Standard 2.0 online comments

Welcome to the online commenting form for the DRAFT Standard for Responsible Mining and Mineral Processing 2.0. Commenting on the draft is open until 26 January 2024.

To start commenting enter the required fields on the Get Started tab and click Proceed. For assistance with this form visit the Support tab. Visit the main Standard 2.0 page to learn more about the Standard and other ways to comment.

Get Started Support Chapter 1.1 Legal Compliance Chapter 1.2 Community and Stakeholder
Engagement Chapter 1.3 Human Rights Due Diligence Chapter 1.X Gender Equality & Gender Protections Chapter 1.4 Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy Chapter 1.5 Mineral Supply Chain and Responsible Sourcing Chapter 2.1 Environmental and Social
Impact Assessment and Management Chapter 2.2 Indigenous Peoples and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Chapter 2.3 Obtaining Community Support
and Delivering Benefits Chapter 2.4 Land Acquisition, Displacement, and Resettlement Chapter 2.5 Community Emergency Preparedness and Response Chapter 2.6: Planning and Financing Reclamation
and Closure Chapter 3.1 Fair Labor and Terms of Work Chapter 3.2 Occupational Health and Safety Chapter 3.3 Community Health and Safety Chapter 3.4 Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Area Due Diligence Chapter 3.5 Security Arrangements Chapter 3.6 Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Chapter 3.7 Cultural Heritage Chapter 4.1 Waste and Materials Management Chapter 4.2 Water Management Chapter 4.X Management of Physical Stability Chapter 4.3 Air Quality Chapter 4.4 Noise and Vibration Chapter 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Consumption Chapter 4.6 Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Protected Areas Chapter 4.XX Land and Soil Management General Comments

Support

To use the form

  1. At the Get Started tab, enter required fields and click Proceed.
  2. Use the tabs at left to select the desired chapter.
  3. Each chapter is divided by section. Click the + at the right of each section title to view and comment on the section’s requirements.
  4. Each requirement has a number (e.g. 1.1.1.1) with a commenting box directly beneath. The requirement text is directly beneath the commenting box.
  5. Chapters, sections, and requirements can have Notes and/or Consulting Questions marked in yellow.
  6. Where there is a Consulting Question, please answer it in the commenting box directly beneath it.
  7. You submit all of your comments on one chapter simultaneously by going to the bottom of the page and clicking “Submit comments for Chapter X.X”. To ensure that your comments are submitted, please do not close your browser or refresh the page until you see the confirmation message.
  8. You will receive an email acknowledgment after submitting comments.
  9. For general comments or comments that span multiple requirements, you may use the General Comments tab at bottom left.

Other considerations

IMPORTANT: refreshing your browser or using the “back” function will reset your session and require you to enter your personal information again

For the comment form to work you must have javascript enabled.

This comment form includes all requirements and consultation questions. Unlike the full DRAFT Standard document, it does not include:

  • Background sections
  • Glossary sections, or
  • Annexes of the DRAFT Standard.

Other ways to comment

  • To submit your comments as a PDF, click the General Comments tab near the bottom of the page.
  • For other ways to comment visit our main Standard 2.0 page and open the How to Comment section.

More information

Chapter 1.1: Legal Compliance

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  Changes have been made to improve auditability, and to streamline requirements (by combining them). 

Proposed additions and changes:

  • Requirement to have a system in place to identify and track compliance (1.1.1.1)
  • More details on contractor compliance (1.1.3.1)
  • Addition that the provision of regulatory compliance information to stakeholders be included in a policy (1.1.4.2)

1.1.1: Compliance with Host Country Laws

A system is in place to:
  1. Identify and document all host country laws (including local, regional, and national regulations, permits, permit conditions, and licenses) that are applicable to the project/operation, including associated facilities;
  2. Identify and document all regulatory reporting and payment obligations (e.g., taxes, fees);
  3. Identify and document all regulatory and legal actions related to the project/operation including fines, penalties, notices of violation, legal disputes or lawsuits; and
  4. Monitor and document the status of compliance with host country laws, reporting obligations and legal actions.

NOTE FOR 1.1.1.1:  NEW and integrates requirement 1.1.5.1 from 2018 Mining Standard.

We are proposing to add this requirement to make it clear that entities are responsible for demonstrating that they have systems in place to know their legal obligations and track if they are maintaining compliance with those obligations. It integrates the previous requirement 1.1.5.1. “The operating company shall maintain records and documentation sufficient to authenticate and demonstrate compliance and/or non-compliance with host country laws and the IRMA Standard” since such record-keeping is part of maintaining a compliance monitoring system.

Business is conducted in a manner that complies with all applicable host country laws and protects human rights, health, safety, and the environment. In the rare instances where complying with an IRMA requirement would cause a breach of host country law, the entity meets the intent of the IRMA requirement to the extent feasible without violating the law.

NOTE FOR 1.1.1.2:  This requirement combines 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.2.1 from the 2018 Mining Standard. This was a critical requirement in the 2018 Standard (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

This requirement makes it clear that legal compliance is expected both related to running the business (such as required financial filings, tax payments and reporting to the government) as well as carrying out the physical activities of the operation itself (environmental, land-use permissions, occupational health and safety, labor, human rights, social, etc.). 

While adherence to laws should be a fundamental expectation of any business anywhere, we also recognize that large industrial mining and mineral processing operations are complex and subject to a large number of laws, regulations and permits. As a result, most mines and mineral processing facilities are likely to experience non-compliance with regulatory requirements at some point in time (e.g., failure to renew permits on time, or occasional exceedances of permit conditions for air or water quality). There will be some non-compliance issues that do not pose a significant threat, to health, safety, or the environment. 

Thus, we have added that in addition to carrying out business in a manner that complies with host country law, entities also do so in a manner that protects human rights, health, safety and the environment. We added the latter language because we wanted to provide auditors with a way to distinguish between major and minor non-compliance issues.  

The intent of this requirement is not to “fail” sites that have minor non-compliance issues. As a result, we are proposing that we clarify in the guidance that the rating of a site’s performance on this requirement will depend on factors such as: 1) the number of non-compliance issues, 2) whether or not the non-compliance issues are serious (e.g., pose an imminent or acute threat to human rights, health and safety or the environment); 3) whether a breach of laws was intentional or accidental (e.g., the non-compliance was due to unplanned human error or malfunction, not due to operational decisions such as a decision to keep mining even though the treatment plant was down for maintenance).

Additionally, 1.1.1.2 now includes the information on what IRMA expects to see if in the rare instances where an IRMA requirement comes in conflict with a host country law. The IRMA Standard is a voluntary, best practice standard, so requirements in the Standard will go beyond the law in many countries, but in most cases, going beyond the law will not cause an entity to violate the laws of the host country. However, there may be isolated instances where this is the case, and if so, IRMA cannot require companies to break the law in order to meet its voluntary expectations.  For example, if there are laws that strictly prohibit women from doing certain types of work, then that would be taken into account when the IRMA requirement related to equal opportunity is audited (in Chapter 3.1, requirement 3.1.2.1). However, an entity would need to show that it was still meeting the intent of the requirement (e.g., the entity could show that for jobs that women are legally permitted to do, they are given equal opportunity in hiring processes and/or the entity actively promotes these jobs for women since certain other jobs are not legally available to them).

1.1.2: Response to Non-Compliance

If non-compliance with a host country law occurs:
  1. Timely and effective action is taken to resolve the non-compliance;
  2. Root cause analysis for the non-compliance is undertaken; and
  3. Measures are implemented to prevent recurrence of similar non-compliances.

NOTE FOR 1.1.2.1:  REVISED. This was 1.1.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Originally all expectations were contained in a single paragraph. We have separated them out into their components so that it is clear that all elements need to be met in order to fully meet this requirement.

Additionally, we have added sub-requirement (b), that the root causes of the non-compliance be identified, as this would be a typical step an entity would take to understand how recurrence might be prevented. 

The entity’s ratings on this requirement will take into consideration how quickly recent non-compliance 

1.1.3: Contractor Compliance

NOTE FOR 1.1.3:  REVISED. See note for 1.1.3.1, below.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.1-1

Background:  We have received suggestions from stakeholders that IRMA include requirements that help incentivize the use and/or strengthening of local or in-country technical capacity. The hiring of people with local, regional and/or traditional knowledge not only benefits host countries, but can also help entities build trust with stakeholders. 

We are aware, however, that in some regions there may not always be a sufficient cadre of local consultants or contractors with the expertise and experience needed to carry out the often complex and highly technical work involved in large scale mining and/or mineral processing operations. 

In thinking about balancing these realities, we were considering a requirement such as:

“Efforts are made to hire appropriately qualified contractors and consultants that are based in the host country. If there are no in-country professionals with the necessary competency or experience, the entity investigates opportunities to support capacity building for local professionals.”

Capacity building could involve mentoring programs, such as hiring local professionals who don’t have the necessary years of experience as part of a crew, where they could gain experience that could eventually put them in a position to take on contracts in the future, etc.

Question:  Would you support this type of requirement? Are there other elements IRMA should consider related to this topic? Do you have suggestions of other ways (or better ways) that entities might support the building of local or in-country technical capacity?

A system is in place to manage contractor compliance with host country laws and IRMA Standard requirements, including:
  1. Maintaining documentation on all contractors associated with the project/operation and associated facilities;
  2. Verifying the competency, skills and capacity of all external contractors and consultants being hired to carry out work on the entity’s behalf. This due diligence includes:
    1. Validation of necessary level of education;
    2. Validation of relevant professional training and certifications;
    3. Review of previous relevant work, including references from previous clients; and
    4. Determination of skills and experience in the context of the work to be undertaken.
  3. Informing contractors that compliance with host country laws and relevant IRMA Standard requirements is expected, and, as necessary, providing them with the information and training necessary to meet that obligation;
  4. Monitoring contractor performance; and
  5. When non-compliance with host country laws or applicable requirements of the IRMA Standard by contractors is discovered, working with the contractor to achieve timely resolution of the non-compliance and prevent recurrence of similar non-compliances.

NOTE FOR 1.1.3.1:  REVISED. This was 1.1.4.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. There was a similar requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard outlining that it was the entity’s obligation to ensure that all activities related to the project/operation are carried out in a responsible manner, and, if contractors are hired to carry out work for the entity, then they must be held to the same high standards as the entity and its direct employees.

However, that previous requirement was very general, and as a result, it made it difficult to audit.

We are proposing here that explicit steps be taken with regard to contractor performance relative to both host country laws and IRMA’s requirements. To make this a more auditable requirement we propose that:

  • 1.1.3.1.a – entities provide evidence that they have adequate documentation on their contractors (and the contractors’ employees/subcontractors)
  • 1.1.3.1.b – there is a process implemented to verify competency. There are multiple chapters in the IRMA Standard that refer to the need for competent professionals to carry out work. In most cases, IRMA does not specify whether these are internal or external professionals. It could be a consulting firm hired to carry out the environmental and social impact assessment, or contractors hired to carry out tailings dam safety reviews, or entity employees responsible for water monitoring programs. 
  • 1.1.3.1.c – convey to contractors the expectation that they must obey the law and adhere to relevant IRMA Standards (e.g., if contractors are hired to carry out work on behalf of or at the behest of the entity then they must be held to the same high standards as the entity and its direct employees).
  • 1.1.3.1.c – the entity performs some oversight activities to know if the contractors are meeting legal and IRMA-related obligations.  
  • 1.1.3.1.e – Finally, if compliance is not occurring, then there needs to be consequences. We are proposing that there be evidence that steps are being taken to either facilitate compliance (e.g., training on the IRMA Standard or host country laws) or, if there is a serious enough breach, perhaps the termination of contracts.

This is something that is being done by some entities already. For example, expectations are being written into contracts to ensure that contractor work is not commenced all required plans, processes and procedures to adhere to the expectations are developed, or entities are creating manuals that outline in detail the obligations of contractors. Contracts also contain reporting expectations for contractors, and the entities themselves conduct oversight of contractor compliance.

There are proposed additional requirements that relate to contractors in some individual chapters, as well. For example, see requirement 3.2.1.3 in 3.2 ‘Occupational Health and Safety.’ And see CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-1 in Chapter 3.1. However, if contractors are used in relation to the work to support any other IRMA chapters, then this requirement would also be relevant in those chapters.

1.1.4: Disclosure

NOTE FOR 1.1.4:  This criterion was 1.1.5 ‘Record-Keeping and Disclosure’ in the 2018 Mining Standard, and the first requirement in the criterion (1.1.5.1) said, “The operating company shall maintain records and documentation sufficient to authenticate and demonstrate compliance and/or non-compliance with host country laws and the IRMA Standard.”

The aspect of the requirement to related to record-keeping for authentication of compliance with host country laws is now integrated into the new 1.1.1.1, above. However, the concept of maintaining documentation to demonstrate compliance with IRMA requirements has been removed. Maintaining evidence of conformance with IRMA requirements is simply part of the IRMA system, since auditors need evidence in order to verify that IRMA requirements are being met.

Upon request, records and documents related to compliance and/or non-compliance with host country laws, including descriptions of non-compliance events, ongoing and final remedies, and prevention strategies, are made available to IRMA auditors, subject to the following:
  1. Where the entity claims that records or documentation contain confidential business information:
    1. Auditors are provided with a general description of the confidential material and an explanation of the reasons for classifying the information as confidential; and
    2. If a part of a document is confidential, only the confidential part is redacted, allowing for the release of non-confidential information to auditors.
  2. Where records or documents associated with the project/operation are related to a pending legal action, the existence of the legal action and the alleged regulatory non-compliance issues are disclosed, but detailed information may be treated as confidential business information.

NOTE FOR 1.1.4.1:  This requirement combines 1.1.5.2 and 1.1.5.4 from the 2018 Mining Standard. 

Also, a clarification (1.1.4.1.b) has been added to make it clear that detailed information related to pending legal actions need not be disclosed, but the existence of such actions does need to be shared with auditors. 

A publicly available policy (or equivalent) is in place that commits the entity to providing stakeholders, upon request, with a summary of the project/operation’s regulatory non-compliance issues, subject to the following:
  1. Where the entity claims that non-compliance records or documents contain confidential business information, only the confidential part is redacted, allowing for the release of non-confidential information; and
  2. Where records or documents associated with the project/operation are related to a pending legal action, the existence of the legal action and the alleged regulatory non-compliance issues are disclosed, but detailed information may be treated as confidential business information.

NOTE FOR 1.1.4.2:  REVISED. This requirement combines 1.1.5.3 and 1.1.5.4 from the 2018 Mining Standard. 

There are two changes to this requirement. First, the original wording in the 2018 Mining Standard made the requirement very difficult to audit because it was only relevant if stakeholders requested such information. If no requests had been made then unless the company had an “access to information” or similar policy all that the auditor had to go on was the company representative’s word that if requested, stakeholders would be provided with the requested information. The proposed wording addresses that by requiring the company to have a publicly available policy (or equivalent) – which could be a procedure or other documented commitment in writing that is publicly available – so that stakeholders know (and auditors can verify) that there is a mechanism for providing this information, if requested.

A proposed new requirement in Chapter 1.2 specifically requires an access to information (or similar) policy, which would presumably be the primary policy where the commitment to provide regulatory non-compliance information would be made. (See Note for requirement 1.2.4.3)

Second, the previous requirement 1.1.5.3 said “Upon request, operating companies shall provide stakeholders with a summary of the mining project’s regulatory non-compliance issues that are publicly available.” The phrase “that are publicly available” was meant to convey that only those non-compliance events that were already in the public domain (i.e., not alleged regulatory violations that were subject to legal challenges) had to be disclosed to stakeholders. The wording/intent was not well understood by auditors or mining companies so we have removed it. Instead, we have added 1.1.4.2.b, which says that details of pending legal actions do not need to be made public, but if requested the entity would furnish some information about alleged regulatory violations that are subject to legal actions. This is based on the fact that laws in various countries already require that information on various legal issues be disclosed publicly.

Chapter 1.2: Community and Stakeholder Engagement

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  There are several proposed revisions in wording to improve clarity and numerous places where similar concepts have been combined. 

Proposed additions and changes:

  • The most notable proposed change to this chapter is a requirement that entities have an “access to information” policy (or something similar), to make it clear to stakeholders that they can request and obtain information on the environmental and social performance of the operation. The 2018 Mining Standard included multiple requirements where the entity needed to provide information “upon request”, but those requirements were difficult to audit. See more discussion in the Note for requirement 1.2.4.3.
  • There are several requirements where new content has been added. In 1.2.1.1, the previous requirement has expanded beyond merely identifying stakeholders to also carrying out mapping and analyses of stakeholders), in 1.2.1.2 more detail was added regarding what should be in a stakeholder engagement plan, to enable more consistency in auditing those plans, and an analysis of gender roles and dynamics was added in 1.2.1.1.d.
  • One other notable change is that a requirement related to cultural awareness and sensitivity training was moved to this chapter from Chapter 3.7 – ‘Cultural Heritage.’

1.2.1: Planning and Designing Stakeholder Engagement Processes

NOTE FOR 1.2.1:  Removed requirement (1.2.1.4) from this criterion. It has been integrated into 1.2.1.1. See Note for 1.2.1.1, below.

Stakeholder mapping and analysis:
  1. Identifies the range of groups and individuals, including community members, rights holders, and others (hereafter referred to collectively as “stakeholders”) who are or may be affected by or interested in the project/operation, including those who may be opposed to the project/operation;
  2. Identifies potentially marginalized or vulnerable groups for whom special outreach may be necessary;
  3. Analyzes the relative interests and influence of each stakeholder/stakeholder group related to the project/operation, and the implications for engagement strategy;
  4. Analyzes gendered roles and power dynamics within households and communities, and their implications for inclusive engagement;
  5. Includes evaluation of pre-existing community dynamics and a conflict analysis to understand if the project/operation may create or has created intra-community, inter-community or interpersonal tensions or conflicts that warrant special engagement strategies; and
  6. Is updated when there are proposed changes to a project/operation or changes in the operational, environmental, or social context that may influence the number and/or breadth of affected stakeholders.

