What is ‘responsible’ mining?

Exploring whether it’s possible to reduce the extraction industry’s toll on the environment

by Jonathan Thompson

I’ve got to admit that when someone suggested I talk to the director of a global initiative that has developed standards for “responsible” mining, I was a bit skeptical. Conceptually I get it, but whenever I try to imagine an environmentally “responsible” mine, visions of the Bingham Canyon Mine in Utah come to mind. It is the largest human-made excavation on Earth, where more than 1,000 tons of explosives are used daily to blast loose about 150,000 tons of copperbearing ore.

I put the question to Aimee Boulanger, executive director of the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, or IRMA. According to its mission statement, it offers “true independent third-party verification and certification against a comprehensive standard for all mined materials.”

It turns out Boulanger was initially even more doubtful than me, and even refused to take part in it. At the time, she was working for Earthworks, a mining and oil and gas watchdog group. She thought the global mining industry was so far gone that a certification system would only serve to greenwash bad behavior.

But, crucially, it wasn’t the mining industry looking to clean up its image that catalyzed the effort, but rather the companies that buy mined materials wanting to do so responsibly. Tiffany, for example, did not want to support or be associated with blood diamonds. So its CEO at the time went to Earthworks, hoping the NGO would be able to direct him to more responsible suppliers. They didn’t, but the request indicated a need for such a service.

Such a system, if implemented correctly, helps consumers – or downstream purchasers in this case – make informed choices about sourcing materials for their products. Maybe all mining is somewhat destructive, but if you have to buy copper or gold or lithium to make your business run, wouldn’t it be better to buy it from a more responsible operator?

So in 2006, representatives from NGOs, including Earthworks, companies that purchase minerals, affected communities, mining companies and labor unions came together to form IRMA. By the time Boulanger – having come around to the idea – joined up in 2011, the disparate group was still arguing over the meaning of “responsible mining.”

But with Boulanger’s help, they were able to create 10 principle points of engagement, which enabled them to formulate a draft charter laying out what “responsible” means when applied to a mining operation.

By this point in the conversation, I had become convinced that with enough buy-in, IRMA could push for major improvements in the way mining companies do business. But I was still a bit blurry on one big point, so I asked Boulanger: “What, exactly, does responsible mining look like?”

There isn’t a simple or short answer. IRMA’s Standard for Responsible Mining is now more than two dozen chapters and hundreds of pages long, in- cluding topics on resettling communities, pre-informed consent with Indigenous communities, water and waste management, noise and vibration, mercury and cyanide management, worker safety, and cultural heritage.

To even get on the scoring board, so to speak, the mine must meet 40 critical requirements. Dumping waste into natural bodies of water is a virtual deal-killer. Getting consent from the community is mandatory. Then the mine – not the company – is scored based on how many additional standards it achieves.

Initially, the organization worked on a pass-fail system, as do most analogous organizations in other industries. This proved problematic when dealing with existing, legacy mines, which might find it easier to get a passing grade by constructing a new mine rather than upgrading the existing one – which isn’t the goal, obviously. So IRMA shifted to a scoring system instead, because it leaves room for a mine to improve.

Not all mines are eligible for consideration. IRMA members from the labor sector wanted thermal coal to be included, because the average coal miner has been left behind and underground and in the dark. But the environmental sector pushed back, saying that labeling even the best coal mine “responsible” would further enable coal burning, which is fundamentally irresponsible. Same goes for uranium, Boulanger said.

Coal and uranium mining companies can use IRMA’s self-assessment tool internally to grade themselves and find areas to improve. But they can’t make their score public or use IRMA’s name to burnish their image.

Since its inception, IRMA’s focus has shifted toward so-called “green metals” –e.g. graphite, lithium, rare earths, nickel and cobalt – that are used in electric vehicles, batteries and other clean energy applications. Six carmakers have now joined IRMA as members as they look to source these materials more responsibly.

New lithium mines may have a tough time getting on IRMA’s scoreboard, however. Consent from the community, especially Indigenous ones, is paramount. And tribal nations are opposing some of the largest lithium proposals – Thacker Pass in Nevada, for example.

“Let’s say you have an average of 68% in all the chapters but did not have Indigenous consent,” Boulanger said. “You’re not going to get the IRMA 50 award.”

IRMA hopes its standards will prod companies to do better in all realms, from worker safety to managing waste, and especially with community engagement. That would not only reduce impacts to the environment and affected communities but would also help mining companies navigate the permitting process.

“So much innovation has been to get smaller amounts of gold out of larger amounts of ore,” Boulanger said. “What about innovating on ways to get community consent?”

The Land Desk is a newsletter from Jonathan P. Thompson, longtime journalist and author. To subscribe, go to: landdesk.org ■