theproblems of mineral development. Bob Ahrens,former parks director for Strathcona says:

“What harm is a ten acre mine in a park of500,000 acres? Let me tell you about a 10-acre mine in one provincial park. Thisrequires a hydroelectric power development(or power poles into the park), a tailingsdisposal site, a mining mill site, mill effluentdisposal sites, many roads, a camp, bargeshipping and tugs on a major lake, loadingout works, then a highway through the park(along water grades) all for just a starter.

Environmental Considerations for Mineral Development

DevelopmentPhase

Potential Activities Environmental Issues (subject tomitigation/prevention measures)

PreliminaryExploration

airborne and ground-based geochemicaland geophysical surveys, prospecting,map staking

land alienation from protection options

AdvancedExploration

claim staking, line cutting, stripping,drilling and trenching, road/trail buildingand/or helicopter transport, bulksampling

trail/road and trenching erosion, access-relatedover harvesting and fishing, habitat disruption,noise pollution, acid mine drainage

Mining andMilling

environmental impact assessment, minedesign and construction,stripping/storing of “overburden” of soiland vegetation, ore extraction,crushing/grinding of ore, flotation orchemical concentration of ore, mine andsurface water treatment, storage ofwaste rock and tailings

wildlife and fisheries habitat loss, changes inlocal water balance, sedimentation,containment of toxins in tailings ponds and/orleaching solutions, tailings ponds or leachingpads stability failure, potential acid generationfrom waste rock and pit walls, heavy metalleaching from acid mine drainage, cyanidesolution containment at heap leach operations,wind borne dust

Smelting andRefining

processing of mineral concentrate byheat or electro-chemical processes

sulphur dioxide emissions contribute to acidrain, toxic chemical (e.g., ammonia, sulphuricacid) use for processing, high energyrequirement

Mine Closure recontouring of pit walls, and wastedumps, covering of reactive tailingsdumps, decommissioning of roads,dismantling of buildings, re-seeding/planting of disturbed areas,ongoing monitoring and possible waterquality treatment

seepage of toxic solutions into ground andsurface water, water contamination from acidmine drainage, wildlife and fisheries habitatloss, revegetation failure, wind borne dust,slope and tailings impoundment failure

Table 3


That 10 acre hole influences 100,000 acres ofthe choicest part of the park.”

The Myra Falls mine, a relatively modernunderground operation, underscores theinappropriateness of industrial activity and theresulting impacts associated withinfrastructure.

Conflicts have arisen overnoise, water quality, and visualimpacts over the course of 30years. Various areas of the parkhave been opened up forexploration and development.The presence of the mine has necessitateddecades of local protest and advocacy to try tocontrol the impacts on the ecological integrity ofthe park.9

There have been ongoing concerns aboutmine expansion plans and hazardous wastemanagement. Even when it is finally closed, themine’s acid-generating tailings, located in aseismic fault zone, will require long-termtreatment and maintenance.

Beyond the direct impacts of mining insideparks, there is the question of impacts from“upstream” development. Contemporaryexamples include:

• concerns over the potential for pollutionfrom the New World mine that was proposedbeside Yellowstone National Park

• habitat destruction from the Cheviot Mineadjacent to Jasper National Park,Alberta.

These are classic examples of theneed to look beyond theboundaries of protected areas tosee how they relate to the broaderlandscape.

In cases where water, wildlifeor fish travel across protected

area borders, a transition corridor or “bufferzone” may be required. Conservation biologistshave recognized that limiting harm to thesetransboundary resources is essential to ensurethe long-term health of core protected areas.

What can happen to protected lands if apoorly designed and/or under-regulated mineraldevelopment occurs in adjacent areas? Table 3(below) summarizes potential environmentalissues and concerns arising at the differentstages of mineral development.

Appendix 1 lists some approaches to minedesign that can assist in mitigating the identifiedconcerns, in the short and long-term.

Myth #2: “Mining is a temporary land useany proposed mines have projectedlives of a few decades or less. Toindustry spokespeople, this fact alone

ensures that impacts will be short-lived. Whymake a big fuss over a mine that’ll be closedand reclaimed practically before you know it’sthere?

While in many cases mining can be atemporary use of the land, this clearly has notalways been the case. The lasting ecologicalfootprint of irresponsible mining can bemeasured in many ways.

Perhaps the two greatest and most long lastingimpacts from mining are:

(a) habitat destruction and increased accessfrom construction of infrastructure (minewaste impoundments, transportation andenergy corridors), and

(b) the effects of Acid Mine Drainage on fish,wildlife and water quality.

It is also the case that accidents happen, oftenleaving impacts that last long after the mineowners move their investments somewhereelse.

M

“The Myra Falls mine…underscores the

inappropriateness ofindustrial activity andthe resulting impacts

associated withinfrastructure.”


Infrastructure Impacts

The potential for lasting impacts from

mineral development must be assessed in lightof substantial requirements for power, waterand transportation routes.

Mining (excluding the iron and steelindustry) consumes 14% of all industrialenergy used across Canada. In northernregions, where human population is sparse,mining operations often account forconsiderably more of the regional powerdemand. Over the past decade, the industryhas increased its energy intensity (use ofenergy per unit of material produced) by 13%,rather than reducing it.10 Its energy demandsare second only to the pulp and paperindustry. These massive energy requirementsare met with hydroelectric, coal and naturalgas power through the use of dams, thermalgenerating stations and pipelines.

In terms of landscape-level and site-specificbiodiversity protection efforts, these powersystems pose serious, long-term concerns.

Roads cause a variety of impacts, not theleast of which is opening up intact wildlands toa range of development. While historically thismay have been a useful function, thepressures on biodiversity and the changing

nature of environmental values challenge theusefulness of this strategy. The historical andcurrent effects of increased road accessinclude habitat fragmentation, erosion and

stream sedimentation, wildlife disruption,overharvesting, and toxic waste spills.