NOTE FOR 1.2.1.1:  REVISED. We combined 1.2.1.1 with former 1.2.1.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard and we are proposing new content.

The version of this requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard referred to stakeholder identification, and we are proposing to expand the requirement to include stakeholder mapping and analysis. Stakeholder mapping is a requirement in other mining-related standards such as the Aluminum Stewardship Initiative and the Responsible Minerals Initiative’s Risk Readiness Assessment.

In sub-requirement (a), we specifically require identification of stakeholders who may be opposed to the operation, as this stakeholder group may be overlooked or avoided by entities proposing or operating mines and processing facilities, even though these stakeholders have the ability to influence projects/operations. This was in our guidance materials previously. 

Also, we have added a footnote that explains that if Indigenous Peoples are identified, that the mapping and analysis of those communities needs to occur as per the expectations in 1.2.1.1, but that the performance on the requirement will be factored into the score in Chapter 2.2-Indigenous Peoples and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (See requirement 2.2.3.1.c). Previously, it was unclear how the two chapters overlapped.

We added a sub-requirement (b) because we refer to potentially vulnerable elsewhere, but the step of actually identifying those groups was missing. 

We added a sub-requirement (c) as it is best practice to not just identify stakeholders, but also understand the perspectives, interests and priorities of individuals and groups of stakeholders. This is a concept that is integrated into the IFC Performance Standard 1, and other guidance materials.

Sub-requirement (d) is new. It is being proposed concurrent with a proposed chapter on Gender Equality and Gender Protections. We can add guidance to help entities understand the type of analysis that could be done to better understand gendered roles and power dynamics.

Sub-requirement (e) integrates the former 1.2.1.4 because efforts to understand community dynamics (pre-existing, and potential changes due to the project/operation) should be part of stakeholder analysis. 

We added a sub-requirement (f) to update the mapping and analysis when there are proposed changes/major modifications that may affect more or different stakeholders or rights holders.

A stakeholder engagement plan is in place and implemented to guide the entity’s engagement and communications with stakeholders. The plan:
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Identifies a timetable of engagement activities for the year, and the purpose or goals for each engagement;
  3. Identifies how engagements will capture input from a diversity of stakeholders (including different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups);
  4. Identifies how engagement processes will avoid or minimize conflicts between stakeholders and/or communities that are being engaged;
  5. Identifies how, when and in what formats information relevant to engagements will be communicated to stakeholders; and
  6. Includes documentation of a budget and staff responsibilities for implementing the various engagement activities.

NOTE FOR 1.2.1.2:  REVISED. The proposed changes add more specificity so that there is clarity on what stakeholder engagements plans need to include. These plans guide the work of stakeholder engagement, and so a plan that outlines the work should be developed and documented. Much of this content comes from IFC guidance on the sample contents for stakeholder engagement plans.

The stakeholder engagement plan is reviewed annually and updated as necessary based on an evaluation of the effectiveness of the previous year’s engagement processes, stakeholder input on engagement processes (1.2.1.4), and any updates to stakeholder mapping and analysis.

NOTE FOR 1.2.1.3:  NEW. Requirement 1.2.1.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard included that the engagement plan be scaled to the project’s risk, impacts and stage of development. That has been removed due to the subjectivity of the requirement, and lack of consistency that could result from one auditor to the next in determining if the plan is adequately scaled or not. Instead, we are proposing in sub-requirement (b) that entities demonstrate that they evaluate the effectiveness of the plan, which is something that auditors can verify. 

Periodically, the entity consults with stakeholders to gather input on potential improvements to the design of engagement processes (e.g., timing, accessibility, inclusiveness, cultural appropriateness, etc.).

NOTE FOR 1.2.1.3:  REVISED. This was 1.2.1.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We removed the part of the requirement to “demonstrate that continuous efforts are taken to understand and remove barriers to engagement for affected stakeholders (especially women, marginalized and vulnerable groups).” Identifying barriers and taking action to remove them is now covered requirement 1.2.3.1.

1.2.2: Stakeholder Engagement Processes

NOTE FOR 1.2.2:  Minor change to title of this criterion. Added the word Stakeholder.

Requirement 1.2.2.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard has been deleted. The former 1.2.2.1. said, “Stakeholder engagement shall begin prior to or during mine planning, and be ongoing, throughout the life of the mine.”  Part of the requirement, i.e., that engagement be ongoing, has been moved to the new 1.2.2.1. We are proposing to delete that engagement “begin prior to or during mine planning”. There was already guidance to auditors to not score that element for existing mines because sites cannot turn back the clock to so something that was not initially done. Because this revised Standard represents all phases of the life cycle, we are instead proposing to require that there be evidence that stakeholder engagement has occurred and continues to occur for every project/operation, but we are proposing that we not rate sites on when engagement started.

The entity fosters two-way dialogue and meaningful stakeholder engagement by:
  1. Providing stakeholders with opportunities to contribute to meeting agendas and add topics of concern to them;
  2. Providing relevant information to stakeholders, including advance notice of proposed activities;
  3. Engaging in a manner that is free from manipulation, interference, coercion, or intimidation;
  4. Engaging with a broad spectrum of stakeholders representing a diversity in genders, ages, ethnicities, and members of any potentially vulnerable groups;
  5. Regularly soliciting feedback from stakeholders on issues relevant to the stakeholders;
  6. Including participation by site management and subject-matter experts when addressing concerns of significance to stakeholders; and
  7. Engaging on an ongoing basis, throughout the project/operation life cycle.

NOTE FOR 1.2.2.1:  REVISED. This was 1.2.2.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It was a critical requirement (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

There are a few sub-requirements that are either new or revised.

Sub-requirement 1.2.2.1.a is new. Allowing stakeholder to contribute to meeting was added because stakeholders have reflected that they often arrive at meetings with pre-set agendas, without time to discuss the issues that are of greatest concern or interest to them.

In sub-requirement 1.2.2.1.c, we have removed the words “in a timely manner” because this duplicates 1.2.4.1, below. But we have added in 1.2.4.1.b that advance notice of proposed activities be provided, because sharing information on proposed activities gives stakeholders an opportunity to potentially influence activities that may conflict with cultural or environmental values or livelihood activities. For example, there may be local knowledge about locations of sensitive species that might be disturbed by noise during certain time periods, and this input influence the nature or timing of proposed activities in a positive manner.

Otherwise, the requirement either incorporates elements related to meaningful engagement that were included elsewhere in the 2018 Mining Standard, or deletes elements that have been moved elsewhere in the chapter. For example, the need for engagement to be ongoing was in the previous 1.2.2.1. 

The need to include participation by a broad spectrum of stakeholders including women, men, marginalized and vulnerable groups is now stated more clearly in 1.2.2.1.d. It was previously mentioned in 1.2.1.3 and 1.2.2.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

One sub-requirement was removed from 1.2.2.1 (providing stakeholders with feedback on how the company has taken their input into account). That expectation has been integrated into 1.2.2.6.

At least one permanent stakeholder engagement mechanism is in place that:
  1. Is designed in collaboration with stakeholders, including representatives from affected communities; and
  2. Facilitates regular and ongoing:
    1. Stakeholder review of the project’s/operation’s environmental and social performance; and
    2. Input to the entity on issues of concern to stakeholders, including but not limited to grievances.

NOTE FOR 1.2.2.2:  REVISED. The content in this requirement is the same as the 2018 Mining Standard, but has been re-organized so that there are two distinct sub-requirements to be audited.

Changed wording from “oversight” of performance, which could be interpreted as imparting a level of level of supervision, to “review of” and “input” on performance, which was the original intent of the requirement.

Added reference to grievances as concerns that could be discussed through the mechanism. 

When stakeholder engagement processes depend substantially on community representatives speaking for the community:
  1. Efforts are made by the entity to confirm whether or not such people represent the views and interests of diverse affected community members and can be relied upon to reliably communicate relevant information back to the community, and from the community to the entity; and
  2. If either the representatives are not considered to represent the views of the community, or information from the engagement processes are not flowing back to the community, then the entity implements additional engagement processes to enable more meaningful input from and information sharing with the broader community.

NOTE FOR 1.2.2.3:  REVISED. Renumbered (was requirement 1.2.2.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard) and restructured so that it is clearer to auditors and others that there are two parts to this requirement. 

First, if the entity engages with community representatives that are supposed to be speaking for or on behalf of a community, it is the entity’s responsibility to understand if this form of engagement is truly capturing the views and interests of a broad range of affected stakeholders, and if the broader community is subsequently being briefed by community representatives on their interactions with the entity. 

Second, if that is not occurring, then it is up to the entity to implement additional engagement processes so that the broader community is more engaged, and their opinions, concerns and suggestions better reflected.

If there are no engagement processes that depend substantially on community representatives, but the engagement processes use other mechanisms to remain inclusive of the views and interests of a broad range of affected stakeholders, then this could be marked as ‘Not Relevant’.

Engagement processes are documented, including, at minimum:
  1. Names of participants;
  2. Input received from stakeholders; and
  3. Feedback provided by the entity to stakeholders.

NOTE FOR 1.2.2.4:  This was requirement 1.2.2.6 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

The entity reports back to affected communities and individual stakeholders on:
  1. Input received during stakeholder engagement processes; and
  2. How stakeholder input and concerns were taken into account and addressed by the entity.

NOTE FOR 1.2.2.5:  REVISED. This was 1.2.2.7 in the 2018 Mining Standard). We integrated reporting on how stakeholder input was taken into account (was previously included as 1.2.2.2.e in the 2018 Mining Standard).  

1.2.3: Strengthening Capacity to Engage

NOTE FOR 1.2.3:  Minor change to title of this criterion. Added the words “to Engage”.

Efforts to build capacity for effective stakeholder engagement are implemented and documented, including:
  1. Periodic consultations with stakeholders from affected communities to assess stakeholders’ capacity to effectively engage with the entity (e.g., to engage in dialogue, consultations, studies, impact assessments, the development of mitigation plans, monitoring programs, community development strategies, etc.);
  2. Periodic consultations with stakeholders to identify and understand potential barriers to participation in engagement processes that exist for different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups;
  3. Where barriers to participation or capacity gaps are identified, collaboration with relevant stakeholders to agree on strategies to facilitate more effective engagement that include appropriate funding, training, or other forms of assistance; and
  4. Periodic consultations with stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to remove barriers and build capacity, and updating of capacity building strategies, as necessary.

NOTE FOR 1.2.3.1:  REVISED and combined with elements of 1.2.1.3 from the 2018 Mining Standard.

This requirement has been revised to make it clear that capacity building is a process of assessing barriers to participation and capacity needs, planning and providing assistance (with direction from the stakeholders themselves), monitoring to determine if efforts are being effective, and updating planned capacity building efforts if necessary.

Sub-requirement (c) integrates the concept of understanding and removing barriers to participation, which had been covered in the former 1.2.1.3.

Also, added a footnote that, regarding the assessment, a number of assessments may need to take place over time, as the stakeholders involved in one aspect of the operation (e.g., studies or assessments) may differ from those who are engaged in other parts of the operation (e.g., the development of mitigation plans or monitoring), or those helping to developing community health-related mitigation strategies may be different than the stakeholders who are engaged in mitigation of impacts on biodiversity. 

1.2.4: Communications and Access to Information

Communications with stakeholders and provision of information occur:
  1. In a timely manner. If that is not possible, the entity provides stakeholders with a documented justification or explanation for the delay; and
  2. In a manner that is culturally appropriate and accessible to the stakeholders.

NOTE FOR 1.2.4.1:  REVISED and combines 1.2.4.3 and 1.2.4.4 from the 2018 Mining Standard.

“Communications with stakeholders” could include providing updates on changes to the operation, reporting back on issues raised (see 1.2.2.5), and could be various forms such as written and verbal presentations, materials such as fact sheets, letters, emails and written responses meant specifically for stakeholders (e.g., responses to queries or complaints), while “provision of information” refers to providing copies of existing documentation such as policies, procedures, studies, reports or data that the site has already produced for other reasons. Provision of information may occur proactively or be a result of information requestions.

Previously, IRMA did not define “culturally appropriate,” but instead included a footnote to provide some context. We are proposing to include the following definition and welcome any feedback on it.

Culturally Appropriate
Refers to methods, formats, languages, and timing (e.g., of communications, interactions and provision of information) being aligned with the cultural norms, practices and traditions of affected communities, rights holders and stakeholders.

Community engagement is conducted by competent professionals with demonstrated experience or training in cultural awareness and sensitivity.

NOTE FOR 1.2.4.2:  NEW. It also integrates a requirement from Chapter 3.7 that referred to cultural awareness training. It has been included here instead of Chapter 3.7 to make it clear that training in cultural awareness and sensitivity should occur for any of the entity’s staff who may interact with Indigenous Peoples or peoples from a different cultural background (not just those who may come into contact with cultural heritage resources that need to be protected).

We expect to elaborate in guidance that not all staff will need the same level of training – those with major roles should be more proficient, but those with incidental roles should also have intercultural awareness and engage in a culturally sensitive manner.

The requirement for training on cultural awareness is similar to an expectation in the Mining Association of Canada’s Toward Sustainable Mining Communities protocol.

An access to information policy (or equivalent) is in place and implemented to guide the provision of information to stakeholders. The policy:
  1. Provides that requests for information related to the environmental or social performance of the project/operation will be met in full or, if caveats are added, they align with the following:
    1. If requests are challenging to fulfill because of the large volume of information requested, the entity will provide stakeholders with summaries of requested information and a documented justification or explanation for why information is not being provided in full or according to the preferred timeline of the stakeholder; or
    2. If document contains some confidential business information, the entity will redact only the confidential information, allowing for the release of non-confidential information.
  2. Is communicated to stakeholders; and
  3. Is publicly available.

NOTE FOR 1.2.4.3:  REVISED. As mentioned in the note for 1.2.4.1, above, this requirement combines elements of various requirements found in the 2018 Mining Standard (1.2.4.3.a integrates elements of 1.2.4.1 and 1.2.4.2).

We are proposing changes to the requirement because in numerous other chapters in the IRMA Standard there are expectations that certain information be provided to stakeholders “upon request”. But those requirements have proven very difficult to audit as written, because if the auditee tells auditors that there were no requests for information then the auditor has two choices – mark it as fully meets (which isn’t accurate, since there is no evidence, other than perhaps a verbal guarantee, that if asked the entity would provide the information) or mark it as not relevant (which is more accurate, since there were not requests, but is problematic because if stakeholders are not aware that they can request information, then there may never be any requests).

The proposal here is that instead of the approach in the 2018 Mining Standard, which was essentially a blanket statement saying, “information shall be made available,” that entities have in place an “access to information” or similar policy that commits the entity to providing information to stakeholders if requests are made, and that this policy be communicated to stakeholders.

This new approach aims to make it clear to entities and stakeholders that IRMA expects that stakeholders have access to information about the environmental and social performance of a project or operation if they are so interested. It also still takes into consideration the fact that it may be difficult to fulfill all requests in full, and so we are proposing that at minimum, summaries of data or information are provided.

Chapter 1.3: Human Rights Due Diligence

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  There are only a few proposed changes to this chapter. There have been some structural changes to try to make the requirements and expectations clearer. 

Proposed additions and changes:

  • We added a requirement for management plan, to be more consistent with other IRMA chapters (1.3.2.1)
  • We added a requirement to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation/management actions (1.3.4.2)
  • We deleted one requirement that was informative, rather than an actual expectation.

1.3.1: Policy Commitment

A human rights policy (or equivalent) is in place that an acknowledgement of the entity’s responsibility to respect all internationally recognized human rights. The policy:
  1. Is approved at the most senior level of the entity;
  2. Is informed by relevant internal and/or external expertise;
  3. Stipulates the entity's human rights expectations of personnel, business partners, and other parties directly linked to the project/operation; and
  4. Is publicly available and communicated internally and externally to all personnel, business partners, and other relevant parties and stakeholders

NOTE FOR 1.3.1.1:  This requirement combines 1.3.1.1 and 1.3.1.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard. Both included elements of a policy, and in other chapters these elements are combined into a single requirement.  1.3.1.1 was a critical requirement, and so we are keeping 1.3.1.1 as a critical requirement (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

We have also removed the element that stated that the policy would be reflected in the project/operation’s policies and procedures. The rest of the chapter serves to integrate human rights responsibility expectations at the site level, and so this element is redundant.

1.3.2: Assessment of Human Rights Risks and Impacts

NOTE FOR 1.3.2:  Two requirements have been changed in this section. Requirement 1.3.2.5 from the 2018 Mining Standard has been deleted. It required an entity to “demonstrate that steps have been taken to effectively integrate assessment findings at the mine site operational level.” This is now redundant, because there are now explicit requirements asking for a management plan (1.3.3.1), and the plan is subject to monitoring and evaluation for effectiveness (1.3.4.1 and 1.3.4.2.). 

Also, the original requirement 1.3.2.1 from the 2018 Mining Standard contained information that duplicated expectations in other requirements (i.e., to identify assess human rights issues), and also contained an expectation for updating the assessment. The requirement to update is now 1.3.2.4, and the original 1.3.2.1 has been deleted to avoid duplication. 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.3-1:  The original requirement 1.3.2.1 was a critical requirement. See the Note on Critical Requirements, above, for context on critical requirements. Because it contained expectations to identify, assess and update human rights assessments, it is not clear which of the following requirements should be the replacement critical requirement. 