The effectiveness of policy andregulation for road site planning, accessmanagement and decommissioningremains weak and inconsistent acrossCanada.

The role of energy and transportationcorridors as a catalyst or stimulant forincremental development is wellunderstood but poorly incorporated intoour assessment of cumulative impacts onthe landscape. More work must be done toincorporate these issues into land useplanning.

Acid Mine Drainage

Industry, labour, government, andenvironmentalists agree on the seriousness ofAcid Mine Drainage (AMD). It is the numberone environmental problem facing the miningindustry. There is no dispute that AMD

• devastates fish and aquatic habitat,• is virtually impossible to reverse with

existing technology,• costs millions of dollars annually to treat,

and• can continue for centuries.

AMD occurs when sulphide-bearing mineralsin rock are exposed to air and water, changingthe sulphide sulphur to sulphuric acid.

This acid dissolves heavy metals such aslead, zinc, copper, arsenic, selenium, mercury,and cadmium into ground and surface water.Certain naturally present bacteria cansignificantly increase the rate of this reaction.

AMD and heavy metals pollution can poisonground and drinking water and can destroyaquatic life and habitat. Ore bodies commonly

A mine is more than the hole in the ground… It is thecenter of a web of developments. Photo by Laura Duncan


mined that pose AMD risk are gold, silver,copper, iron, zinc, lead (or multi-metalcombinations) and coal. Acid mine drainagecan develop at several points throughout themining process, in underground workings,open pit mine faces, waste rock dumps,tailings deposits, and ore stockpiles.

Acid generation can last for decades,centuries, or longer, and its impacts can travelmany miles downstream. There are Romanmine sites in Great Britain that continue togenerate acid drainage 2,000 years aftermining ceased.

There are many Canadian examples. TheEquity Silver Mine in BC is a classic examplevalidating public concerns. Despitethe bestefforts andexpertsworking on it, EquitySilver will need pollutioncontrol measures appliedfor the next fivecenturies. Ifthese measures fail,the heavy metals andacidic drainage willaffect the Bulkley andSkeena River system,one of therichestsalmonsystems inBC.

In BCalone thereare 26

knownacid-generating mine sites and 20 potentially acid-generating sites (see map this page).According to the BC State of EnvironmentReport, there are currently 72 million tonnes ofacid generating tailings and 250 million tonnesof acid generating waste rock. This figure isincreasing by some 25 million tonnes per year.

In speaking to the historical legacy ofmining in the US, Albert Gilbert reported to theAmerican Mining Congress in 1988 that,“Mining waste cases typically span very, verylarge areas... what you’re talking about is theentire environment. The problems are typicallylarger than in an average Superfund [nationalenvironmental clean-up program] hazardouswaste site.”

Larger, and more expensive…. The FinancialPost reported that, in Canada, the "Aciddrainage at existing mining operations inCanada is considered to be the most seriousenvironmental threat, with federal estimates ofclean-up costs between $2B and $5B."11

Even a small mine can have an enormousecological and economic cost. On theTsolum River, for instance, a smallthree year, 13 acre mine has ruined a$2 million annual fishery and will costmillions more to fix.

Fisheries officials identified AMD asthe leading cause of a 90% reductionin the salmon fishery. Despite majorclean-up efforts, there is just asmuch copper in the water, asubstance deadly to salmon, as there

was when clean-up efforts starteda decade ago. According to a

recent BC Water QualityBranch report, fisheries

rehabilitation effortshave yielded near

complete failures.

Thebroadly

recognized scientificuncertainty surroundingAMD prediction and

treatment, combined with its potentiallydevastating long term effects suggest the needfor a strongly pre-cautionary approach to thedevelopment of such mines. The WMI Accordendorses the precautionary principle, notingthat,

“In the past, arguments over the need for

Acid Mine Drainage Sites in British Columbia


scientific certainty delayed action in situationswhere it was required. For soundenvironmental decisions to be made during thelife cycle of a mine complete certainty is not aprerequisite to appropriate action to protectthe environment where risk of serious adverseimpacts to the ecosystem are evident.”

To protect biodiversity, the application ofthe precautionary principle to effectiveassessments, policies and regulationsconcerning AMD is of fundamental importance.

Accidents Happen…

Precaution is essential when dealing withmineral developments because of the highcosts of mistakes. The deceptive “temporaryfootprint” argument does not captureenvironmental realities, past or present.

Unfortunately, there are many recent highprofile examples of mine failures by Canadiancompanies that have underscored public andenvironmental risk:

• Placer Dome’s Marcopper disaster in thePhilippines involved a major tailings failurethat resulted in the massive sediment

loading to the Boac River, mine closure andthe arrest of senior officials.

• Cambior’s Omai mine released a majorcyanide spill into the Essequibo River, anaccident in which Canadian engineeringfirms have been accused of negligence.

• Curragh’s Westray coal mine resulted in thedeath of over 20 Nova Scotians, and

• Galaxy’s Summitville mine left the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency holding a$100M clean up bill.

• Boliden’s Los Frailes mine, adjacent toDonana National Park in Southern Spain,spilled acidic and heavy metal tailings in1998, contaminating 5,000 hectares offarmland and devastating Europe’s largestwetland.The reality of mineral development is that it

is a very high stakes game. When mistakeshappen, there is the risk of serious and long-term damage due to the scale and nature ofthe mining process.

Safeguards must be in place to ensure thatthe short- and long-term risks are thoroughlyassessed and that, where mining occurs, thecosts are not offloaded to the public and theenvironment.

Myth #3: “The mining industry is being chased out ofCanada”

n the wake of the 1993 Tatshenshinidecision, the push for completion of theprotected areas system, integrated land use

planning efforts and land claims settlements, ithas been claimed that the mining industry isbeing driven out of Canada.

The public relations campaigns sponsored byindustry associations claim that the industry is“on the rocks” and that we need to grantregulatory, land use and other concessions tocompanies seeking to “keep mining in Canada.”

Despite this lobby effort, the reported

economic performance in the Canadian miningindustry during this period has largely beensignificant increases in employment, profits,capital investment, returns to shareholders, andexploration investment.

Global & Canadian Trends inMining

The reality of the mining industry has alwaysbeen “boom and bust.” It is a highly cyclic

I


industry, with economic peaks and troughs thatare traceable more to financial factors such asthe price of copper or gold (and to the whims ofstock promotion—see “Taking Stock”, below)than to any “unfavourable” land use decisions.

Modern mines require very large capital flowand investment to continue operations. As aresult, small fluctuations in the value of the orebeing produced, or in the cost of borrowingmoney, can make or break a project. The 1997downturn in the price of gold, for example, issaid to have threatened the economic feasibilityof some 40% of the world’sgold mines.

An illustration of this realityis found in looking at the recentindustry performance in BritishColumbia. The worst economicyear in the last decade for themining industry in BC was in1990, when the industry lost $1billion. (Notably, this was threeyears before Windy Craggy.)This loss was due to acombination of fallencommodity prices, unfavourableinterest and exchange rates,and increased investmentinterest in newly stabilizedsouthern countries such asChile, Mexico and Venezuela.12

The mineral exploration anddevelopment expansion in southern nations ispart of a global phenomenon. Factors pushingthis expansion include:

• the availability of rich, relatively untappedmineral deposits,

• lower production costs and• fewer regulatory hurdles.

Canada is by no means alone in witnessingthis phenomenon of offshore interest. Theglobalization of investment is a critical factorthat has affected all the major mining nations,including Australia, the U.S., and South Africa.

An example of the bigger picture of some of

the shifts in investment can be seen in changesin gold production, where Canada has fared verywell compared to the rest of the leading miningnations. The Northern Miner, an industryjournal, reported that restructuring of the goldproduction capacity throughout the world as of1995 had resulted in Canada losing 2% of itsgold production to newly developed miningregions in the south. This figure compares toSouth Africa, which was down 15%, Australia,down 8% and the US, down 5%. 13

As explained below, this trend is part of a

global restructuring. However, it does not markan abandonment of countries like Canada by themining industry, despite claims to the contraryby some industry spokespeople. In the lastseveral years, Canadian mining companies haveexpanded exploration and development activitiesboth domestically and internationally. Theindustry, including large and small companies,has interests in over 8,300 properties worldwide.Of these properties, 3,400 are in 100 foreigncountries.14

In March 1997, The Northern Miner’s editorialnoted that many companies are “coming aroundto the view that Canada might not be so badafter all. Companies have learned that it is no

Highland Valley copper mine near Kamloops, BCPhoto by Ric Careless


picnic exploring in regions where there are noroads and no infrastructure; nor is it easynegotiating deals in countries where there is nolegal framework to protect businessagreements.”15

Nothing illustrates this tangle of foreignspeculation and the hazards of offshoreinvestment better than the recent Bre-X fiasco,which ensnared so many Canadian miningexperts and investors.

Beyond the economic issues that drive muchof the global competition agenda, an importantfactor that must be considered is that, althoughsome developing countries have broadenvironmental laws, effective, regulation of theminerals industry is rare.

Where apparently progressive laws do exist,as in Chile, these rules are often not enforced.In a recent World Bank report on the state ofChile’s regulatory environment, it is noted thatalthough standards for water quality are “in linewith World Health Organization standards,”there is “no systematic enforcement of thesestandards.”16

These realities put into a more balancedcontext the fuller costs and benefits of industry’sdemands for concessions around environmentalregulation and land access in Canada.

In terms of biodiversity protection and humanhealth, not to mention sustainable economies,the demand for public concessions for private“global competition” will continue to have costsboth inside and outside of Canada.

Implications of GlobalCompetition for Canada

Despite major shifts in the industry, the newsis hardly bleak even in areas such as BC whereresource conflicts are often highly publicized.

According to the Natural Resources CanadaMineral Yearbook, in 1995 three times as manymines opened as were closed across Canada.

Contrary to all the gloomy predictions madeby some mining spokespeople, even after all theland use processes and after 2.5M hectares ofnew protected areas, the BC mining industryregistered record-high mineral production, andsignificant increases in both mine developmentand exploration.

In fact, the Price Waterhouse reportcommissioned by industry reported three yearsof increased revenues, earnings and investmentbetween 1993 and 1996.17 Only in 1996 did theindustry see moderately reduced returns largelydue to slumps in the prices of some keycommodities, especially copper and gold. Somerelevant figures:

• Net revenues were up from $1,741M in 1993and to $2,694M in 1996.

• Earnings soared from a loss of $14M in 1993to a gain of $208M in 1996.

• In 1995, solid mineral production reached arecord-high gross of $3.48B.

• According to a survey of the whole industry(not just some of the majors as reported byPW), exploration investment, includingmajors and juniors, was at $66M in 1993and is estimated at over $126.3M for 1996.

• There are 7 mine expansions are currently inthe assessment and permitting process. 18

Canadian Exploration Trends

According to the Prospectors and DevelopersAssociation of Canada, investment in worldwideexploration boomed in the 1990s.19 Relative toall other nations in the world, Canada hasconsistently ranked among the top fourdestinations of mineral exploration, and hasswapped either first or second spot withAustralia since 1980.20

During the last five years, explorationincreases have been fueled by a combination ofgenerally favourable metal prices and thediamond exploration boom in Canada’s Norththat has accounted for nearly 20% of allinvestment. Aside from the direct environmentalimpacts of potential mines, it is a telling


comment on our society at large that thefrenzied search for the luxury status symbol ofdiamonds has been able to take suchprecedence over completion of protected areasand land claims in the North.