There are three options under consideration as a replacement critical requirement:  1) The integrity/robustness of the assessment process (new 1.3.2.1, below), the content of the assessment (new 1.3.2.2, below), or the updating of the assessment (new 1.3.3.3, below).  Do you have an opinion on which of those three requirements should be the critical requirement? Any rationale to support your choice would be appreciated.

The entity identifies and assesses potential human rights impacts (hereafter referred to as human rights 'risks') and actual human rights impacts from mining-related activities and business relationships. The assessment, which is scaled to the size of the entity and severity of human rights risks and impacts:
  1. Documents and follow a credible methodology;
  2. Is carried out by competent professionals;
  3. Draws on internal and/or external human rights expertise; and
  4. Is informed by consultations with potentially affected rights holders, including different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups, and other relevant stakeholders.

NOTE FOR 1.3.2.1: REVISED. This was 1.3.2.1 and 1.3.2.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 1.3.2.1 was a critical requirement, and so we have kept that delineation (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

We separated language referring to including views of human rights experts from the consultations with stakeholders. These are now (c) and (d). Also added a specific reference to human rights defenders.

And we removed a requirement for periodic updating (that is now requirement 1.3.2.4).

The assessment includes, at minimum:
  1. An explanation of the assessment methodology;
  2. An analysis of the current human rights context in the country and project/operation area;
  3. An overview of relevant human rights laws and norms;
  4. An identification of rights holders;
  5. A comprehensive list of the human rights risks related to the entity’s mining-related activities and business relationships, and an evaluation of the potential severity of impacts and probability of occurrence for each identified risk;
  6. Identification of any human rights impacts that have already occurred in relation to the project/operation;
  7. An analysis of the potential differential risks to and impacts on rights holder groups (including but not limited to human rights defenders, people of different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups ), and a disaggregation of results by rights holder group; and
  8. Recommended actions or measures that can be taken by the entity to prevent, mitigate, and remediate identified risks and impacts, giving priority to the most salient human rights issues.

NOTE FOR 1.3.2.2: REVISED. This was requirement 1.3.2.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We added (d), the identification of rights holders, as this is necessary in order to be able to determine risks to them. We separated out former sub-requirement (e) into (e) and (f) for clarity.  Also added a specific reference to human rights defenders in (g), as those individuals, if present, often face risks and must be included in the analysis.

Stakeholders and rights holders who participate in the assessment process have the opportunity to review draft key issues and findings that are relevant to them and are consulted to provide feedback on those findings.
Assessments are updated throughout the project/operation’s life cycle when there are proposed changes to mining-related activities, or changes in business relationships or in the operational, environmental, or social context that may create new human rights risks or change the nature or degree of an existing impact.

NOTE FOR 1.3.2.4: REVISED. This was part of 1.3.2.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We are proposing to separate it out for consistency with other IRMA chapters. 

1.3.3: Management of Human Rights Risks and Impacts

A human rights management plan (or equivalent) is developed and implemented to prevent, mitigate, and remediate the most salient human rights risks and impacts identified in the human rights assessment (and/or from other sources of information). The management plan:
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Outlines the agreed specific actions to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for potential and actual adverse human rights impacts;
  3. Includes performance criteria and indicators (including gender- and/or rights-holder-disaggregated indicators where appropriate), linked to adequate baseline data, to enable monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of actions over time;
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 1.3.3.1:  NEW. We are proposing to add this requirement as the 2018 Mining Standard did not have an explicit requirement for a human rights impacts management plan. A requirement for a management plan is consistent with other IRMA chapters, as are the elements describing what needs to be in the plan.

Based on the outcome of the human rights assessment (and/or other sources of information), the following specific actions are included in the management plan and are implemented to prevent, mitigate, and remediate salient human rights risks and impacts:
  1. Where salient risks to human rights have been identified:
    1. And the entity determines that the risk to human rights is related solely to its own actions, it prioritizes preventing impacts from occurring, and if this is not possible, designs strategies to mitigate the human rights risks. Mitigation measures are developed in consultation with potentially affected rights holders;
    2. And the entity determines that it is one of two or more entities that bears some responsibility for creating the risk to human rights, it develops actions to prevent or mitigate its contribution, and uses its leverage to influence other contributing parties to prevent or mitigate their contributions to the human rights risks; and/or
    3. If the entity determines that it is at risk of being linked to adverse human rights impacts through its business relationships, it uses its leverage to influence responsible parties to prevent or mitigate their risks to human rights from their activities.
  2. Where actual human rights impacts have been identified:
    1. And the entity determines that it has caused the impact, it ceases or changes the activity responsible for the impact and in a timely manner and develops mitigation strategies and remediation in collaboration with affected rights holders. If mutually acceptable remedies cannot be found through dialogue, the entity attempts to reach agreement through an independent, third-party mediator or another means mutually acceptable to affected rights holders; and/or
    2. And the entity determines that it has contributed to an actual human rights impact, it ceases or changes any of its activities that are contributing to the impact, mitigates and remediates impacts to the extent of its contribution, and uses its leverage to influence other contributing parties to cease or change their activities, and mitigate and remediate the remaining impact; and/or
    3. And the entity determines that it is linked to an actual human rights impact through a business relationship, it uses its leverage to prevent or mitigate the impact from continuing or recurring; and
    4. Where they exist, the entity cooperates with other legitimate processes such as judicial or state-based investigations or proceedings related to human rights impacts that the entity caused, contributed to, or was directly linked to through its business relationships.

NOTE FOR 1.3.3.2:  REVISED. This combines requirements 1.3.3.2 and 1.3.3.3 from the 2018 Mining Standard. The requirement still outlines the different expected actions to be taken based on whether or not it is a human rights risk or actual impact, and whether or not the entity caused the risk/impact, etc. But we have tried to make it clearer that if risks or impacts come to light (either through the risk assessment or some other source, such as a grievance being filed) that the specified actions need to be incorporated into the management plan, and implemented.

In the 2018 Mining Standard, requirement 1.3.3.3, which outlined the response to human rights impacts (i.e., information in 1.3.3.2.b, above) was a critical requirement. We have now combined that requirement with the response to human rights risks. We are designating this entire requirement as critical (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

Stakeholders have access to and are informed about a rights-compatible grievance mechanism and/or other mechanisms through which they can raise concerns and seek recourse for grievances related to human rights

NOTE FOR 1.3.3.3:  This was 1.3.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.4-2 (repeated from Chapter 1.4 – ‘Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’)

Background:  Chapter 1.4 – ‘Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’ includes a range of requirements surrounding the existence of an accessible and effective operational-level grievance mechanism. It is not possible to score well on Chapter 1.4 if the mechanism does not have certain quality-related characteristics. Other chapters (i.e., human rights, gender, resettlement, security, ASM) also have requirements relating to the existence of a grievance mechanism; however, the requirements in each of those chapters ask only that a mechanism is in place that allows grievances to be filed and addressed, but they do not speak to the overall quality of that mechanism. This is an approach proposed by IRMA to avoid too much repetition across chapters. However, this creates a situation in which an entity could theoretically score ‘fully meets’ on the grievance-related requirement in an individual chapter (which in most cases only asks that stakeholders have “access to” a grievance mechanism), even if the grievance mechanism as a whole is not an effective one (as reflected in the overall score for Chapter 1.4). 

Question:  Should an entity’s score on grievance-related requirements within individual non-grievance-specific chapters be restrained or linked to the overall score that the entity gets on the grievance chapter (Chapter 1.4) as a whole? 

For example, if a site scores 80% on Chapter 1.4, the most the site could receive for a grievance requirement in the other chapters would be a ‘substantially meets,’ but if a site scores 100% on Chapter 1.4 then, assuming the mechanism can handle grievances specific to the other chapters, they could possibly get a ‘fully meets’ rating on those grievance requirements.

1.3.4: Monitoring and Evaluation

NOTE FOR 1.3.4: REVISED. We are proposing to change the name of this criterion from ‘Monitoring’ to ‘Monitoring and Evaluation’ to better reflect the content and that the purpose of ‘monitoring’ is to evaluate the findings and make changes accordingly. 

The entity monitors whether the prevention, mitigation, and remediation strategies developed to address salient human rights risks and impacts and included in the management plan are being effectively implemented. The monitoring:
  1. Includes documentation of actual performance in relation to indicators (see 1.3.3.1.b); and
  2. Includes feedback from internal and external sources, including affected rights holders.

NOTE FOR 1.3.4.1: REVISED. This was requirement 1.3.4.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We are proposing to add that it is the management measures (prevention, mitigation, and remediation) that are to be monitored, rather than generically referring to ‘effectively addressing’ human rights risks/impacts. We also separated out sub-requirement (a) and (b) from the original (2018) requirement for clarity.

Annually or more frequently, the entity reviews monitoring results and any human-rights-related grievances, and evaluates the effectiveness of its prevention, mitigation, and remediation strategies. Based on the review, the management plan is updated, if necessary, to improve the effectiveness of its actions.

NOTE FOR 1.3.4.2: NEW. We are proposing to add this requirement as a complement to the NEW requirement for a human rights impact management plan (1.3.3.1), and for consistency with other IRMA chapters.

External monitoring of the entity’s human rights due diligence occurs if its due diligence efforts repeatedly fail to prevent, mitigate, or remediate actual human rights impacts; or if its due diligence activities fail to prevent the entity from unknowingly or unintentionally causing, contributing to or being linked to any serious human rights abuse. Additionally:
  1. The entity funds the external monitoring; and
  2. The form of such monitoring, and selection of external monitors, is determined in collaboration with affected rights holders.

NOTE FOR 1.3.4.3: This was 1.4.4.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

1.3.5: Reporting

NOTE FOR 1.3.5:  We have deleted a requirement (1.3.5.3) from the 2018 Mining Standard that related to the exclusion of confidential information because it was more informative than an actual requirement. Information from that requirement is now included as a footnote in both 1.3.5.1 and 1.3.5.2.

The entity periodically reports publicly on the effectiveness of its human-rights due diligence activities. At minimum, reporting includes the methods used to determine the salient human rights issues, a list of salient risks and impacts that were identified, and actions taken at the site-level to prevent, mitigate and/or remediate the human rights risks and impacts.

NOTE FOR 1.3.5.1:  REVISED. This was 1.3.5.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. That requirement specified that the entity’s corporate owner could also do the reporting. We have moved that to a footnote and have clarified that if the reporting is done at the corporate level this requirement can only be fully met if all of the elements in 1.3.5.1, including the specific risks and impacts for the site under IRMA assessment, are reported.

If external monitoring is required per 1.3.4.3, the entity publishes a report on external monitoring findings and recommendations to improve its human rights due diligence, and the entity reports to relevant stakeholders and rights holders on its plans to improve its due diligence activities as a result of external monitoring recommendations.

NOTE FOR 1.3.5.2:  This was 1.3.5.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Chapter 1.X: Gender Equality and Gender Protections

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  This is a NEW chapter being proposed. We have assigned it a chapter number of 1.X, and have inserted it in the location in the Standard where it will likely be placed if the addition of this chapter is supported by IRMA stakeholders and approved by the IRMA Board. 

This proposed chapter offers requirements that aim to advance gender equality and gender protections. Examples include understanding the social and political dynamics of the surrounding community, collecting gender-disaggregated data, and requiring companies to complete a Gender Impacts and Opportunities Assessment and create and implement a Gender Management Plan to address gender-related risks and to promote gender equity and empowerment within the workplace and community. 

The chapter complements the commitment to gender equality and gender protections found throughout the IRMA Standard by requiring mining companies to develop a related policy and plan and to monitor and report on it.

If stakeholders generally support and the IRMA Board approves addition of this chapter, then we will incorporate the terminology in this chapter throughout the IRMA Standard and develop additional guidance to support companies in their implementation and auditors in their assessment of conformity with the chapter’s expectations.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.X-1:  Below are proposed definitions of key terms in this chapter. Do you have any comments or suggestions on these definitions and/or suggestions for references to other definitions we should review and/or incorporate?

Gender
Gender refers to the norms, responsibilities, and social structure enforcing pre-defined roles for women, men, girls, boys, and gender-diverse people. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time. Regarding mineral development (i.e., exploration, mining, mineral processing), issues of gender equality often focus on women in particular because they face a heightened risk to adverse effects from mining-related activities, due in large part to patriarchal gender norms and differences in women’s access to and control over resources relative to men. 

         Source: Adapted from World Health Organization, Health Topics: Gender, https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

Gender Diverse
People whose gender identity, including their gender expression, is at odds with the gender norm, including those who do not place themselves in the male/female binary (non-binary) and people who identify with a different sex than the one assigned to them at birth. 

         Source: Adapted from United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, The Struggle of Trans and Gender-Diverse Persons: Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/ie-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/struggle-trans-and-gender-diverse-persons#:~:text=The%20term%20%22gender%2Ddiverse%22,binary%3B%20the%20more%20specific%20term

Gender Equality
The equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of women, men, and gender-diverse individuals. Equality does not mean that women and men will become the same, but that rights, responsibilities, and opportunities will not depend on a person’s sex at birth. Gender equality implies that the interests, needs, and priorities of women, men, and gender-diverse individuals are taken into consideration. Gender equality is not a women’s issue; it is an issue that should concern and fully engage men, women, and gender-diverse individuals. Equality between women, men, and gender-diverse individuals is seen both as a human rights issue and as a precondition for, and indicator of, sustainable people-centered development. 

         Source: Adapted from UN Women, Gender Mainstreaming Concepts and Definitions, available at https://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/conceptsandefinitions.htm

Gender Mainstreaming
Integration of gender concerns into the design and management of business operations in order to improve business outcomes and identify areas where benefits, risks and impacts may be experienced differently for men, women, and gender-diverse individuals. This may include intersectional gender analysis, intersectional gender impact assessments, and consultation with gender experts.

        Gender mainstreaming can better enable the successful development, implementation, and ongoing monitoring of gender-responsive strategies and measures designed to address issues of gender equality.

Gender Protections
Addressing and keeping people safe from gender-based discrimination, violence, and harm, e.g., sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). 

        Source: Adapted from International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Protection, Gender and Inclusion, https://www.ifrc.org/our-work/inclusion-protection-and-engagement/protection-gender-and-inclusion#:~:text=Protection%20means%20addressing%20violence%20and,excluded%20people%20in%20our%20work

Intersectional
Discrimination based on one factor such as gender may intersect with other factors of discrimination such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, age, geographic location, gender identity and sexual orientation, among others. 

        Source: World Health Organization, Health Topics: Gender, https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

Vulnerable Group
A group whose resource endowment is inadequate to provide sufficient income from any available source, or that has some specific characteristics that make it more susceptible to health impacts or lack of economic opportunities due to social biases or cultural norms (e.g., may include households headed by women or children, people with disabilities, the extremely poor, the elderly, at-risk children and youth, ex-combatants, internally displaced people and returning refugees, HIV/AIDS-affected individuals and households, religious and ethnic minorities, migrant workers, and groups that suffer social and economic discrimination, including Indigenous Peoples, minorities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning (LGBTQ+) and gender-diverse individuals, and in some societies, women). 

          Sources:  Adapted from IFC. 2002. Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan, FAO, and World Bank: “Vulnerable Groups.”

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.X-2:  References to women and gender-diverse individuals as potentially “vulnerable” or as “vulnerable groups” may sound disempowering and/or otherwise not aligned with the objectives of this chapter to advance gender equality. Are there other widely recognized terms or phrases we could use that recognize the potential susceptibility of women and gender-diverse individuals to adverse impacts such as health impacts or lack of economic opportunities due to social biases or cultural norms?

1.X.1: Policy Commitment

A gender policy (or equivalent) is in place that includes an acknowledgement of the entity’s commitment to advance gender equality and gender mainstreaming and to ensure gender protections respect all internationally recognized human rights. The policy:
  1. Is approved at the most senior level of the entity;
  2. Is informed by relevant internal and/or external expertise;
  3. Stipulates the entity's expectations of personnel, business partners and other parties directly linked to the project/operation to advance gender equality and gender mainstreaming and to ensure gender protections; and
  4. Is publicly available and communicated internally and externally to all personnel, business partners, and other relevant parties and stakeholders.

1.X.2: Gender Impact and Opportunities Assessment

The entity establishes an ongoing process to identify and assess their level of achievement of gender equality and gender protections, and to assess gender-related risks or actual impacts from mining-related activities and business relationships. Assessments:
  1. Follow a credible methodology;
  2. Are carried out by competent professionals;
  3. Draw on internal and/or external gender expertise; and
  4. Is informed by consultations with potentially affected rights holders, including different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups , and other relevant stakeholders.
As part of its assessment, the entity documents, at minimum:
  1. An explanation of the assessment methodology;
  2. An analysis of current gender norms and gender equality and gender protections context in the country and project/operation area, including norms and contexts that may have adverse impacts and those that may create opportunities;
  3. An overview of relevant gender equality and gender protection laws, including customary (traditional) laws;
  4. Assessment of the following gender-related factors, at a minimum:
    1. Gender inequalities within the workplace including: 1) differences in remuneration (e.g., non-equal pay for equal work); 2) differences in retention; 3) differences in roles and responsibilities, including participation in senior leadership and management roles and responsibilities; 4) differences in benefits; and 5) differences in levels of health and safety;
    2. Gender-specific risks in the workplace including violence, sexual harassment, intimidation, and health and safety;
    3. Gender-specific barriers to employment including: 1) education level; 2) training opportunities; 3) accommodating family roles; 4) cultural norms; 5) legal status; and 6) health and safety;
    4. Gender-specific barriers to stakeholder engagement (e.g., participation in consultations, training, capacity building) including: accommodating family roles; cultural norms; and health and safety.
    5. Gender-specific differences in or barriers to equitable community development and benefit sharing opportunities;
    6. Gender-specific differences in or barriers to restoration of livelihoods and in outcomes of resettlement action plans, if relevant;
    7. Gender-specific risks in the community including violence, sexual harassment, and intimidation; and
    8. Opportunities to collaborate with stakeholders to promote gender equity and empowerment in the community and workplace.
  5. The identification of rights holders, an analysis of the potential differentiated risks to and impacts on rights holder groups such as different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups , and a disaggregation of results by rights holder group; and
  6. Recommended actions or measures that can be taken by the entity to prevent, mitigate, and remediate identified risks and impacts, giving priority to the most salient issues, and recommended actions or measures that can be taken to promote gender equity and empowerment.

NOTE FOR 1.X.2.2:  If this chapter is added to the IRMA Standard, we will cross-reference the elements in 1.3.2.3.d in relevant chapters, e.g., 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3. Also, we can add guidance to clarify and provide examples of gender-specific barriers.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.X-3:  Do you have any comments on the set of minimum factors listed above and/or can you provide examples of common factors used in gender assessments (with reference to original source)?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.X-4:  In some circumstances a person may prefer not to disclose their gender, e.g., when filing a grievance—including a grievance related to gender. Allowing a worker or community member to choose not to disclose this information can have the positive impact of protecting a stakeholder or stakeholder group in some cases and may also make assessing and addressing impacts and opportunities by gender more challenging. Should we include a requirement that allows a preference not to disclose one’s gender? Why or why not? In what contexts might a preference not to disclose one’s gender be necessary? In what contexts might this not be appropriate?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.X-5:  We note that in some circumstances a person may prefer not to disclose sexual orientation, marital status, or other factors. Should we include a requirement to allow a preference not to disclose particular intersectional factor(s)? If so, what factors and why? In what contexts might a preference not to disclose the factor(s) you’ve identified be necessary? Are there any contexts in which a preference not to disclose the factor(s) may not be appropriate?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.X-6:  This chapter aims to take an intersectional approach, promoting assessment of impacts by gender and understanding and addressing related factors of discrimination such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, age, geographic location, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or marital status, for example. Are there specific factors you recommend for intersectional assessments? 

At minimum, stakeholders and rights holders who participate in the assessment process:
  1. Have the opportunity to review draft key issues and findings that are relevant to them, and
  2. Are consulted to provide feedback on assessment findings and proposed strategies to prevent, mitigate, and remediate identified salient risks and impacts and promote gender equity and empowerment.
The assessment is updated when there are proposed changes to mining-related activities, or changes in business relationships or in the operational, environmental, or social context that may create new risks or change the nature or degree of an existing impact.

1.X.3: Management and Promotion of Gender Equity and Empowerment

A gender management plan (or equivalent) is developed and implemented to prevent, mitigate, and remediate the most salient gender-related risks and impacts, and promote gender equity and empowerment in its project/operation and in affected communities. The plan:
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Outlines specific actions that will be implemented to prevent, mitigate, and remediate identified salient risks and impacts and promote gender equity and empowerment;
  3. Identifies key indicators, and ensures that there is an adequate baseline for the indicators to enable measurement of the effectiveness of actions over time; and
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.
Stakeholders have access to and are informed about a rights-compatible grievance mechanism and other mechanisms through which they can raise concerns and seek recourse for grievances related to gender-related impacts.

1.X.4: Monitoring and Evaluation

The entity monitors whether the prevention, mitigation, and remediation strategies developed to address salient gender risks and impacts and the efforts to promote gender equity and empowerment included in the management plan are being effectively implemented. The monitoring:
  1. Includes documentation of actual performance in relation to indicators (see 1.X.3.1.b); and
  2. Includes feedback from internal and external sources, including affected rights holders.
Annually or more frequently, the entity reviews monitoring results (1.X.4.1) and any related grievances and evaluates the effectiveness of its strategies. Based on that review, the management plan is updated, if necessary, to improve the effectiveness of its actions.

1.X.5: Reporting

The entity annually reports publicly on the effectiveness of its gender equality and gender protection activities. At minimum, reporting includes the methods used to determine the salient gender issues, a list of salient gender risks and impacts that were identified, and actions taken at the site-level to prevent, mitigate and/or remediate the salient gender risk and impacts and promote gender equity and empowerment.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.X-7:  Is the requirement to report ‘annually’ appropriate here?  Do you recommend any other specific timeframe (e.g., bi- annually) and/or circumstance (e.g., major modifications to the mining or mineral processing operation, significant changes in technology, etc.) that should prompt a public report?

Chapter 1.4: Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  Minor modifications were made to the ‘Background’ and ‘Scope of Application’ sections, and several requirements were moved into new criteria to be more consistent with other chapters. 

Proposed additions and changes:

  • We made it more explicit in the Scope of Application that while workers’ grievances may be dealt with through the same mechanism that is used to deal with broader stakeholder (i.e., community members, NGOs, rights holders), they also may have a separate mechanism to deal explicitly with workplace grievances. Where the latter is the case, workers and workplace grievance procedures should not have bearing on the outcome of the requirements of this chapter, but rather be evaluated under Chapter 3.1.
  • We added a requirement that entities proactively inform stakeholders of how to file a grievance, because if this is not shared with some stakeholders (e.g., those who are illiterate) and the entity only relies on the fact that its procedures are publicly available, it could be a barrier to their using the mechanism. See requirement 1.4.1.2.b.
  • We changed a requirement that relevant personnel be informed of grievance procedures to demonstrating understanding of them and receiving training if necessary. This was done because if staff do not know about or understand the mechanism then they may not implement the procedures appropriately or effectively. See requirement 1.4.2.3.
  • We changed the time-dependent requirement that stakeholders participate in the design of the grievance mechanism. Modified language to clarify that this does not have to occur when the mechanism is first created but can happen at any time to improve the design and make it more effective and accessible to the stakeholders. See requirement 1.4.3.3.
  • Questions were received on whether the reporting requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard meant that companies had to report back to individuals on their own grievance, or report to stakeholders more generally on all of the grievances received and how they were handled. The intent was that both should be occurring, so we have separated the original requirement into two separate requirements. See criterion 1.4.4.

1.4.1: Access to Operational-Level Grievance Mechanism

Stakeholders, including affected community members, rights holders, and others (hereafter referred to collectively as “stakeholders”) have access to an operational-level mechanism that allows them to raise and seek resolution or remedy for the range of complaints and grievances (hereafter referred to collectively as “grievances”) that may occur in relation to the operation or the entity's actions.

NOTE ON 1.4.1.1:  We specified that both ‘complaints’ and ‘grievances’ would be referred to as grievances hereafter to reduce confusion about the relationship between the terms and IRMA’s dealing with them. This is now also explained in the ‘background’ section at the outset of this chapter.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.4-1

Background:  Requirement 1.4.1.1 was a critical requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard and is currently a critical requirement (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

One of the issues that has arisen is that there may be a mechanism in place that allows grievances to be filed and addressed, but the mechanism may not be considered as entirely effective by some stakeholders. 

Question: Should the critical element simply be that there is a mechanism that allows stakeholders to raise and seek remedy for their grievances, or should we add additional expectations to this critical requirement that speak to the quality and/or effectiveness of the mechanism? For example, we could add the content of (non-critical) requirement 1.4.2.1 to this (critical) requirement. 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.4-2

Background:  Chapter 1.4 – ‘Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’ includes a range of requirements surrounding the existence of an accessible and effective operational-level grievance mechanism. It is not possible to score well on Chapter 1.4 if the mechanism does not have certain quality-related characteristics. Other chapters (i.e., human rights, gender, resettlement, security, ASM) also have requirements relating to the existence of a grievance mechanism; however, the requirements in each of those chapters ask only that a mechanism is in place that allows grievances to be filed and addressed, but they do not speak to the overall quality of that mechanism. This is an approach proposed by IRMA to avoid too much repetition across chapters. However, this creates a situation in which an entity could theoretically score ‘fully meets’ on the grievance-related requirement in an individual chapter (which in most cases only asks that stakeholders have “access to” a grievance mechanism), even if the grievance mechanism as a whole is not an effective one (as reflected in the overall score for Chapter 1.4). 

Question:  Should an entity’s score on grievance-related requirements within individual non-grievance-specific chapters be restrained or linked to the overall score that the entity gets on the grievance chapter (Chapter 1.4) as a whole? 

For example, if a site scores 80% on Chapter 1.4, the most the site could receive for a grievance requirement in the other chapters would be a ‘substantially meets,’ but if a site scores 100% on Chapter 1.4 then, assuming the mechanism can handle grievances specific to the other chapters, they could possibly get a ‘fully meets’ rating on those grievance requirements.

Stakeholders are informed, in a manner appropriate to their circumstances:
  1. Of the existence of the operational-level grievance mechanism and its procedures;
  2. How to file a grievance; and
  3. That using the operational-level grievance mechanism does not preclude them from seeking redress related to grievances through administrative, judicial, or non-judicial remedies.

NOTE ON 1.4.1.2:  REVISED. We moved this requirement up from the ‘communications’ criterion (formerly criterion 1.4.5, which no longer exists) for consistency with the structure of other chapters. 

The words “in a manner appropriate to their circumstances,” were added to address the fact that affected communities may need to be informed in person, in local languages, etc., whereas regional NGOs or others may be fine receiving an email about the mechanism.

Sub-requirement (b) is NEW. It has been added so that proactive steps are taken to make sure stakeholders not only know that a mechanism exists but are informed of how to file a grievance. This would be especially important for stakeholders who are not literate (i.e., the public availability of written procedures required in 1.4.2.2 will not be useful to them). 

Sub-requirement (c) is a modified version of requirement 1.4.5.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. But we are proposing that the entity be required to actively inform stakeholders that they can use the operational-level mechanism and also make use of other mechanisms if they so choose. Instead of requiring entities to actively inform, this requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard simply prohibited the entity from telling stakeholders that they were not allowed to use other mechanisms, which was very difficult to audit as it required auditors to look for the absence, rather than the presence, of something.  

1.4.2: Grievance Mechanism Procedures

The grievance mechanism is underpinned by a grievance procedure (or equivalent) that:
  1. Outlines how grievances and communications with those filing grievances are tracked, recorded, acknowledged, investigated, and equitably resolved, including general timeframes for each phase of the process;
  2. Explains how the confidentiality of a complainant’s identity will be protected, if requested by the complainant;
  3. Outlines how complainants can file anonymous grievances;
  4. Explains how the entity will assist those who may face barriers to using the operational-level grievance mechanism, different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups, and outlines how stakeholders can request such assistance;
  5. Explicitly states that participation in an operational level grievance mechanism does not preclude a complainant from seeking redress through administrative, judicial, or other non-judicial remedies, and that no remedy provided by an operational-level grievance mechanism requires or implies that complainants waive their right to seek recourse for the same grievance through other available mechanisms; and
  6. Lists options for recourse if a complainant does not find the resolution of their grievance satisfactory and/or if the mechanism is deemed inadequate or inappropriate for handling grievances relating to potential serious human rights abuses.

NOTE ON 1.4.2.1:  REVISED. We moved reference to the effectiveness criteria outlined in Principle 31 of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (which include the need for the mechanism to be: (a) Legitimate, (b) Accessible, (c) Predictable, (d) Equitable, (e) Transparent, (f) Rights-compatible, (g) A source of continuous learning, and (h) Based on engagement and dialogue, to the guidance notes, as the chapter itself has been designed to incorporate these effectiveness criteria. 

We also removed the element that consultation had to occur in the design of the mechanism, because that implied that it would have needed to happen prior to or during the initial development of the mechanism itself. The primary intent is that stakeholders have a say in the grievance mechanism and its procedures to improve its effectiveness. We cover that by requiring that there are clear opportunities to improve the mechanism (1.4.3.2). 

We combined previous sub-requirements (a) and (b) as they both referred to the administrative side of tracking and responding to grievances. 

We added sub-requirement (e) we added text explicitly requiring the entity to state in writing that participation in grievance processes does not require waiving rights to recourse elsewhere for the same grievance. In the 2018 Mining Standard it was stated in 1.4.3.1 that this must be the practice (and in 1.4.5.2. that the entity cannot state the contrary in communications with stakeholders), but absent evidence to the contrary (i.e., stakeholders reporting that they were told they could not seek recourse elsewhere) or evidence that recourse had been successfully sought (i.e., evidence that in practice it occurred), there was nothing to audit. Moreover, without an obligation to explicitly inform stakeholders of this option, they may have not known it was available and therefore not attempted to avail themselves of it for that reason, which again is difficult to identify and therefore audit. 

We added sub-requirement (f) that requires entities to explicitly inform stakeholders of their options for external resource, pursuant to sub-requirement (e).

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.4-3:  Stakeholder feedback suggested that an independent third-party should be involved in the assessment of more grievances to ensure that resolutions are unbiased, impartial, and fair to all parties involved. Is this considered best practice and, if so, is it applicable to only the most serious grievances or to all grievances?  

Grievance procedures are publicly available in languages and formats that are understandable to stakeholders who may be affected by the project/operation.

NOTE ON 1.4.2.2:  REVISED. We added language that this must be communicated in language and formats that are understandable to stakeholders. 

Relevant personnel (including entity employees as well as contractors) who interact with stakeholders are informed of and understand the proper procedures for handling stakeholder grievances, and personnel directly involved in the operational-level mechanism receive training on the respectful and equitable handling of all grievances, including those that may appear frivolous.

NOTE ON 1.4.2.3:  REVISED. This requirement was previously under criterion 1.4.5 “Communications” (in the 2018 Mining Standard). We are proposing to move it to this criterion (‘Grievance Mechanism Procedures’) to increase consistency with other chapters and changed language from relevant personnel being informed of grievance procedures to demonstrating understanding of, and receiving training on, these procedures.

1.4.3: Monitoring and Evaluation

NOTE ON 1.4.3:   The previous criterion 1.4.3 “Access to Other Remedy Mechanisms” from the 2018 Mining Standard and requirement 1.4.3.1 (recourse to other mechanisms) are now part of requirement 1.4.1.1 and criterion 1.4.2.

Records are kept of:
  1. All grievances received, including those received verbally, anonymously, etc.;
  2. Communications with the complainant; and
  3. Final outcomes and any remedies.

NOTE ON 1.4.3.1:  REVISED. This was requirement 1.4.4.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We divided it into sub-requirements and added language to indicate that all grievances (including those submitted verbally and anonymously) must be documented. Also added that record of communications with complainants must also be kept. 

We will add guidance notes on what we mean by outcomes versus remedies, i.e., outcome is the result of any investigation into the grievance (e.g., does the grievance have merit) and remedy is what occurs if the grievance is substantiated (i.e., the actions taken by the entity to resolve the grievance, which could be mitigation of some type, compensation, an apology, or another action to settle the matter). If the grievance is related to an infringement of human rights, the remedy must align with the remedy expectations in Chapter 1.3 (Human Rights Due Diligence).

The entity periodically monitors and evaluates the performance of the operational-level grievance mechanism over time to determine:
  1. If changes need to be made to improve its effectiveness as per 1.4.2.1.a;
  2. If changes in entity activities can be implemented to prevent or mitigate similar grievances in the future; and
  3. If outcomes and remedies provided through the mechanism accord with internationally recognized human rights.

NOTE ON 1.4.3.2:  This was 1.4.4.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Periodically, stakeholders are:
  1. Provided with clearly communicated opportunities to provide input on how to make grievance mechanism(s) more effective, trusted, and accessible to all stakeholders; and
  2. Receive feedback on how their input was taken into account.

NOTE ON 1.4.3.3:  Added “periodically” so that it is not assumed this is a one-time solicitation for feedback. We also added sub-requirement (b) obligating entities to provide feedback to stakeholders on how their suggestions on improving the mechanism were taken into account.

1.4.4: Communication and Reporting on Grievances

Unless grievances are filed anonymously, stakeholders filing grievances are informed, either in writing or verbally with documentation of the exchange, how the grievance was addressed.

NOTE ON 1.4.4.1:  REVISED. This was 1.4.6.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard.  IRMA received feedback that it was not clear if that requirement referred to reporting back to individual stakeholders on their grievances or reporting to stakeholders on grievances more generally. Therefore, we specified in 1.4.4.1. that entities report back directly to the affected stakeholders and created a new 1.4.4.2, below, to address general reporting on grievances.  

At least annually, relevant internal and external stakeholders are provided with reports on pertinent trends and lessons learned from grievances received and the responses provided. This is done in a manner that protects the confidentiality and safety of those filing grievances.

NOTE ON 1.4.4.2:  NEW.  See note for 1.4.4.1. 

Chapter 1.5: Financial Transparency and Anti-Corruption

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  We are proposing to change the name of this chapter (it was Revenue and Payments Transparency), to better reflect the breadth and intent of the requirements. 

Proposed additions and changes:

  • Combined a number of requirements related to payments transparency (see criterion 1.5.1)
  • Expanded expectations related to anti-corruption policy and procedures (1.5.3.1, 1.5.3.2), and added some reporting requirements (1.5.3.4)

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.5-1

Background:  At this time, it does not appear that disclosures of revenues and payments to governments is a widespread best practice for stand-alone mineral processing facilities. The EU Accounting Directive, cited in the IRMA mining standard, does not appear to apply to smelters and refineries.  The Directive applies to entities active in the extractive industry (or logging of primary forests), and extractive industry entities are defined as being involved in the exploration, prospection, discovery, development and extraction of minerals. . . “  Smelting and refining are categorized as Manufacturing under EU rules. 

Similarly, Canada’s disclosure law does not include payments related to mineral processing unless the activity is integrated into extractive operations.

Looking at EITI country reports, however, it does seem like companies that only carry out smelting (not mining) do report, which suggests that EITI does not exclude smelting and refining from its disclosure standard (although it is unclear if all EITI-implementing countries include mineral processing facilities in their implementation of EITI). 