The fluctuations in mineral explorationinvestment (see chart below) are notable fortheir characteristic peaks andtroughs. Some industry lobbyistshave pointed to the trough of theearly 1990s as an indication thatmining is on the rocks, and thatprotected areas efforts and otherregulatory and land use burdensare driving investment out ofCanada.

By contrast, there are twonotable peaks (in the early andlate 1980s), that are oftenreferenced by the industry asindications of legitimate and desirableexploration levels.

The earlier peak from 1980-82 can be largelyattributed to high prices in gold, silver andcopper.

The peak in 1987-1988 coincides with a

particularly ill-conceived tax incentive program(the Mineral Exploration Depletion Allowance)using flow-through shares to stimulate the useof mineral exploration programs as a tax shelter.This program has undergone thoroughgovernment review and has been found to havevirtually no effect on discovery of mineralreserves. It resulted instead in a high degree of

wasteful and ineffectiveexploration efforts. It can bebetter characterized as a failedpolicy experiment than a desirableresource management target.

When accounting for theseanomalies, it is clear thatexploration has and will continueto fluctuate over time. The claimsof mining investment being drivenout of Canada ignore or downplaythese fluctuations to bolster the

drive for regulatory and taxation concessions.

The data show that economic factors andregional exploration and development “rushes”will continue to dominate investment patternsmuch more than environmental regulatoryfactors. Scapegoating environmental andprotected areas decisions for these peaks and

“…it is a telling commenton our society at large

that the frenzied searchfor the luxury status

symbol of diamonds hasbeen able to take such

precedence overcompletion of protected

areas and land claims inthe North.”

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Year

$ M

illio

ns

Mineral Exploration Investment in Canada, 1969-1996


troughs, as has been done too often in the past,is a sign of disrespect for the facts and anunwillingness to seek meaningful solutions.

Taking Stock… Linking Accessto Money and Access to Land

In trying to understand the mining industry—what drives and potentially stops undesirabledevelopments—it is important to look at the roleof venture capital and stock markets in financingexploration.

There is a complex and often troublesomerelationship between geologists in the field,stock promoters (who, as was shown in the caseof Bre-X, often know very little about therealities of mining), shareholders, and thecommunities that live with exploration anddevelopment impacts.

This relationship is generallylost in the business focus on shareprices, but connecting the sourceof cash to human and ecologicalcosts can be a very powerful toolfor gaining the attention ofcompanies.

Why and how are stock markets so closelylinked to mining? Due to the financial risksassociated with mineral exploration, smaller‘junior’ mining companies typically are unable toraise exploration funds from banks. Theytherefore rely heavily on equity investment,through either public financing or joint ventureswith larger mine companies.

Hence the common industry refrain, "we arenot in the business of mining ore, we minemoney."

For a variety of reasons, Canada isconsidered a world leader in both mine financingand geological expertise.21 Due to financial andgeological successes over the years, Canadianjunior mining companies have attracted a verylarge pool of capital. Over the past five years, inexcess of $4 billion has been raised on the

Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE), primarily forsmall and medium-sized mining companies. In1994, some 20% of the world's explorationcapital driving junior companies came from theVSE alone.22 The largest percentage of thisexpanding area of investment money went (andcontinues to flow) to Latin America.

In 1996, it was estimated that half of theglobal exploration dollars were raised inCanadian venture capital markets (including theVSE and the Toronto Stock Exchange).According to Toronto stock expert John Embry,"We're going into a worldwide mining boom withthe development of Third World economies... sothis isn't the last inning of the game."23 Thisbuoyant optimism has been somewhat temperedin the post Bre-X caution and skepticism aroundspeculative financing of mineral exploration, andthe downturn in key commodity prices likecopper and gold.

For many years, the VSE hasbeen synonymous with thefinancing of junior miningcompanies around the world.More recently, thanks to financialsuccesses like Voisey’s Bay aswell as frauds such as Bre-X, the

more conservative Toronto Stock Exchange isalso gaining notoriety for exploration financing.

Since the late seventies, the VSE has alsobeen infamous as a high risk, scandal-riddeninstitution that Equity Magazine has called "theSodom and Gomorrah of modern-day financialmarkets."24 Recent corruption problemsunderscore the chronic speculation, greed anddeception that drive the market.25

Over 100 companies attempting to cash in onthe Voisey's Bay nickel rush in eastern Canadaraised their capital on the VSE. According to TheGlobe and Mail, dozens of companies racked upbig share price gains (500-900%) withoutdrilling a single hole...26 The big winner inVoisey's Bay was Robert Friedland, who sold hisinterests for $4.3 billion to Inco.

Friedland's DiamondFields company was on

A common refrain inthe industry states that

“we are not in thebusiness of mining ore,

we mine money.”


the leading edge of the huge Voisey's Baydiscovery. It made him a billionaire when hesold it to Inco Ltd., but the ensuing staking rushleft over 250,000 mineral claims on Innu andInnuit land and a host of social andenvironmental disruptions. The costs andbenefits of the speculation frenzy are clearly outof balance.

Not surprisingly, stock markets like the VSEtend not to ask where the money comes from orgoes to. Recently, however, there are a number

of organizations who are researching andreporting on this path of investment and impact.

Progressive analysts such as Toronto’s SocialInvestment Organization (SIO) and Ethicscan:the Clearinghouse on Corporate and ConsumerEthics have begun studies of the Canadianmining industry. Their intention is to developethical investment guidelines to inform individualand fund investors of the consequences of theiractions. 27

Paths of Conflict and Cooperationrowing demands on our limited landand water resources are forcingincreased overlap between mining

claims and biodiversity protection interests.