Question:  Should IRMA require that standalone mineral processing facilities engaged with IRMA publicly report the revenues and payments paid to government? 

1.5.1: Financial Transparency

NOTE FOR 1.5.1:  This criterion combines several criteria from the 2018 Mining Standard, all of which contained elements related to financial transparency (1.4.1 ‘Disclosure of Country-Level Payments’, 1.5.2 ‘Disclosure of Project-Level Payments’, 1.5.4 ‘Operating Company Transparency’). We are proposing to simply this by listing all of the relevant requirements under this new criterion heading.

Annually, all material payments made by the entity and its corporate owner to the host country government are disclosed as follows:
  1. Reports are made public within 12 months after the end of each financial year in which payments occurred;
  2. Reports are readily accessible to the public;
  3. All material payments are broken down by recipient government body (where applicable), and payment type (see 1.5.1.1.c); and
  4. The types of payment disclosed shall include as a minimum, as applicable:
    1. The host government’s production entitlement;
    2. National state-owned enterprise production entitlement;
    3. Taxes on income, production, or profits of companies;
    4. Royalties;
    5. Dividends;
    6. Bonuses, such as signature, discovery, and production bonuses;
    7. License fees, rental fees, entry fees and other considerations for licenses and/or concessions;
    8. Payments for infrastructure improvements; and
    9. Any other significant payments and material benefits to government, including in-kind payments.

NOTE FOR 1.5.1.1:  REVISED. Previously, criterion 1.5.1 was divided into four separate requirements. In an effort to simplify and add clarity to this requirement, all expectations related to the publication of a report on payments to host country governments have been consolidated into one requirement here. 

Also, we removed references to the EU Accounting and Transparency Directives and other mandatory transparency regimes from the requirement text. The rationale is that instead of referring to a single regulatory approach to transparency, we are proposing to focus on the best practices for what information is expected to be published. The types of payments listed are consistent with what is in the EU directives and in other similar laws. 

This new approach should not have any ramification for how the requirement is audited. For the 2018 Mining Standard, IRMA expected auditors to verify that the various types of information were being published, and the same will apply to this requirement.

1.5.1.1.d.iii has been revised slightly. In the 2018 Standard it referred to ‘Profit Taxes’, but as per EU Accounting Directive 2013/34/EU, Article 41, tax-related payments that should be reported include “taxes levied on the income, production or profits of companies, excluding taxes levied on consumption such as value added taxes, personal income taxes or sales taxes.”

Annually, the following project-level information is disclosed as follows:
  1. Information is made public within 12 months after the end of each financial year in which activities and payments occurred;
  2. Information is readily accessible to the public; and
  3. Project-level information includes:
    1. Production of minerals and/or metals, disaggregated by product type and mass;
    2. Revenues from sales, disaggregated by product type;
    3. Payments and other material benefits to government as listed in requirement 1.5.1.1.d, disaggregated according to the receiving government entity (e.g., national, regional, local entity; name of government department);
    4. Social expenditures, including the names and functions of beneficiaries;
    5. Taxes, tariffs, or other specific payments related to transportation of minerals;
    6. Payments by the entity or its corporate owner to politicians’ campaigns, political parties or related organizations in relevant project-level jurisdictions (i.e., the local, regional, and national level);
    7. Facilitation payments made to public or government officials (when operating in countries where such payments are legal); and
    8. Fines or other similar penalties.

NOTE FOR 1.5.1.2:  The expectations in this requirement were found in criterion 1.5.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Two separate requirements in that criterion that have been consolidated here. The reference to EU Directive 2013/34/EU has been removed. Although that directive covers some site-level transparency issues, those adhering to that directive may need to disclose additional data to meet the IRMA requirement.

A footnote has been added to make it clear that “project-level,” in some cases, may be defined more broadly than a single project or operation, depending on the host country’s basis for how payments are made to the government. This aligns with EITI’s approach.

Sub-requirement 1.5.2.1.c.i was 1.5.2.2.a in the 2018 Mining Standard. It required reporting of mine production, disaggregated by product type and volume. We are proposing to revise this to “production of minerals and/or metals” to make this also applicable to mineral processing sites. We have also replaced volume with mass, as that is the typical way that production is reported (e.g., as tonnes, ounces, pounds, carats, etc., rather than on a volume basis).

More detail was added to 1.5.2.1.c.vi (previously 1.5.2.2.f), to make it clear that these are payments in any relevant jurisdictions within the host country (local, regional, and national) where the project/operation is located.

1.5.2.1.c.vii is NEW. It has been added to align with ICMM’s Performance Expectation 1.2, which requires that companies “. . .publicly disclose facilitation payments.” We have clarified, however, that this be disclosed for countries where such payments are legal. Where such payments are illegal, it is unlikely that any entity is going to willing disclose such payments publicly, as it will incriminate them. If an auditor determines that illegal facilitation payments are occurring, then that should be reflected in the ratings in Chapter 1.1 Legal Compliance. 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.5-2:  Requirement 1.5.2.1.e has been adapted for mineral processing sites; however, it is not clear if taxes on feed materials are paid by mineral processing sites or by the mines.  Do you have any input on whether or not such taxes are paid?

The entity adheres to international accounting standards.

NOTE:  This was 1.4.2.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.5-3:  Should IRMA require that financial statements be audited by credible third-party experts (e.g., certified public accountants) to provide added assurance that they entity is adhering to international accounting standards?

The material terms for mineral exploration, development and production agreed between the entity or its corporate owner and government entities are freely and publicly available, with the exception of confidential business information, in the national language(s) of the country in which the project/operation is located.
  1. Where these terms are negotiated, rather than governed by law, the entity makes the relevant agreements, licenses, or contracts freely and publicly available; or
  2. Where these terms are governed by law, free, public access to the relevant statutory documentation is deemed sufficient to meet the IRMA requirement.

NOTE FOR 1.5.1.4:  This was 1.5.4.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Information on the beneficial owners of the entity(ies) that bid for, operate or invest in extractive assets, including the identity(ies) of their beneficial owner(s) are made publicly available, including:
  1. Names;
  2. Nationality;
  3. Country of residence; and
  4. The level of ownership and details about how ownership or control is exerted.

NOTE FOR 1.5.1.5:  REVISED. This was 1.5.4.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We are proposing to revise the requirement to be more specific regarding the information on beneficial owners that is made publicly available, i.e., names, nationalities and country of residence. This addition is based on the requirements of the 2016 EITI Standard. It provides more clarity that the information published goes beyond just the names of the beneficial owners.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.5-4:  

Background:  IRMA’s definition of beneficial owner aligns with both EITI and the FATF. However, the definition leaves room for interpretation, and has the potential to lead to disagreements between entities and auditors and stakeholders regarding whether all beneficial owners have been disclosed.

Where government regulations have elaborated on beneficial owners, or where an EITI multi-stakeholder process has agreed on what constitutes a beneficial owner for the purposes of disclosure, IRMA is considering recommending that entities use those definitions as the basis for their reporting. However, not all jurisdictions have laws that define beneficial ownership, and/or not all countries have EITI processes.

Thus, IRMA is seeking input on what ownership thresholds or other factors should be included to guide entities when there are no legal or multi-stakeholder-agreed criteria for what constitutes a beneficial owner.

Question:  Do you have any suggestions on the criteria for who should be considered a beneficial owner, such as ownership thresholds (e.g., those who hold more than 10% of shares) or a certain % of voting rights, or those who have other means of exercising control over the entity such as appointing or firing members of governing bodies, etc.

1.5.2: Support for the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)

The entity supports the EITI in the following manner:
  1. If the project/operation is located in a country without a mandated transparency regime, the entity publishes a clear public statement endorsing the EITI Principles on its external website; and
  2. If the project/operation is located in a country where EITI is active, the entity engages constructively with and supports implementation of the EITI consistent with the multi-stakeholder process adopted in that country.

NOTE FOR 1.5.2.1:  REVISED. Requirements 1.5.3.1 and 1.5.3.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard have been combined. We removed reference to company forms.

1.5.3: Addressing Corruption and Unethical Behavior

NOTE FOR 1.5.3:  Minor change in name from ‘Anti-Corruption Measures’ to ‘Addressing Corruption and Unethical Behavior’.

We are proposing to define corruption as:
Any unlawful or improper behavior that seeks to gain a private advantage through illegitimate means. Any kind of bribery is a form of corruption; but corruption also includes abuse of power, extortion, fraud, deception, collusion, cartels, embezzlement, and money laundering.

An anti-corruption (or equivalent) policy:
  1. Outline’s the entity’s commitment to preventing, detecting and addressing corruption and bribery by the entity’s employees, contractors, and third parties such as agents, intermediaries, suppliers, and joint venture partners (hereafter referred to as “business partners”);
  2. Is approved at the most senior level of the entity; and
  3. Is communicated to all workers, contractors, and business partners.

NOTE FOR 1.5.5.1:  REVISED. This was requirement 1.5.5.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We have revised the wording of this requirement. Instead of a requirement to prohibit bribery and corruption (which is addressed to some extent in 1.4.3.2.a), we are proposing that the policy be more comprehensive, and include a commitment from the highest level of the entity to prevent, detect and address bribery and corruption. 

Sub-requirement (c) has been added because workers, contractors and business partners all need to be aware of the policy so that they understand the entity’s approach to bribery and corruption, and any expected behavior on their part.

Also, in the 2018 Mining Standard the requirement included both policies and procedures. We are proposing to create two separate requirements – this one, which addresses the higher-level policy, and 1.5.3.2, below, on the procedures, which has much more detail that what was in the 2018 Standard. For now, we are keeping the policy as the critical requirement (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

Anti-corruption procedures are in place and implemented that outline the internal controls to prevent, detect and address corruption, bribery, and other unethical behavior. At minimum, the procedures include:
  1. Prohibited actions (e.g., corruption, including bribery, extortion, money laundering, attempts to gain undue influence, illegal facilitation payments, etc.);
  2. Criteria for behaviors that may be deemed acceptable under certain circumstances, and approval processes related to:
    1. The offer of and acceptance of financial and in-kind gifts, including hospitality, entertainment, and travel (to and from employees, contractors, third-parties and business partners);
    2. Political contributions;
    3. Charitable contributions and sponsorships; and
    4. Legal facilitation payments;
  3. Protections including non-retaliation for whistleblowers and employees and contractors who raise concerns about suspected corruption or unacceptable behavior associated with the project/operation, or who refuse to pay bribes even if such refusal results in the loss of business;
  4. Internal reporting and recording of:
    1. Approved gifts, contributions and payments given to or received from employees, contractors, third-parties and business partners; and
    2. Unapproved or undue financial or other advantage given to or received from employees, contractors, third-parties and business partners;
  5. Investigation of alleged corruption or unacceptable behavior that contravenes the entity’s anti-corruption policy or procedures; and
  6. Disciplinary actions to be taken if corruption or unacceptable behavior is confirmed.

NOTE FOR 1.5.3.2:  REVISED. Combined 1.5.5.1 and 1.5.5.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard, as both requirements referred to procedures to combat corruption. The list of elements to include in the procedure has been expanded based on a gap analysis with other related standards – parts of sub-requirement (a), (b) and (c) are from ResponsibleSteel, parts of (b), (c), (d) and (e) are from Responsible Jewellery Council’s Code of Practices.

Relevant employees and contractors receive training on the anti-corruption procedures.

NOTE FOR 1.5.3.3:  REVISED. This was requirement 1.5.5.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

On an annual basis, the entity reports:
  1. Total number and nature of confirmed incidents of corruption or other unacceptable behavior related to the project/operation;
  2. Total number of confirmed incidents in which the project’s/operation’s employees were dismissed or disciplined for corruption or other unacceptable behavior;
  3. Total number of confirmed incidents where the project’s/operation’s contracts with contractors or business partners were terminated or not renewed due to violations of the entity’s anti-corruption policy and procedures; and
  4. Public legal cases regarding corruption brought against the company or its employees during the reporting period and the outcomes of such cases.

NOTE FOR 1.5.3.4:  NEW.  In the 2018 Mining Standard, there were no expected reporting or disclosure requirements related to anti-corruption. We are proposing to add this to align with the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) requirements on reporting of corruption incidents.

Chapter 2.1: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and Management

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  The chapter has notable changes compared to the 2018 Mining Standard. We are proposing to remove the flag from this chapter. The flag related to the potential to be audited against the IFC Performance Standard 1, which addresses the assessment and management of environmental and social risks. We did not receive any comments from self-assessing mines, mines going through independent assessment, or stakeholders that they would prefer to see entities assessed against the IFC’s requirements. 

Proposed additions and changes:

  • Given that this standard aims to cover expectations from exploration through post-closure, we are proposing to add some exploration-specific requirements – in particular, a new criterion related to screening for exploration projects only (see 2.1.1). The Scope of Application section outlines the different expectations for different types of projects and operations.
  • The process of environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) is often mandated by host country regulatory agencies, but the regulatory requirements may vary greatly from one jurisdiction to the next. In this chapter, IRMA aims to outline best practice expectations for ESIA. We have added a requirement that where regulatory requirements exist, that entities compare the regulatory expectations with IRMA requirements, so that they understand where the gaps are, and can work to fill them (2.1.2.2).
  • We have added in requirements that require entities to consider nature-based solutions, opportunities for circularity and climate adaptation when developing strategies to mitigate social and environmental risks and options to promote positive impacts (2.1.3.2.c and 2.1.5.1.e).
  • We are proposing to remove the requirement for a formal Environmental and Social Management System (See discussion in 2.1.9. See CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.1-6)
  • In this version, we are proposing to include stakeholder engagement requirements within the individual criteria (i.e., ESIA components), so that it is clear within the flow of the ESIA process when stakeholder engagement is expected. This also is more consistent with other IRMA chapters.

2.1.1: Environmental and Social Impact Screening for Exploration Projects

NOTE FOR 2.1.1:  This is a NEW criterion. Given that this standard aims to cover expectations from exploration through post-closure, we are proposing to add some exploration-specific requirements. These will not be relevant for mineral development projects or operating sites. The potential impacts related to some exploration projects, especially those at their earliest stages, may not be significant enough to warrant an in-depth ESIA, but some analysis of potential impacts should still be done. Thus, we are proposing a screening process for exploration projects.

Depending on the outcome of the screening process (2.1.1.2), an exploration project may or may not have to proceed to a more comprehensive ESIA process (2.1.2 – 2.1.8). 

Note that exploration is underway, and new/additional exploration activities are proposed then the screening process would be expected to take place again. (See 2.1.1.1.c)

A screening process is undertaken to determine if a proposed exploration project is likely to have adverse environmental or social impacts that warrant undertaking an environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA). The screening process:
  1. Commences after an exploration plan for the project has been sufficiently developed (see Annex 2.1-A);
  2. Is completed prior to commencing proposed exploration activities; and
  3. Is repeated or updated should the exploration plan be significantly revised.
he documented screening process includes:
  1. Identification of all potential adverse environmental and social impacts likely to be associated with the proposed exploration project; (see Annex 2.1-B for list of potential impacts to scope)
  2. Evaluation, based on a credible methodology, to determine which potential impacts are likely to be significant, or whether proposed activities are likely to have minimal or no impacts; and
  3. A defensible rationale as to why an ESIA is or is not warranted for the proposed exploration project.

NOTE FOR 2.1.1.2.a:   We are proposing that the types of issues to be screened during exploration are the same as those that would be scoped for a mineral development project. These are listed in Annex 2.1-B. And Annex 2.1-C provides an example for how a site might determine if further assessment is needed.

If a decision is made that an ESIA for the exploration project is not warranted:
  1. The rationale is made available to interested stakeholders; and
  2. An environmental and social management plan (or equivalent) is developed and implemented. The plan:
    1. Is developed by competent professionals;
    2. Outlines the specific mitigation actions that will be carried out to address the adverse environmental and social impacts, and the specific actions that will be taken to optimize positive environmental and social impacts;
    3. Includes appropriate performance criteria and indicators to enable evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation measures over time;
    4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
    5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
    6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 2.1.1.3.b.i:  In some countries, the availability of suitably qualified and competent professionals may be extremely limited with respect to some adverse environmental and social impacts. IRMA expects the entity to undertake due diligence of the professionals it uses and have a plan for addressing any significant gaps in the professionals’ capacity (which in some cases may mean bringing in international experts). 

At the same time, IRMA wishes to prioritize the use of local (in-country) professionals wherever this is possible and promote the development of local capacity in the effective management of potential environmental and social issues. A potential trade-off therefore exists between developing local capacity and ensuring high quality studies to support effective environmental and social management.  

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.1-2:  How should IRMA balance the benefits of developing the capacity of local professionals (which may take much longer than the screening process for exploration projects) with the need to ensure the plan developed can effectively mitigate adverse environmental and social impacts? Should this be done by creating a new requirement related to local sourcing and capacity building in the context of the provision of goods and services by local (in-country) professionals and companies? 

2.1.2: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Planning

An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) process for a proposed exploration project or a proposed mining or mineral processing project (hereafter referred to as “project” or “proposed project”), or a proposed major modification to an existing operation (hereafter referred to as “modification” or “proposed modification”):
  1. Is completed prior to commencing any of the proposed site-disturbing activities; and
  2. Is undertaken again should the plans for a proposed project or proposed major modification be significantly revised.

NOTE FOR 2.1.2.1:  This combines two requirements from the 2018 Mining Standard (2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2).

In jurisdictions where an ESIA or similar process is government-prescribed and/or led by the government, the entity:
  1. Determines if the government process meets the requirements in this chapter; and
  2. Where the IRMA chapter goes beyond regulatory requirements, additional steps extraneous to the government process are taken by the entity to meet IRMA requirements unless expressly prohibited by host country law.

NOTE FOR 2.1.2.2:  This is a NEW requirement. In some jurisdictions ESIA processes are prescribed by governments or even led by them. We have heard from stakeholders that when this is the case, it is not clear whether entities also need to meet IRMA requirements that go beyond what the government requires. 

As per Chapter 1.1, IRMA expects that entities meet the laws in the jurisdictions where they are operating, and, in cases where IRMA Standard goes beyond host country law, entities are expected to meet those IRMA requirements (unless doing so is prohibited by law). So, for example, if IRMA describes content of an ESIA that is more comprehensive than what is being asked through host country regulations (e.g., perhaps the government only requires environmental assessment, and not an assessment of social impacts), IRMA would expect the entity to carry out the additional work to meet the IRMA requirements. The results of this additional work would not need to be included in the assessment completed to meet government regulations, but could be prepared as a complementary report or addendum to the host country report.

We are therefore proposing that in such situations the entity carry out a comparison between the governmental requirements and IRMA’s requirements, so that they can either demonstrate to auditors the IRMA expectations are being met through their regulatory requirements, or, where IRMA requirements go beyond, that actions have been taken to meet those IRMA requirements. 

The entity develops and implements a system to:
  1. Record all stakeholder comments received throughout the ESIA process; and
  2. Document how stakeholder comments are taken into account.

NOTE FOR 2.1.2.3:   This was 2.1.9.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

2.1.3: ESIA Scoping

NOTE FOR 2.1.3:  For IRMA’s purposes, we are proposing to use the following definition of scoping, however, if this term is confusing, we are open to reverting back to screening, or adopting another term altogether:

Scoping
A process of determining potential issues and impacts and producing information necessary to inform decision-making regarding whether additional evaluation and actions are necessary.

A process is undertaken to define the scope of the ESIA in terms of the environmental and social impacts and risks to be considered and appropriate temporal and spatial boundaries, which includes:
  1. Description of the proposed project/modification, including the geographic location, nature and duration of all on-site and off-site mining-related activities, including those at associated facilities;
  2. Stakeholder mapping to identify stakeholders and rights holders (hereafter, collectively referred to as “stakeholders”) who may be interested in and/or affected by the proposed project/modifications;
  3. A review of existing environmental and social baseline data for the project’s potential area of influence;
  4. Determination of the applicability of all the potential social and environmental impacts listed in Annex 2.1-B;
  5. A preliminary overview of potential environmental and social impacts and consideration of which impacts are likely to occur at the different stages of the proposed project life cycle, from pre-construction through closure, reclamation and post-closure);
  6. Consideration of whether the potential impacts are adverse or positive, direct impacts or indirect impacts, or if the project may contribute to cumulative impacts in its area of influence;
  7. Consideration of climate change within the life of the proposed project/modification (or longer, if relevant to post-closure risks related to waste disposal facilities and water management), including whether increasing temperatures and changing location, frequency, duration or severity of weather events, might affect the scope or magnitude of project-related social and environmental impacts;
  8. Consideration of legal requirements for closure and reclamation, and the preferences of affected communities regarding post-closure end-uses of facilities and affected lands (as established in 2.1.3.2.d);
  9. Consideration of differential impacts of the proposed project/modification on potentially vulnerable members of affected communities;
  10. Preliminary stakeholder engagement using reasonable and culturally appropriate efforts to inform potentially affected and interested stakeholders about the proposed project/modification. In particular, stakeholders to be informed include:
    1. Those who may be supportive of the proposed project/modification and those who may not be; and
    2. The full range of those potentially affected and interested by the proposed project/modification (e.g., different genders, age groups, socio-economic backgrounds, ethnic and religious affiliations, degree of vulnerability)
  11. Definition of a plan of study for the ESIA (approved by the regulator, if there is a legal requirement for an ESIA), including a description of the main steps of the ESIA process that will be carried out, the estimated timeline for the process, and the range of opportunities for stakeholder participation in the process.

NOTE FOR 2.1.3.1:  REVISED. The requirement combines three requirements from the 2018 Mining Standard (i.e., 2.1.2.2, 2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.3). 2.1.3.1 was previously considered a critical requirement, and so we have retained that distinction here (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above). Other changes in 2.1.3.1 include:

  • In 2.1.3.1.a, we added that the description includes the locations of mining-related activities (off-site as well as on-site).
  • In 2.1.3.1.c we now refer to Annex 2.1-B, which contains a draft proposed list of social and environmental issues that need to be considered in the scoping process (see CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.1-3, below).
  • In 2.1.3.1.f we added that identification includes potential positive impacts as well as adverse.
  • 2.1.3.1.g replaces a previous sub-requirement to identify “potential impacts of extreme events.” Note that while 2.1.3.1.g focuses on how a changing climate might affect the breadth, magnitude and duration of project-related social and environmental impacts, Annex 2.1-B also includes scoping of the project’s contributions to climate change (i.e., what are the energy use requirements and greenhouse gas emissions of the proposed project).
  • 2.1.3.1.h.  We added here that in the determination of potential impacts the entity takes into consideration legal requirements and affected community preference related to the post-closure end-uses for mining/mineral processing-affected lands. The requirement to engage with stakeholders to obtain feedback on preferred post-closure end-uses is found in 2.1.3.2. In the 2018 Mining Standard and current standard there was/is an expectation in the reclamation and closure plan in Chapter 2.6 that the post-mining end-uses will have been discussed with stakeholders, but there was no requirement that laid out how and when such discussion should occur. This proposed addition, along with the requirement in 2.1.3.2.d, addresses that gap.
  • 2.1.3.1.i is new. In the 2018 Mining Standard differential impacts was mentioned in the guidance notes for this chapter, and this element is a requirement in other chapters (e.g., Chapter 1.3, 3.3), so we are proposing to include it here, as well.
  • 2.1.3.1.j was 2.1.2.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Previously, it said to inform potentially affected and interested stakeholders in potentially affected communities. We have added clarification that efforts should be made to reach a wide diversity of stakeholders, including those who may not be directly impacted but may have an interest in the development (e.g., NGOs such as environmental or human rights organizations, potential downstream purchasers, company shareholders), and those who may not appear to be supportive of the proposal. As per expectations in IRMA Chapter 1.2, all outreach efforts are expected to be culturally appropriate. However, we have reiterated that here, to ensure that it is noted and included in audits. 

We are proposing the following definition of culturally appropriate:
Refers to methods, formats, languages, and timing (e.g., of communications, interactions and provision of information) that are aligned with the cultural norms, practices and traditions of affected communities, rights holders and stakeholders.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.1-3

Background: We are proposing that all projects demonstrate that they have considered a comprehensive list of potential impacts during their scoping process. We posted a consultation question in the IRMA-Ready draft standard, and received support for the suggestion that we include such a list of issues that, at minimum, should always be considered during scoping. As a result, we developed a draft list of scoping questions based on the range of potential impacts included within the IRMA Standard (Annex 2.1-B). Every issue will not be relevant at every site, but the intention is that all should be considered during the scoping process, because if the questions are not asked, then it is possible that some potential impacts will be overlooked. 

Question:  Do you agree with the minimum list of issues that should be scoped for mineral development projects in Annex 2.1-B?  If not, are there particular issues/scoping questions that should be added or removed? Please provide a rationale for your suggestions. 

As part of the scoping process, stakeholders are provided the opportunity to:
  1. Review and comment (for a period of at least 60 days) on the proposed project/modification and preliminary list of potential impacts considered by the entity;
  2. Provide input on the potential impacts (adverse and positive) that are of greatest concern or significance to them;
  3. Provide input on options to avoid/prevent or mitigate potential adverse impacts and options to promote positive impacts; and
  4. Provide input on their preferences for post-closure end-uses of facilities and affected lands should the project/modifications go forward (feeds into 2.1.3.1.h).

NOTE FOR 2.1.3.2:  REVISED. Elements of this requirement were found in 2.1.9.1 (a) and (d) of the 2018 Mining Standard. They were moved here to keep all scoping-related requirements together.

Sub-requirement 2.1.3.2.c includes a first opportunity for stakeholders to discuss their thoughts on possible mitigation measures and strategies for optimizing positive impacts. 

Sub-requirement 2.1.3.2.d was added to align better with Chapter 2.6 (requirement 2.6.1.1.a)., which mentions that affected communities’ preferred post-mining end uses of facilities and affected lands inform the reclamation and closure plan. The ideal time to have these discussions is when there is still an opportunity to influence mine designs and mitigation strategies, so we have made it explicit that those discussions happen during the ESIA process. 

Scoping results in the identification and documentation of:
  1. The potential significant environmental and social impacts that require further assessment;
  2. The technically feasible alternatives to avoid or prevent significant adverse impacts (e.g., through changes in project designs, technologies, processes, siting of facilities), avoiding a priori assumptions about the alternatives;
  3. Options to mitigate significant adverse impacts in a manner that aligns with the mitigation hierarchy and aligns, to the extent possible, with affected communities’ preferences for post-reclamation end-uses of affected areas, and takes into consideration measure that:
    1. Provide nature-based solutions;
    2. Incorporate concepts of circularity; and
    3. Address adaptation to climate change (e.g., enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience, and reduce vulnerability of human, biological, and physical systems to climate change);
  4. Any existing social and environmental baseline data relevant to the area potentially affected by the proposed project/modification, and a gap analysis and plan, with timelines, to collect additional baseline data and conduct any additional studies or investigations needed to further understand and assess the potential impacts.

NOTE FOR 2.1.3.3:  REVISED. This was requirement 2.1.3.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

In 2.1.3.3.b, we added that when scoping options to prevent impacts, “a priori” assumptions should not be made regarding the alternatives. The Impact Assessment stage will go into greater analysis of the potential options to mitigate impacts after more information on the nature and scale of impacts is known. The options at this stage should be technically feasible, but factors such as cost should not automatically narrow the range of alternatives under consideration. As outlined by the World Bank Inspection Panel, alternatives should be “laid out in a systematic way, along with their economic, social, and environmental benefits and costs, so that judgments on optimal alternatives could be made with a full understanding of the trade-offs involved.” 

Sub-requirement 2.1.3.3.d was added to ensure that a plan is in place to document, in a comprehensive manner, all the necessary data collection and additional studies to be undertaken.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.1-4

Background:  In 2.1.3.3.c, we are proposing to expand the evaluation of measures to mitigate adverse impacts and optimize positive impacts to include several concepts, which are already being implemented to some degree at some sites. These are described below.

Nature-based solutions: In the past couple of years, IRMA has been engaged in discussions with the IUCN and other standards organizations on the topic of nature-based solutions. Nature-based solutions are actions taken to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural and modified ecosystems in a manner that addresses societal challenges, and benefits people and nature. 

This approach is compatible with the approach taken throughout the IRMA Standard. No matter what the topic area, the IRMA Standard outlines the expectation that mitigation strategies be developed in collaboration with affected communities and relevant stakeholders, with the intention that the outcomes will be more beneficial to those affected communities than if the entity were to act alone. 

The IUCN has developed an entire standard devoted to nature-base solutions. Rather than duplicate those requirements, we are proposing as part of this revision to at least integrate the concept of nature-based solutions as something to be considered. Interested entities or those already incorporating nature-based solutions have the option to be assessed against the full IUCN standard. For more on nature-based solutions and the IUCN Standard see: https://www.iucn.org/our-work/nature-based-solutions.

Circularity:  IRMA convened a working group on circularity, and through those discussions it was suggested that while concepts related to circularity can be applied throughout the life cycle, the most appropriate time to begin investigating circularity options is during feasibility studies (which typically overlap with and are connected to the ESIA through the ongoing exchange of data and analysis between the project engineers and environmental and social specialists), so that necessary technical elements can be incorporated into the project design. Because we do not have a chapter regarding feasibility studies, we are proposing to add a requirement here that options to incorporate circularity be examined at the ESIA stage. 

Circularity, in the context of mineral development, can embody many different things, from striving for zero waste or zero pollution systems, and closed-loop water and chemical management, to finding ways to re-use, recycle or re-purpose materials that might otherwise become waste (i.e., they become raw materials for other purposes), re-mining waste materials, creating energy from wastes, utilizing renewable energy sources, capturing carbon dioxide from wastes, sequestering carbon in wastes, prioritizing quality equipment to minimize turnover; etc. (see also the discussion of circularity in materials and waste management in Chapter 4.1, Note for 4.1.2, and CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-4).

Climate Adaptation:  IRMA has a chapter on greenhouse gas emissions and energy use (Chapter 4.5), which is focused on reduction of both emissions and energy use as a means to minimize a projects/operations’ contributions to climate change. However, there is currently a gap in the IRMA Standard related to proactive measures to understand and respond to climate change impacts that are already occurring and will continue to change over time. We have added requirements to scope the potential impacts of a changing climate in 2.1.3.1.g and 2.1.3.3.c. Sub-requirement 2.1.5.1.d.iii, below, is a complementary requirement to develop mitigation strategies that address climate change impacts identified in the scoping exercises.

We could, of course, develop an entire new chapter on this; however, at the present time, we believe that we can integrate it into the existing chapters.

Question:  Do you agree that the mitigation strategies investigated as part of the ESIA should include: 1) nature-based solutions; 2) circularity; 3) climate change/climate adaption? Why or why not? Do you have suggestions for other ways or places in the IRMA Standard that we might incorporate these concepts?

The entity prepares a report that:
  1. Summarizes the scoping findings from 2.1.3.1 to 2.1.3.3;
  2. Includes the description of the main steps of the ESIA process that will be carried out, the estimated timeline and the range of opportunities for stakeholder participation in the process;
  3. Contains the contact details for the person or team responsible for management of the ESIA; and
  4. Is publicly available electronically via the entity’s external web site, and in any other culturally appropriate formats, including local languages.

NOTE FOR 2.1.3.4:  REVISED. This was 2.1.2.2.  We added that this information not just be available on the company’s external web site but also in culturally appropriate formats (which may be hard copy) and locations. We also added that the report be in relevant local languages, as these may differ from official national languages.

2.1.4: Baseline Data Collection

Baseline data describing the prevailing social context (e.g., legal, socio-economic, human rights, political) and environmental context, and any additional studies identified during scoping (e.g., comprehensive field or laboratory testing programs) are collected or carried out:
  1. By competent professionals;
  2. Using credible methods; and
  3. With an appropriate level of detail to understand and assess the potential impacts of the proposed project/modification.

NOTE FOR 2.1.4.1:   REVISED. This combines 2.1.4.1 and 2.1.4.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard.  

We have added the sub-requirements (a) and (b) to be more consistent with other chapters (i.e., the expectation that all data collection and studies be carried out by competent professionals, using credible methods). Sub-requirement (c) was part of the original 2.1.4.1.

Note that existing baseline data are required to be reviewed as part of scoping (see requirement 2.1.3.1.c). The collection of primary baseline data by the entity may start as early as the exploration phase. Given that several years of data may be necessary to establish certain baseline conditions (e.g., water quality and quantity), beginning early can reduce delays in the ESIA process. 

The entity invites and, where possible, facilitates stakeholder participation in the collection of data for the ESIA.

NOTE FOR 2.1.4.2:   This was 2.1.9.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

2.1.5: ESIA Impact Analysis

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.1-5

Background:  Impact and risk assessments both typically begin by considering the range of potential impacts (or risks) posed by a project or activity. These potential impacts/risks are initially defined by the scoping process and refined during the ESIA process. For each potential impact, an evaluation of the significance is undertaken. Historically, risks were often not considered in the ESIA process, or were only briefly discussed in a qualitative narrative. In line with developing good practice, the significance of risks is now often evaluated in a similar way to potential impacts, and IRMA expects both impacts and risks to be considered in detail. 

Typically, the significance (or level of risk) is based on two elements:  1) the probability of occurrence (also sometimes referred to as likelihood) and 2) the severity of the consequences associated with each potential impact (or risk). Other factors such as magnitude, duration and spatial scale are often considered when defining severity of the consequences. 

A scale is created to reflect the range of probabilities and consequences. For example, probability might range from ‘very unlikely to occur’ to ‘certain to occur’ (with other levels in between), and consequences might range from ‘negligible’ to ‘severe’ (with other levels in between). 

The probability of occurrence and severity of consequences are usually set out in a matrix, the determination of the significance (or level of risk) is based on the combination of the ratings for the two elements, and usually results in an assigned significance (or risk level) such as: low, moderate, substantial, high (or low, medium, high, very high, extreme). See table below as an example.

Likelihood of occurrence
Very unlikely Not expected Likely Almost Certain Common
Consequence Severe  Moderate Substantial High High High
Major  Low Moderate Substantial Substantial High
Medium  Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Substantial
Minor  Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate
Negligible  Low Low Low Low Low

Both how the ratings are assigned for probability and consequences, and the level at which a potential impact (or risk) is significant enough to warrant avoidance or mitigation/control actions can vary based on those carrying out the assessment, and this subjectivity concerns some stakeholders. 

Sometimes the rationales for assigning certain levels of significant (risk) or taking or not taking action are not transparent. Or sometimes stakeholders disagree with the ratings being assigned by the entity, for example an entity might think the potential consequences are moderate, while the stakeholders perceive the consequences as high.

Question:  What might be some ways to reduce stakeholder concerns about the subjectivity of impact/risk assessment processes?  Is it enough to be transparent about how the ratings are assigned?  Should stakeholders be invited to play a larger role in determining the methodology used and assigning ratings? 