At this time, mining interests, with somenotable exceptions, are seen as a primary hurdleto completion of a protected areas system inCanada—more so thanforestry and otherindustries. There are manyobstacles and opportunities ahead.

The contact betweenindustry, environmentalistsand governments is takingplace in the context ofglobalization of bothmineral investment and theconservation community. Itis happening while thefields of conservationbiology and the geo-sciences are rapidlyadvancing. Furthermore,the internet and other newinformation and researchtechnologies are allowingmuch faster and broaderdistribution of problemsand solutions to an

international audience.

While the available land base continues toshrink, the social space for conflict andcooperation is expanding. How do we bestoperate in this changing landscape? The miningindustry seeks:

• continued access to land,• the ability to gain permitand approvals withoutengaging excessive publicresistance, and• sympathetic policytreatment.

These industry desires canand will be affected bypublic awareness andaction. The industry canexpect protected areasgroups to be among themost active agents of publicawareness on land useacross Canada.

Environmental groupsseeking to implement theprinciples of conservationbiology and complete theprotected areas system willbe up against profoundgovernment pressure for

G

Environmental challenges will demandmore attention from industry and thepublic


investment revenue and increasinglysophisticated mining companies at the planningand assessment processes.

The following section will look at someoptions for the future.

The Whitehorse MiningInitiative (WMI)

From 1992 to 1994, national multi-stakeholder discussions were held with thepurpose of looking at the future of mining inCanada. Senior representatives from industry,regulators, and environmental, labour andaboriginal groups met to discuss concerns,conflicts and possible common approaches tosolutions. The result of this initiative was aseries of principles and goals laid out in the WMILeadership Accord and Issue Group Reports onenvironment, land access, workplace andworkforce, and finance and taxation.

Many people around the world watched thisprocess, one of the first attempts at achievingconsensus on the social, environmental andeconomic issues and approaches to miningpractices and policy. While far from perfect, theAccord and reports addressed a number ofimportant environmental issues. Among theenvironmental commitments made by all WMIparties are:

• Completion of a representative protectedareas system free from industrial activity,

• The need to employ the precautionaryprinciple in assessing potential environmentalimpacts of mining,

• The need for integration of land use planning,environmental assessment and environmentalmonitoring systems,

• Comprehensive mine reclamation planningand posting of financial securities to cover allenvironmental costs,

• Open, fair and accountable decision-making,including adequate resources for publicparticipation.

The challenge in the coming years is to hold

all parties to these commitments and to designand test the reforms necessary to achieve thesegoals. Environmentalists, in conjunction withaboriginal and community groups, will play a keyrole in defining the terms of this engagement forthe future.

A Science-based Approach toCooperation

One of the more contentious issues duringthe two-year WMI process concerned thecreation of new protected areas free fromindustrial activity.

As a consequence of the balance struck bystakeholders in WMI, the public policy debatebetween the mining industry andenvironmentalists over protected areas hasshifted from "why should Canada create newprotected areas" to "how can Canadaaccomplish this task while better managing theconflicts inherent in these sometimes conflictinggoals."

The agreement in principle does not resolvedisputes over specific sites and what constitutes"good" process. However, it does create anopening for discussing rational solutions.

With an agreement in place on thefundamental importance of representativeprotected areas, much of the subsequentdiscussion between stakeholders has centeredon the role of science and public policy indefining candidate areas for both biodiversityprotection and mineral development.

The rationale for using science as a startingpoint for cooperative efforts on areas of mutualconcern is based on three main observations:

• Science is a relatively safe, “objective”ground to begin discussions and serves as ameans to bring additional people to the tableto listen to issues.

• The theme of accurate, credible informationas the requisite for good decision-making


runs throughout many areas of the WMIagreement.

• Science-based discussions can invoke adiscipline that can lead to a more interest-based approach that is likely to yieldproductive results.

The Manitoba CooperativeExperience

A cooperative approach between industry andenvironmental representatives poses manychallenges due to the focused and disparatedemands of the constituents on both sides. Thevery different power relations and resources canconfound the best intentions of individuals onboth sides.

Nevertheless, under certain circumstances,working models exist that show mutual concernssometimes have common solutions. Recently inManitoba, a series of land use issues andpotential conflicts was dealt with successfullyfrom this perspective.

Representatives of the Manitoba MiningAssociation and the WWF Endangered SpacesCampaign worked together initially to deal withmutual problems arising in the establishment offour northern parks (totaling 2 million hectares).The two groups subsequently workedconstructively on reviewing new candidateprotected areas and wildlife management areas,as well as ongoing education on mining andprotected areas issues.

What factors contributed to this ability towork together? According to staff membersinvolved, some of the key elements include,28

• both of the organizations and the keyindividuals are explicitly committed to theWMI principles regarding protected areas

• all exchanges and joint work are based onprinciples set forth in the WMI Accord

• information exchanges regarding protectedareas decisions are technical and science-based

• both routinely deal with the samegovernment officials and are directly involvedwith the details of current land use processes

• both interact regularly with commonconstituencies

• representatives are accountable to theirorganizations for maintaining goals and codesof conduct.

The two organizations noted that seriouscrises have arisen due to the complexcircumstances of multi-stakeholder land usedecision-making processes. These crises canserve to magnify the perception of disagreementand increase the distance between organizationsand individuals. Alternatively, they can becomean opportunity for communication andpartnership and the identification of commonsolutions.

In the case of the four new Northern parks inManitoba, the crises resulting from processconfusion resulted in a consultative processbetween the two organizations. As a result,over the next two years a number of significantdecisions regarding the establishment ofprotected areas in Manitoba were made withmining industry support.

When the Carrot Fails… LinkingStakeholders to Shareholders

When cooperation fails, a variety of strategiesand tactics has been successfully employed ingaining the attention of companies andgovernment agencies.