An assessment appropriate to the nature and scale of the proposed project/modification and commensurate with the level of environmental and social risks and impacts, is carried out that:
  1. Evaluates and predicts in detail the characteristics of the significant environmental and social impacts identified during scoping, including differential impacts on different groups of stakeholders and rights holders;
  2. Evaluates options to optimize potential positive impacts;
  3. Evaluates the technically feasible alternatives to avoid/prevent significant adverse impacts (e.g., through changes in project designs, technologies, processes, siting of facilities ), avoiding a priori assumptions about the alternatives;
  4. Evaluates options to mitigate predicted significant adverse impacts that cannot be avoided/prevented in a manner that aligns with the reminder of the mitigation hierarchy, i.e., giving priority consideration to strategies that minimize impacts, followed by strategies available to restore conditions if impacts occur;
  5. Includes evaluation of strategies that:
    1. Provide nature-based solutions;
    2. Incorporate concepts of circularity; and
    3. Address adaptation to climate change (e.g., enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience, and reduce vulnerability of human, biological, and physical systems to climate change);
  6. Identifies significant adverse residual impacts that cannot be avoided, mitigated and for which restoration is not an option, and evaluates whether compensatory measures will be required to address the residual impacts and the nature and scope of such measures.

NOTE FOR 2.1.5.1:  REVISED. There are three new sub-requirements being proposed:

  • 2.1.5.1.b was added to clarify that ESIA look at positive impacts of proposed developments, as well as adverse impacts. 
  • 2.1.5.1.c was added for the same reasons it was added in scoping. See note for 2.1.3.3. 
  • 2.1.5.1.4 was added to incorporate emerging concepts of nature-based solutions, circularity and adaptation to climate change (see discussion in note for 2.1.3.3, and CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.1-4)
The entity consults with potentially affected stakeholders in the development of options to mitigate the potential impacts of the project/modification (2.1.5.1).

NOTE FOR 2.1.5.2:   This was 2.1.9.1.d in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

Prior to the release of a final ESIA report (2.1.6.1), stakeholders are provided the opportunity to review and provide feedback on (at a minimum):
  1. The draft impact assessment; and
  2. Conclusions and recommendations derived from the draft ESIA report, including the entity’s recommended strategies to prevent or otherwise mitigate impacts.

NOTE FOR 2.1.5.2 and 2.1.5.3:  Requirements 2.1.5.2 and 2.1.5.3 were 2.1.9.1.d and e, respectively, in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

2.1.6: ESIA Reporting and Disclosure

A draft and final ESIA report is prepared that includes, at minimum:
  1. A description of the proposed project/modification;
  2. Description of the alternatives considered to avoid/prevent all significant adverse impacts from the project, and alternatives to optimize positive impacts, along with a rationale (e.g., economic, technical, social and environmental) for recommending or rejecting certain alternatives;
  3. A description of baseline conditions and results of additional evaluations and studies;
  4. Detailed description of the direct impacts, indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts likely to result from the proposed project;
  5. Identification of the significant potential adverse impacts and significant opportunities for positive impacts;
  6. Description of the alternatives considered to avoid/prevent all significant adverse impacts from the project, and alternatives to optimize positive impacts, along with a rationale (e.g., economic, technical, social and environmental) for recommending or rejecting certain alternatives;
  7. Recommended measures to avoid/prevent and mitigate adverse impacts and optimize positive impacts;
  8. A summary of the public consultation process that was followed;
  9. A summary of the views and concerns expressed by stakeholders and how the concerns were taken into account;
  10. Names and affiliations of ESIA authors and others involved in technical studies;
  11. Appendices containing detailed and complete information on baseline conditions, evaluations and studies; and
  12. In the final report only, an addendum (or appropriate alternative) showing how feedback from stakeholders has been accommodated (or if not, the reason why).

NOTE FOR 2.1.6.1: REVISED. This incorporates material from 2.1.6.1 and 2.1.10.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

We added positive impacts to sub-requirements (e), (f) and (g).

Also, 2.1.6.1.b includes a requirement that the report include rationale/explanations for why certain alternatives that might prevent significant impacts have not been recommended/prioritized. The addition was made because IRMA has received input related to this particular requirement from various stakeholder sectors, including that: 1) entities should at least be required to justify why alternatives to prevent impacts were not selected, and 2) that selection of mitigation measures not be subject to cost considerations. 

Given that this chapter explicitly requires that the mitigation hierarchy be followed (i.e., that sites prioritize avoidance of impacts, and only if that is not possible, are other mitigation options of minimization, restoration and compensation considered), it is reasonable that entities be required to justify why certain impact avoidance/prevention operations were not selected.

Although we have not fully incorporated the suggestion that the selection of mitigation measures should not be subject to cost considerations, we have added in the scoping (2.1.3.3.b) and in ESIA impact assessment (2.1.5.1.c) that the consideration of the range of alternatives to prevent impacts not be narrowed due to “a priori” assumptions about those alternatives (see the note for 2.1.3.3.b for more information).

When it comes to the final section of a mitigation option, cost is only one factor that should be taken into consideration when evaluating mitigation approaches. The technical feasibility, and the environmental and social costs/benefits of different approaches must also be considered. We have added those elements to 2.1.6.1.f, as well.

The following are made public, and the means of accessing the information is communicated to stakeholders:
  1. ESIA final report;
  2. ESIA supporting data and studies; and
  3. An anonymized version of the stakeholder comments received during the ESIA process, and the entity’s responses to the comments.

NOTE FOR 2.1.6.2:   This incorporates material from 2.1.10.1, 2.1.10.2, and 2.1.10.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

2.1.7: Environmental and Social Impact Management

A relevant management plan or plans are developed and implemented to address all significant environmental and social impacts identified during the ESIA process. Any stand-alone environmental and social management plan:
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Outlines the specific mitigation actions that will be carried out to address the adverse environmental and social impacts (including compensatory measures if required) and the specific actions that will be taken to optimize positive environmental and social impacts;
  3. Includes appropriate performance criteria and indicators to enable evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation measures over time;
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 2.1.7.1:  REVISED. This aligns with 2.1.7.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard, which requires that mitigation actions be incorporated into a management plan. 

The elements to be included in the management plan have been expanded and to be more consistent with requirements in other IRMA chapters that refer to management plans.

We also allow that there can be a stand-alone management plan that contains all environmental and social issues, or the mitigation options can be integrated into the management plans referred to in other IRMA Standard chapters. 

2.1.8: Environmental and Social Impact Monitoring

All significant environmental and social impacts identified during the ESIA process are incorporated into a relevant monitoring program. Any stand-alone environmental and social monitoring program:
  1. Is developed and implemented to determine:
    1. The magnitude of impacts over time; and
    2. The effectiveness of mitigation measures based on performance against key criteria or indicators;
  2. Is designed and carried out by competent professionals; and
  3. Uses credible methods.

NOTE FOR 2.1.8.1:  REVISED. This was 2.1.8.1 and 2.1.8.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

The language has been adapted to be more consistent with the language in other chapters. We also added that the methods used must be credible (see proposed new definitions at the end of the chapter).

The entity provides for timely and effective stakeholder consultation, review and comment on the scope and design of the environmental and social monitoring program.

NOTE FOR 2.1.8.2:  This was 2.1.9.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

The entity encourages and, where possible, facilitates stakeholder participation in the implementation of the environmental and social monitoring program.

NOTE FOR 2.1.8.3:  This was 2.1.9.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

If requested by relevant stakeholders, the entity facilitates the independent monitoring of key impact indicators by competent professionals who have received appropriate site-specific health and safety orientation and training.

NOTE FOR 2.1.8.4:  REVISED. This was 2.1.8.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

The previous version added the caveat that independent monitoring be allowed “where this would not interfere with the safe operation of the project.” Given that all monitoring programs are to be designed by competent professionals, using credible methodologies, it is unlikely that any monitoring program would interfere with the safe operation of a mine or processing facility. However, the greater concern is that if those carrying out the independent monitoring are qualified to do so, and that they understand the site-related health and safety risks so that they can carry out their monitoring in a safe manner.

2.1.9: Ongoing Environmental and Social Due Diligence

NOTE FOR 2.1.9:  REVISED. Criterion 2.1.7 in the 2018 Mining Standard required that there be an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) and an environmental and social management plan in place. Management plans are addressed in 2.1.7, above. 

We are proposing in this version of the Standard to remove the requirement for a formal ESMS. The rationale for doing so is that it is not clear that a prescriptive requirement for an ESMS will result in better outcomes than what can be achieved by adhering to the requirements in the IRMA Standard as a whole. Also, developing and maintaining ESMS involves the investment of significant time and resources and can therefore present a barrier for smaller entities. 

We believe that on an issue-by-issue basis, the important elements of ESMS are integrated into each IRMA chapter. For example, most chapters include ongoing assessment of risks/impacts, development of mitigate measures, management plans, monitoring programs, and evaluation of effectiveness to ensure continuing improvement. Additionally, beyond most ESMS, IRMA chapters also require stakeholder engagement and external reporting/disclosure.

We are still providing the option for mines and mineral processing operations to have overarching environmental and social management plans (see 2.1.7) and overarching environmental and social monitoring programs (see 2.1.8) if that works better for their organization; however, in order to meet the expectations of other IRMA chapters, such overarching plans and monitoring programs would need to be quite detailed and comprehensive.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.1-6:  Do you agree with the proposal to remove ESMS as a requirement in the IRMA Standard?  If not, what are the specific benefits that you believe result from having ESMS in place?

An ongoing process is in place to identify and address environmental and social risks related to the operation throughout its life cycle as follows:
  1. When there are major modifications proposed to operations (e.g., new processes, facilities, extraction zones, etc.) a new ESIA process is initiated (go to 2.1.2); and
  2. Annually, a review of the social and environmental risks (Annex 2.1-B) associated with the current operation is undertaken. The review considers:
    1. Any minor changes to the operation (e.g., changes in management personnel, minor modifications to technologies or processes);
    2. Any changes in operating context (e.g., legal, social, political, human rights, economic, environmental) that have occurred in the past year; and
    3. Any updated knowledge related to climate change, including increased frequency, duration, or severity of weather events in the operating area.

NOTE FOR 2.1.9.1:  NEW. This replaces requirement 2.1.7.1 from the 2018 Mining Standard, which required that a system (e.g., an environmental and social management system) be developed and maintained to manage environmental and social risks and impacts throughout the life of the mine. 

As mentioned in the note for 2.1.9, above, we are proposing in this draft update to the IRMA Standard to remove the requirement for a formal ESMS. However, we are retaining the expectation that entities need to understand and manage their social and environmental risks and impacts on an ongoing basis, over the life of the project/operation. Just as human rights due diligence is an ongoing process (see Chapter 1.3), environmental and social due diligence should also be an ongoing process.

We are proposing that risks be evaluated every year. We do not envision that this review process will be onerous, once the first assessment is done (which may have been conducted as part of an ESIA). 

The annual or periodic assessment of some risks is already expected in numerous IRMA chapters, so it would simply be consolidating all risks into an operation-wide risk register (see 2.1.9.2).

In 2018 Mining Standard, IRMA developed a guidance note for the ESIA chapter, and a critical requirement was that, “The operating company shall demonstrate that it has undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of potential environmental and social impacts associated with the mining operation.” This requirement aligns with the intent of that requirement, and so we are proposing that it be a critical requirement in this proposed update to the Standard (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

A risk register (or equivalent) that documents the environmental and social risks associated with the operation and the measures in place to mitigate the risks is developed and updated on an annual basis.

NOTE FOR 2.1.9.2:  NEW. This was added because there needs to be a way to record and track the risks and mitigation/management measures.

When new social or environmental risks are identified, or there is the potential that the magnitude of risks to worker or community health, safety, human rights, or the environment have changed:
  1. Risks are further evaluated, using a credible methodology, to determine if they are significant enough to require mitigation;
  2. If necessary, additional baseline or other data are collected to inform the evaluation process; and
  3. If risks are deemed significant, mitigation strategies are developed and integrated into relevant management plans, and monitoring programs are updated accordingly.

NOTE FOR 2.1.9.3:  This aligns with 2.1.7.2 and 2.1.7.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard, which require that mitigation actions be incorporated into a management plan, and that the mitigation actions be monitored for effectiveness.

Requirement 2.1.9.1, above, outlines an annual review process to inform the entity’s understanding risks or changes to existing. Then, as necessary, new mitigation options are developed to address those risks as per 2.1.9.3. Rather than requiring an overarching plan for addressing new risks, we are allowing that the relevant risks be integrated into the management plans already required in the relevant IRMA chapters. For example, if new risks to water are identified, those could be integrated into the mine’s adaptive management plan for water as per Chapter 4.2.

Re: 2.1.9.3.b, if new risks emerge, it is possible that additional baseline or other data may need to be collected – especially if an ESIA was carried out in the distant past.

Chapter 2.2: Indigenous Peoples and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  We are proposing that the name of this chapter be revised from ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’ to ‘Indigenous Peoples and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).’ The previous titled implied that the chapter was only about FPIC, and while the majority of the chapter does cover FPIC-related expectations it does also include ongoing engagement and other requirements beyond FPIC.

Proposed additions and changes:

  • The changes to this chapter have been informed by discussions with IRMA’s Expert Working Group on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). The proposed addition of remedy (or equivalent) agreements that address past impacts, a requirement for community validation of agreements, need for specific reference to a grievance mechanism, and more detail on expectations regarding Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation were all added as a result of those discussions and input from working group members.
  • Other changes, such as capitalizing Indigenous Peoples throughout the chapter (and Standard) and moving the reference to Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation from the Cultural Heritage chapter (3.7) to this one, are editorial changes proposed by the IRMA Secretariat. 

PARTICIPATE IN AN EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON THIS CHAPTER

If you are interested in participating in an Expert Working Group on Indigenous Peoples and Free, Prior and Informed Consent, please contact IRMA’s Standards Director, Pierre De Pasquale (pdepasquale@responsiblemining.net).

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.2-1

Background:  It is unlikely that any community, anywhere, whether it be Indigenous or non-Indigenous, will unanimously support or unanimously oppose a large-scale industrial development such as a mine or processing facility. However, the working assumption within this chapter is that FPIC can still be achieved even if there is dissent from or dissatisfaction expressed by individuals within a community as long as the decision to grant consent is made by Indigenous Peoples’ own representative decision-making institutions, after a process that adheres to the principles of FPIC.

One challenge that is likely to be faced by auditors, however, is what to do if a company has obtained consent from a decision-making institution that is recognized by some of the Indigenous Peoples, but others in the community do not view those decision-making institutions as being representative. For example, this may happen in parts of the world where a governance structure was, at some point in time, imposed on the Indigenous Peoples by a colonial government of the country where the project is located. These governance structures may now have been in place for decades or even more than a century, and they may involve the Indigenous Peoples “choosing” or electing the representatives, but those elected may not be universally viewed by all affected Indigenous Peoples as legitimate representatives of their communities because that is not how leaders were traditionally chosen. There may be pre-existing (and sometimes competing) traditional decision-making structures, such as councils of elders, that are viewed by some as the sole legitimate representative structure. 

In other cases, for a host of historic and political reasons, an “historically imposed” governance structure may be the only functional representative institution, and while all members of a community may not view it as legitimate, there is no traditional governance structure that is intact, and communities have not had the capacity to design a collectively recognized and agreed governance structure.  

This latter situation has been recognized by the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
“Failure to engage with legitimate representatives of indigenous peoples can undermine any consent received. In the Declaration it is clear that States and third parties should consult and cooperate with indigenous peoples ‘through their own representative institutions’ (arts. 19 and 32) and ‘in accordance with their own procedures’ (art. 18). . . Yet, identifying the legitimate representatives of indigenous peoples can be challenging. States should be mindful of situations where indigenous peoples’ decision-making institutions have been undermined by colonialism and where communities have been dispersed, dispossessed of land or relocated, including to urban areas. . . It is important for States or third parties to ensure that institutions supporting indigenous peoples and claiming to represent them are so mandated.”

Question:  How might IRMA revise its standard to address the situations where 1) there is more than one decision-making structure that is considered legitimate by members of an affected population of Indigenous Peoples; or 2) where there is only one structure, but it is not considered legitimate by all members of the affected population of Indigenous Peoples.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.2-2

Background:  In IRMA’s Expert Working Group on FPIC there was a suggestion to expand the requirement for FPIC beyond Indigenous Peoples, to others, such as traditional or other communities that have prior legal or customary rights to land, vulnerable land connected peoples, etc.  In one of the FPIC working group discussions we provided examples of other standards that have extended the concept of FPIC to others (e.g., the World Bank’s inclusion of “Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities,” and the requirements in the Forest Stewardship Council and Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil standards. 

There was no consensus within the Expert Working Group on how to proceed. There was recognition that FPIC is an internationally recognized right of Indigenous Peoples that is grounded in a set of other fundamental rights of Indigenous Peoples, such as their right to self-determination, the right to control and use ancestral lands and resources, the right to non-discrimination, the right to effective participation in public life, etc. Some suggested that if human rights of non-indigenous communities have been affected, that these could and should be recognized and addressed as part of an entity’s human rights due diligence (in IRMA Chapter 1.3 – ‘Human Rights Due Diligence’). Others thought that a subset of the FPIC principles could be applied to such communities (and perhaps included in IRMA Chapter 2.3 – ‘Obtaining Community Support and Delivering Benefits’).

Question:  Do you think IRMA should expand the requirement for FPIC, or some subset of FPIC principles, beyond Indigenous Peoples?  Put differently, do you think IRMA should require that entities obtain the FPIC of non-Indigenous Peoples prior to initiating a project? What is the basis for this opinion? And if you think that FPIC or a subset of FPIC requirements should apply beyond Indigenous Peoples, to whom should they apply and why (e.g., those with customary land rights, vulnerable land-connected peoples, historically underserved traditional local communities), and what sorts of requirements would you propose be included?