One such tactic is shareholder and stockmarket advocacy. Increasingly, targetinginvestors is an effective tool that is used bychurch, environment and labour activists againstirresponsible corporate practices.

Junior mining stocks are notably volatile.Conflicts and complications that decrease theassurance of quick profits and developmentopportunity can, if handled strategically,convince investors and their financial advisorsthat their money would be safer and more


wisely spent elsewhere.

The increase in corporate concern for thepublic image around environmental performanceshown by companies such as Placer Dome andBHP makes shareholder advocacy a potentiallyuseful tool in larger operations as well.

This tactic was used successfully in theTatshenshini campaign and was instrumental indrawing attention to fights against other high-risk mines such as Noranda’s New World Mine,the AJ mine in Juneau, Alaska, and others.

Shareholder advocacy forces the businesscommunity (and, of equal importance, thebusiness media) to examine issues of risk in

different ways than those they are typically usedto. It aims to ensure that there is full disclosureof factors that may affect the “success” of theproject (such as long-term environmentalliability and the degree of public concerns andresistance to potential environmental damage).

Linking development impacts with headoffices and stockholders is a substantial butstrategically powerful challenge. The growinginternational awareness of mining impacts(thanks in part to some recent spectaculardisasters by Canadian companies) combinedwith the powerful communication tools of theinternet open up new strategic opportunities.

Endangered Spaces Conclusions andRecommendations

he range of issues identified in thispaper speaks to a complex set ofproblems for all stakeholders. Steps

toward solutions and suggestions to avoidfuture conflicts have been put forward—somelegal, some technical, some political.

Below are a set of principles and prioritiesbased on the experience of regional andnational Endangered Spaces campaignersacross Canada who have worked with andagainst mining interests to protect biodiversity.

They are set out to provide a framework toenable a more informed approach toadvocating new protected areas whereprogress could be delayed or stopped bymineral development. Principle 1 - no mining inprotected areas - is the ultimate goal. Theother principles are to help us achieve our firstprinciple.

Principle 1 - Mineral DevelopmentShould Be Prohibited in ProtectedAreas

Mineral exploration and development shouldbe prohibited in existing and future protectedareas. In particular, it should be excluded fromrepresentative protected areas, wilderness andecological reserves, and other types ofprotected areas where environmental valuesand conservation objectives are not compatiblewith industrial activity. Mineral developmentshould also be excluded from critical wildlifehabitat areas, especially as required for rareand endangered species, calving and birthingareas, etc.

Principle 2 - Interim ProtectionMeasures Are Required to ProtectCandidate Sites

Governments should apply interimprotection measures to candidate protectedareas in order to protect their natural valuesfrom damage due to exploration activities, andto ensure that third-party interests do not takeprecedent over the public interest, possiblyresulting in the need for compensation.

T


Applicable techniques could include mapnotations, interim management guidelines andlegal land withdrawals that prohibit any furtherstaking, exploration or development. The LandAccess report of the Whitehorse MiningInitiative supports the use of interim protectionmeasures. The November 1996 report of theAuditor General of Canada also calls for theirapplication to candidate national parks.

Principle 3 -Assessments ofCandidate ProtectedAreas Must ConsiderNatural Values

Governments must beencouraged to put an equaleffort into assessing thewildlands and wildlife valuesof candidate protected areas,instead of emphasizingmineral resource assessmentsover protected area values.For example, the budget forthe federal Mineral andEnergy Resource Assessmentsthat are completed forproposed northern nationalparks is, on occasion, three times that which isavailable for an assessment of natural andcultural values.

Principle 4 - Mineral ResourceAssessments Should Proceed UnderMore Stringent Conditions

Given the urgent need to completeCanada’s networks of protected areas, the bestscenario for environmentalists is forgovernments to proceed as quickly as possiblein designating candidate areas and avoidingyears of study to determine their mineralpotential. However, government policy typicallydemands that such mineral assessments beperformed so that decision-makers are

informed as to what economic mineral valuesmay be forgone in a new protected area. Whilethe Whitehorse Mining Initiative requires thatsuch assessments be performed, individualorganizations should consider whether theysupport such assessments. If governmentsinsist on completing mineral informationinventories and/or mineral resourceassessments, environmentalists should giveconsideration to advocating that they proceed

according to the followingconditions:

• Government-sponsoredmineral assessments shouldconsist of mineral potentialmodels, literature searches,airborne reconnaissance,and/or some ground-truthingthat does not remove habitat,disturb wildlife, alter enduringfeatures, or involve theintroduction of toxic wastematerials.• Where governmentscannot reasonably performsuch activities as above,industry could perform suchactivities, but only in caseswhere it is not grantedmineral tenure or other forms

of third-party rights. The results of suchwork must be available to the pubic.

• If mineral potential is rated as moderate tohigh, some ground work could beperformed by government or industry as perabove, but no legal rights should be grantedto the involved companies.

• If the candidate protected area containsecological and cultural resources that areone-of-a-kind (in that no alternativerepresentative or unique natural areas exist)mineral assessments and/or explorationactivities should be terminated, and actiontaken to designate the protected area.

• If government permits exploratory groundwork by a company within a candidateprotected area, and such work is terminateddue to high, irreplaceable biological or

Mineral potential and habitat valuesare not always compatible


cultural values, the company should not beentitled to compensation for the potentialvalue of the mineral body, as it entered thecandidate protected area knowing it was aproposed site. Government may want tocompensate the company for out-of-pocketexploration expenses.

• If an area of high mineral potential islocated within, but on the periphery of acandidate protected area, companies couldbe given limited time to assess the area’smineral resources, except in cases wherethe area is critical to the protected area’secological goals, to maintaining ecologicalintegrity and natural processes, and/or tosustaining wildlife populations.

• In the event that an area of high mineralpotential is found, then provisions underPrinciple 5 should be considered. If not,government authorities should beencouraged to designate the protectedarea.

Some of these points will be attacked byindustry as naïve. For example, few, if any,companies, are likely to make their drillingresults public. Nor are any companies likely toinvest in explorationprograms without havinglegal tenure to an area.However, these arespecial places requiringspecial rules, andgovernment andindustry should becompelled to followother approaches.

Principle 5 -Ensure that Areasof High MineralPotential Are NotImmediatelyExcluded

Mineral resourceassessments performedon candidate protected

areas may identify areas of high mineralpotential, leading to calls by industry andgovernment mineral departments to removesuch areas from consideration for protection.Environmentalists should challenge thisassertion, and promote several actions:

• Before removing areas of high mineralpotential from candidate sites, a review ofthe mineral potential should be completedwithin a regional context to determinewhether there are similar nearby mineraldeposits that could be accessed withoutcompromising protected area values.

• If an area of high mineral potential islocated on the periphery of a candidatearea, it could be “zoned-out,” but only ifadditional lands of equivalent ecologicalvalue are added. A review of the cumulativeimpacts of such a scenario should also beconcluded.

• If a site of potentially high mineral potentialis located in the middle of a candidate area,such as the then-proposed Windy Craggycopper mine in the middle of theTatshenshini-Alsek, governments must bepressed to preserve the area from mineraldevelopment. Important in such decisions is

Protection from habitat disruption and water contamination is critical forlong-term ecological health Photo by James Katz


the viability of a mine developmentscenario; in the Windy Craggy case, thecompany simply could not present adevelopment plan that governments feltthey could approve.

Principle 6 - Mineral ExplorationStandards Must Be Broadened andEnforced

In candidate protected areas where there is(a) high mineral potential, or (b) pre-existingmineral rights, and (c) importantenvironmental values, any decision bygovernment to allow mineral exploration mustbe accompanied by publicly reviewed,stringent, and enforceable explorationconditions that ensure the area’s ecologicalintegrity is maintained.

Governments should be pressed to developconservation standards for sensitive wildlifehabitat, pristine wilderness areas, and otherlands and waters with high social andbiodiversity values, whether they fall within acandidate protected area or not. For example,mineral development in karst landscapes withlimestone caves, etc. can have wide-rangingimpacts on the air and hydrological regimesthat sustain such areas.

Principle 7 - Governments Should BeEncouraged to Reform the MineralTenure System

Governments should be encouraged tobegin the process of reviewing and developingalternative approaches to the current mineraltenure system to ensure that mineral rights donot take precedence over, or prohibit theachievement of, environmental and protectedarea goals. The free entry system isinconsistent with society’s growing demands tomeet other ecological, economic and socialsustainability goals associated with theCanadian landscape.

Industry demands that governments

“deregulate” the industry and removeenvironmental standards so that it can bemore competitive and adopt more flexiblestrategies. Yet, ironically, they steadfastly hangonto the old approach of demanding tenure toan area while preventing all other social andenvironmental initiatives, such as parks andland claims, from progressing.

Principle 8 - The Protected AreaEstablishment Process Must Be Openand Transparent

Any decisions related to the establishmentof protected areas and any proposed mineralresource assessment and exploration programsshould be made within the context of an openpublic process of consultation and access toinformation. In particular, any change to aprotected area’s status must require a publicreference to Parliament or the relevantLegislature.

For example, the public trust in nationalparks is upheld by Parliament in that neitherministers nor Cabinet can shrink or eliminate anational park without a public hearing and anamendment to the National Parks Act. Thisprevents any unilateral attempts to open aprotected area to development. Such astipulation would most likely have preventedNova Scotia from removing interim protectionfrom the Jim Campbell Barrens protected arealess than a year after establishing it.

Principle 9 - ConservationOrganizations Must UnderstandTheir Government’s Mineral Policyand The Rationale for ProtectedArea Boundaries

In order to monitor effectively the impact ofmineral exploration and development activitiesand to advocate action on protected areas,conservation groups must have a clearunderstanding of their government’s minerallegislation and policy frameworks. For


example, provincial parks legislation may notbe the act that controls or prohibits mining inparks. In Ontario, the Parks Act does notexpressly prohibit mineral activities, while theMining Act plays an important role.

Similarly, it is important tounderstand what legislation andother tools are available to providefor or block interim protectionmeasures to candidate sites, suchas:

• government policy on mineralassessments and who isresponsible for carrying themout,

• the ability to extinguishmineral prospecting anddevelopment permits and thepolicy on third-partycompensation, and

• the ability to prohibit or limitmineral companies fromactively working their mineralclaims.

In addition, protected areaadvocates must be prepared to defendthe rationale for proposed boundaries. Themining industry invests a lot of money indeciding where to draw lines on its mineralmaps, lines that indicate where it shouldexplore, drill and, ultimately, develop a mine.Where it draws the lines influences the

investment of millions of dollars. Thus, whenreviewing protected area boundaries, industryrepresentatives seek a clear understanding ofwhy a particular boundary was drawn. Be

prepared for such scrutiny.

Principle 10 - Ensure ThatRegional Prospecting andMining AssociationsSupport the WMI

Canada’s two major industryorganizations - the MiningAssociation of Canada and theProspectors and DevelopersAssociation of Canada - weremajor participants in andsignatories to the LeadershipAccord of the WMI. This does notnecessarily guarantee the supportof provincial and territorialorganizations with a similarmandate.

It is important that conservationgroups meet with such organizations

to ensure their support for the WMI,and to identify areas of mutual

understanding and disagreement. Suchorganizations may play a large role in eitherassisting us in securing new protected areas,or preventing us from achieving theEndangered Spaces goal.

Photo byRic Careless


Appendix 1

Guidelines for a Responsible Mine(outside protected areas)Adapted by the EMCBC from the Mineral Policy Center, Washington, D.C.

Adequate environmental protection for hardrock mines and leaching facilities includes the followingelements as a minimum:• Rainfall management, to prevent excessive rainwater from entering tailings impoundments and

ore leaching systems, causing overflow of toxic solutions into streams and groundwater.• Surface water control, through the diversion of all streams and runoff around the mine area

and the prevention of silt from being washed into streams. This applies to many types ofoperations ranging from gold dredging in stream valleys to open-pit mines during all phases ofdevelopment from exploration, to construction, operation and closure.

• Leak monitoring under the leaching pad, the tailings impoundments and throughout the liquidtransfer system. Back-up liners or pipes and a leak detection system should be required in allcases. Monitoring wells in the groundwater should be required, with frequent testing.

• Wildlife protection, including the prevention of wildlife access to toxic-solution ponds and thetreatment of all discharges to be safe for fish, as well as people.

• Reclamation and landscaping, with specific systems to prevent acid drainage and leaching oftoxic metals from abandoned piles of mine waste and spent leaching heaps.

• Runoff controls, treatment of runoff from streams from the waste piles, and long term controlstrategies (Such as capping or submersion) for acid mine drainage from waste piles may all berequired. The post-mining landscape should be both usable and attractive.

• Long-term monitoring programs should be required at all mine sites after completion of miningand closure of an operation. This should include publicly reported surface and groundwater testing,and a plan for corrective action if acid or toxic leakage develops.

• Local citizen oversight committee should be established at all major mines as a condition ofpermit approval.

• A chief executive officer (CEO) working together with an environmental vice-presidentor department, to demonstrate a willingness to make changes in a project to reflect the concernsof the public is paramount.

• Secure funding for all of these factors should be guaranteed before a mining operation ispermitted to start so that the public is not left with the costs of cleaning up after the miningcompanies leave.

• Public, written commitments, if a company is not willing to put a promise or guarantee inwriting, be suspicious; that guarantee is unlikely to leave the room.


Endnotes

1 John E. Young, Mining the Earth, Worldwatch Paper#109, Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC 1992, pg.82 Acid Rock Drainage Prediction Symposium, MineEffluent Neutral Drainage (MEND) Program, VancouverNovember, 19963 Paul Muldoon, CELA and Mark Winfield, CIELAP, Briefto the House of Commons Standing Committee onNatural Resources regarding Mining and the Environment,Toronto, ON, April 19964 Paul Muldoon, CELA and Mark Winfield, CIELAP, Briefto the House of Commons Standing Committee onNatural Resources regarding Mining and the Environment,Toronto, ON, April 1996 pp. 28-39, andAlan Young, EMCBC, Public Interest Perspectives onCanadian Environmental Mining Issues, Friends of theEarth Canada, Ottawa, ON, July 1997.5 Frank Remiz, Mining in Canada: A Backgrounder,CPAWS, February 1997. This unpublished paper,prepared for CPAWS is useful overview of mineral tenureand exploration regulation issues across Canada.6 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Mineral ResourcesYearbook 1995, Ottawa 19967 Natural Resources Canada, WMI Leadership CouncilAccord, November 1994, p. 18.8 Greg McDade, Report on Compensation IssuesConcerning Protected Areas, Sierra Legal Defence Fund,March 1993, (see Supreme Court of Canada, R v. Tener,1985, BC Court of Appeal, Cream Silver Mines v. BC,1993)9 John Dwyer, Conflicts Over Wilderness: StrathconaProvincial Park, SFU, Vancouver, 199310 Natural Resources Canada, Energy Efficiency Branch,Energy Efficiency Trends in Canada, Ottawa, April 199611 Financial Post, November 17/9412 Price Waterhouse, The Mining Industry in BC, 1995Annual Report, p.513 The Northern Miner editorial, , May 199514 Keith Brewer and Andre Lemieux, Canada's GlobalPosition in Mining: Canadian Financing of theInternational Mining Industry, Natural Resources Canada,May 199715 The Northern Miner, editorial, , March 3, 199716 Chile: Managing Environmental Problems: EconomicAnalysis of Selected Issues, World Bank Report 13061-CHDec. 1994, p.1117 ibid18 Price Waterhouse, The Mining Industry in BritishColumbia, 1995 Annual Report, p.519 Toronto Star, “Miners Rich and Worried,” March 11,1997, B3

20 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian MineralsYearbook 1995, Ottawa, 199621. Gary Lamphier, "Spotlight on Vancouver Juniors"Vancouver Sun, April 11, 1996, p D122. VSE, "Canada's Mining Exchange", September 199623. Gary Lamphier, "Spotlight on Vancouver Juniors"Vancouver Sun, April 11, 1996, p D124. David Baines, "The Sins of the Commission", EquityMagazine, v. 12(5), May 1994, pp. 28-37.25. Brent Mudry, "VSE proves risky for high flying mutualfund managers," Business in Vancouver, November 12-18, 1996, p 3626. Gary Lamphier, "Vancouver Stock Exchange is Hot",Globe and Mail, July 5, 1995 B11.27 The Social Investment Organization is a Toronto basednon-profit organization researching and promoting theimpacts of ethical investment strategies (416-360-6047).Another Toronto-based organization undertaking themining industry research is Ethicscan (416-783-7386).These researchers are attempting to provide criticalanalysis to a range of public interest, business andinvestment audience, introducing ethical considerationsto a largely amoral realm of investment activity.28 Gaile Whelan-Enns WWF Manitoba, and Ed Huebert(Mining Association Manitoba) presentation to theCNF/MAC - Workshop on Protected Areas and Mining:Finding Common Ground in Land Use Decisions ThroughScience, Victoria, February 1997.

Documents

More Precious than Gold… Precious than Gold.pdf · 2010. 1. 5. · More Precious Than Gold… 4 As a result, the Canadian mineral industry generates one million tonnes of waste