2.2.1: Policy Commitment

An Indigenous Peoples’ policy (or equivalent) is in place that includes a statement of the entity’s respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights as set out in international law and policy frameworks including those affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The policy:
  1. Is approved at the most senior level of the entity; and
  2. Is publicly available and communicated to Indigenous Peoples who may be or are affected by the entity’s mining-related activities.

NOTE for 2.2.1.1. REVISED. Requirements 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard have been combined here to reflect consistency with other IRMA chapters. We added sub-requirements a and c to align with elements in policy requirements in other chapters.  

2.2.2: Due Diligence Related to State Obligations

The entity conducts due diligence to determine if the host government carried out an adequate consultation process aimed at obtaining Indigenous Peoples’ FPIC prior to granting access to mineral resources or lands for mineral development.
The entity makes available to affected Indigenous Peoples:
  1. Key findings of the due diligence assessment; and
  2. A justification for proceeding with the project/operation, if findings reveal that the host government failed to fulfill its duty to obtain the FPIC of Indigenous Peoples prior to granting access to mineral resources or lands for mineral development.

NOTE for 2.2.2.2:  REVISED. The language has been improved for clarity purposes, and the expectations have been separated out to make it clear that there are two elements: 1) carrying out the due diligence assessment, and 2) making the findings available to relevant stakeholders.

Additionally, previously the requirement was to make the findings publicly available, but we are proposing to change this to providing the due diligence to affected Indigenous Peoples from whom the entity is seeking FPIC. A public statement could create conflict between the entity and the government, or the government and Indigenous Peoples, which is not the intent of the due diligence. But this information is important for Indigenous Peoples as they decide whether or not they wish to proceed with an FPIC process. 

2.2.3: Identification of and Engagement with Indigenous Peoples

NOTE FOR 2.2.3:  This criterion was previously called ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent Scoping.’ It has been changed because many of the elements below are not limited solely to informing FPIC. They will be necessary for longer-term engagement with Indigenous Peoples, more generally. For example, 2.2.3.1.c, below, refers to mapping and analysis of Indigenous Peoples communities. Understanding community dynamics and potentially affected vulnerable groups and individuals will be important to inform engagement strategies beyond any FPIC process.

The entity:
  1. Identifies Indigenous Peoples whose traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired lands, territories, and resources have been or may be affected by the entity’s mining-related activities;
  2. Consults with relevant Indigenous Peoples’ organizations or bodies, if they exist, and external experts and published sources to determine:
    1. If there are any Indigenous Peoples who have not been identified by the entity; and
    2. If there are any Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation or in initial contact who may be present in the area of the proposed or actual mineral development; and
  3. Carries out stakeholder/rights holder mapping and analysis (as per Chapter 1.2, requirement 1.2.1.1).

NOTE for 2.2.3.1:  REVISED. This combines the previous 2.2.3.1 and two NEW components.

Sub-requirement (b) is being proposed to ensure that external sources are consulted in the identification process, including any relevant Indigenous Peoples organization or bodies (e.g., associations or councils of Indigenous Peoples or Indigenous rights organizations active in the region of the proposed projects/operations), external experts (e.g., academics or governmental or non-governmental practitioners with cultural, anthropological, and/or human rights expertise in the region where proposed projects/operations are located), and published sources to determine if there may be populations of Indigenous Peoples who may not have been identified by the entity. This includes identification of Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation (sometimes referred to as “uncontacted peoples”) and those living in initial contact (those who have very little interaction with the majority non-Indigenous society). This is of utmost concern given that the rights and survival of these peoples could be threatened given their situations of extreme vulnerability. 

While not globally pervasive, there are regions of the world where Indigenous Peoples continue to live in voluntary isolation or have little interaction with non-Indigenous society. For example, in 2013 it was reported that on the South American continent there were Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation or initial contact in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela, and also indications of their presence in Guyana and Suriname, near their respective borders with Brazil. In 2022, it was estimated that there were 185 distinct groups of Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation in South America. Other uncontacted peoples have been reported in India and New Guinea, and it has been suggested that there may be others in Malaysia and Central Africa.

Sub-requirement (c) is being proposed to make it clear that, as per Chapter 1.2, which outlines expectations with respect to stakeholder and rights holder engagement, a mapping and analysis of potentially affected Indigenous Peoples is also required to understand the characteristics and vulnerabilities of potentially affected groups and individuals, and dynamics within those communities.

If the presence of Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation or initial contact in the area is identified:
  1. The entity does not initiate contact with any potentially affected Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation or initial contact; and
  2. The entity consults with relevant Indigenous Peoples’ organizations or bodies, if they exist, and external experts to determine if the entity’s past, present or proposed activities are affecting or may affect the rights or wellbeing of those living in voluntary isolation or initial contact, and:
    1. If proposed activities may affect any Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation, the entity redesigns the project to avoid all such impacts, or, if avoidance is not possible, ceases to pursue the proposed activities; and/or
    2. If past or existing impacts on Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation are identified, the entity consults with representative bodies for Indigenous Peoples, and external experts to determine the appropriate remedial actions; and/or
    3. If past or proposed activities may affect any Indigenous Peoples living in initial contact, the entity consults with representative bodies for Indigenous Peoples, and cultural, anthropological, and/or human rights experts to determine whether and how engagement with these groups is appropriate; if it is determined that engagement is not appropriate, the entity proceeds with these groups as though they were Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation.

NOTE for 2.2.3.2:  This is a NEW requirement being proposed to address the situation where mines may or have affected Indigenous Peoples who are living in voluntary isolation (sometimes referred to as “uncontacted peoples”) and initial contact. 

If Indigenous Peoples (other than those in voluntary isolation) have engagement protocols in place, the entity follows the protocols. If no engagement protocols exist, the entity mutually agrees and documents, in a manner agreed to by Indigenous Peoples’ representatives, the engagement process to be followed. If there is more than one distinct group of Indigenous Peoples’ (e.g., nation, population) that may be affected by the entity’s mining-related activities, they may be included in a coordinated process or in separate engagement processes, as decided by the Indigenous Peoples.

NOTE for 2.2.3.3.  REVISED. In the 2018 Mining Standard, this was previously partially covered in 2.2.3.2.a. It has been separated out into its own requirement to make it clear that determining the appropriate engagement protocol is something that should be done early in the process. We added, as well, that following existing engagement protocols that have been developed by Indigenous Peoples is expected best practice, if such protocols exist. Previously this was only mentioned in IRMA guidance.

In a culturally appropriate manner, the entity discloses to affected and potentially affected Indigenous Peoples (other than those living in voluntary isolation):
  1. Information about proposed, ongoing and past mining-related activities, as relevant; and
  2. The right of Indigenous Peoples to FPIC.

NOTE for 2.2.3.4.  In the 2018 Mining Standard, this was 2.2.3.1.b. There are two expectations here, and so they have been separated into sub-requirements.

Through collaboration with Indigenous Peoples’ representatives and other relevant members of affected and potentially affected Indigenous Peoples, the entity:
  1. Identifies Indigenous Peoples’ rights (including customary rights) and interests that may be affected by proposed activities, are being affected by ongoing activities, and/or have been affected by past activities and have not yet been remediated;
  2. Identifies additional studies or assessments needed to determine the range and degree of potential or actual impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ rights or interests; and
  3. Identifies if there are capacity issues that may prevent:
    1. Full and informed participation of Indigenous Peoples’ representatives in the FPIC process; and
    2. Participation of potentially marginalized or vulnerable groups or individuals from the community in ongoing engagement processes.

NOTE for 2.2.3.5. REVISED. In the 2018 IRMA Standard, identifying and addressing participatory impediments were both part of requirement 2.2.3.2. The content of that requirement has now been divided into two requirements: 2.2.3.5, which focuses on identifying the various issues that need to be addressed so that Indigenous Peoples can participate fully in a process of FPIC (i.e., with the information needed and the capacity to do so), and 2.2.3.6, which is focused on addressing any gaps that need to be filled.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.2-3:  

Background:  There has been some confusion as to what exactly meant by the word interests in the phrase ‘rights and interests.’ Many United Nations reports and other documents refer to interests in various ways in relation to Indigenous Peoples, such as ‘environmental and social concerns and interests,’ ‘rights, interests and concerns of Indigenous Peoples,’ ‘Indigenous land rights and interests,’ and ‘strategic interests.’ The term ‘interests’ is also used in relation to other sectors, e.g., industry and community, often in relation to land.

Black’s law dictionary has a long definition of ‘interest,’ but it relates only to interest in property. We have not been able to find any definition or even an explanation of what the term interests might encapsulate in relation to Indigenous Peoples.

We are considering the following definition based on our research and general understanding of the term:

    Interest: 
A subject of concern; an advantage or benefit; an object or right in property in which one has a stake, share, or involvement; a specified common concern, especially in politics or business.

Question:  Are you aware of any sources that provide a definition or at least an explanation of what might constitute the interests of Indigenous Peoples? Is this something that IRMA should be concerned about? Or is are the interests of Indigenous Peoples simply something that will be expressed during discussions with the entity, and therefore not something that needs to be defined by IRMA?

The entity collaborates with Indigenous Peoples’ representatives to design and implement plans to address any information gaps and capacity needs identified in 2.2.3.5, including providing funding or other support that enables Indigenous Peoples to address capacity issues in their preferred manner.

NOTE for 2.2.3.6.  This was previously 2.2.3.4.e in the 2018 Mining Standard.  See note for 2.2.3.5. 

2.2.4: Processes for Reaching Agreements on Past Impacts and Seeking Free, Prior and Informed Consent for Proposed Activities

NOTE for 2.2.4:  This criterion has been renamed. It was called ‘Determine FPIC Processes’ in the 2018 Mining Standard. The new criterion also replaces a criterion called ‘Implement FPIC Process’ (the requirements from that criterion have been incorporated here). 

At operations where the FPIC of Indigenous Peoples was not previously obtained (by either the entity or a prior owner/operator) for activities that affected or are continuing to affect the rights or interests of those Indigenous Peoples:
  1. The entity, in collaboration with affected Indigenous Peoples’, develops, documents, and implements a mutually agreed remediation (or equivalent) process to obtain agreement on actions that will be taken provide remedy (e.g., mitigation, compensation, provision of benefits, etc.) for any past or ongoing unremediated impacts identified as per 2.2.3.5.a;
  2. If there are impacts on specific people, the process includes input from and remedy for these directly affected individuals; and
  3. The entity engages in the process, in good faith, until a remedy agreement (or equivalent) on actions to remedy any past and present unremediated impacts is reached.

NOTE for 2.2.4.1.  2.2.4.1 is NEW. In the 2018 Mining Standard, the Scope of Application section of Chapter 2.2 states that, “At existing mines, where FPIC was not obtained in the past, operating companies will be expected to demonstrate that they are operating in a manner that seeks to achieve the objectives of this chapter. For example, companies may demonstrate that they have the free, informed consent of Indigenous Peoples for current operations by providing evidence of signed or otherwise verified agreements, or, in the absence of agreements, demonstrate that they have a process in place to respond to past and present community concerns and to remedy and/or compensate for past impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ rights and interests.” 

Because this information was contained in the Scope of Application and was not an actual requirement in the standard, it created the potential for inconsistent auditing and interpretation and what some stakeholders and rights holders considered to be a loophole in the IRMA Standard. 

The proposed 2.2.4.1 creates a normative requirement to describe the process that must be followed if FPIC was not obtained previously to initiating mining-related activities. While not FPIC, per se, because prior consent was not given for the activities, the requirement for agreement on remedy is now specifically part of this chapter. This proposal is the outcome of discussions of the Expert Working Group convened to discuss this chapter, and it is important to note that the signing of a remedy agreement is not the same as free, prior and informed consent, or even consent for ongoing activities, unless that is explicitly stated in the agreement.

The signing of remedy agreements has been proposed by others. For example, the Accountability Framework in their 2010 Operational Guidance on Free, Prior and Informed Consent states that “Where a company has caused or contributed to the appropriation of or harm to the lands, territories, or resources of IP/LC without first securing FPIC, a remediation process is required to address these past harms.”

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.2-4:  Until the IRMA Board approves changes to the standard (based on input gathered through global stakeholder consultations) IRMA is not making changes to critical requirements (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above). However, we would be interested in knowing if you believe this new requirement should be critical. Why or why not?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.2-5:  There may be situations in which Indigenous Peoples do not wish to enter into or continue an agreement-making process. If this is the case, should the entity just score ‘does not meet’ (i.e., zero) on this requirement? Or could they get ‘partially meets’ or ‘substantially meets’ if they’ve made a good-faith effort even if no process is initiated due to Indigenous Peoples’ decision not to participate or if Indigenous Peoples decide to terminate discussions?

In situations where proposed mining-related activities (for new projects or at existing operations) may result in new or increased impacts on the rights or interests of Indigenous Peoples, a process to obtain the FPIC of Indigenous Peoples for the proposed activities is undertaken, according to the following:
  1. If there is more than one distinct group of Indigenous Peoples (e.g., nation, population, community) whose rights may be affected by the entity’s mining-related activities, each is included in an FPIC process;
  2. If the Indigenous Peoples have a protocol in place for seeking their FPIC for proposed activities, the entity abides by the protocol unless changes are agreed by the Indigenous Peoples;
  3. If no protocol exists, the entity supports Indigenous Peoples to develop, document, and implement a process that aligns with the principles of FPIC; and
  4. In all cases, the FPIC process, at minimum:
    1. Specifies the decision-making processes of the respective parties;
    2. Outlines any Indigenous Peoples’ customs and protocols to be respected;
    3. Includes discussions on potential impacts of proposed mining-related activities, actions that could be taken to prevent, minimize, restore and compensate for impacts on Indigenous Peoples rights and environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts, and actions that could be taken to provide sustained benefits to Indigenous Peoples; and
    4. Includes the conditions under which the entity may (or may not) request renewal of discussions if the process fails to result in consent for proposed activities.

NOTE FOR 2.2.4.2.  REVISED. This requirement combines 2.2.4.1 (now 2.2.4.2.a) and 2.2.4.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard. Documenting the process used to be in 2.2.5.1 but is now incorporated here. 

2.2.4.2.b and c reflect what was previously 2.2.4.2 in the 2018 Standard. However, we have revised it to say that rather than jointly determine an FPIC process that the entity “support” the Indigenous Peoples to determine their own agreed FPIC process. This may be, for example, providing funding for Indigenous Peoples to access facilitators to aid them in establishing a process by which they can, as a community, come to agreement on a process to be followed that accords with their customary decision-making processes or creates an agreed new decision-making process, or it could simply be that the entity recognizes that development of such a process may take time.

2.2.4.2.d is NEW. We are proposing that the FPIC discussions need to include negotiations on the mitigation of impacts and provision of benefits. While the Indigenous Peoples should lead in terms of the content of these discussions, it seems productive to include a minimum set of expectations here. Input on this is welcome.

And we are proposing that these discussions also outline if and how they entity can request to renew FPIC discussions if they fail to obtain consent for their initial proposal. There may be cases when Indigenous Peoples say no, and that is the end of the discussion. There may also be cases when they say no to a certain proposal, but are open to further discussions if significant enough changes can be made to proposal. These conditions should be established early in the process, so that the entity does not continue to approach Indigenous Peoples for discussions if the Indigenous Peoples are not interested in such discussions. This is related to requirement 2.2.4.3.b, below.

Proposed activities only proceed with the FPIC of all affected communities of Indigenous Peoples. If Indigenous Peoples’ representatives clearly communicate that they do not consent to proposed activities, or that they do not wish to initiate or continue with FPIC-related discussions:
  1. The entity ceases to pursue the proposed activities; and
  2. Further discussions are only renewed in accordance with conditions agreed in 2.2.4.2.d.iv.

NOTE FOR 2.2.4.3.  This combines concepts from 2.2.2.2, 2.2.2.3 and 2.2.2.4 from the 2018 Mining Standard, which were found in the General Requirements criterion. We are proposing to delete that criterion, and so have moved these elements here. This concept was also included, but stated in a slightly different way, in 2.2.6.1 of the 2018 Mining Standard.

This one requirement now consolidates the expectation that new (proposed) activities should only proceed with consent of Indigenous Peoples. 

The requirement is critical, which means that in the IRMA system a site that does not obtain the consent of Indigenous Peoples for proposed activities cannot reach the higher achievement levels in IRMA (unless, for example, a mine proposed an expansion, the Indigenous Peoples did not provide consent and, as a result, the entity decided to not move ahead with the proposed expansion activities). See note on ‘Critical Requirements in this Chapter,’ above.

The entity offers to provide funding to Indigenous Peoples to select and hire technical and/or legal advisors to support them during a remediation (or equivalent) process or FPIC process (2.2.4.1 and 2.2.4.2, respectively). Any funding is provided in a manner agreed to by Indigenous Peoples.

NOTE FOR 2.2.4.4.  REVISED. The concept of identifying capacity issues and providing funding or other means to address capacity issues was in the 2018 Mining Standard (requirement 2.2.3.2.d). This requirement makes it clear that “informed” consent means that Indigenous Peoples have the technical capacity needed to understand and evaluate proposals, and if such capacity does not exist, it is incumbent on the entity proposing the development to help address that need. 

Previously, this support was specifically stated in relation to the FPIC process, and we are proposing that it also be extended to the remediation process in 2.2.4.1.

We have also specified that funding must be offered by the entity (bearing in mind that Indigenous Peoples may refuse), and if accepted by the Indigenous Peoples and that it must be provided in a manner agreed to by them (i.e., to avoid entity offering to directly hire lawyers or technical experts rather than provide funding for Indigenous Peoples to do so themselves).

The entity informs members of the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities of the remediation (or equivalent) process or FPIC process that is to be followed, unless the Indigenous Peoples’ representatives explicitly request otherwise.

NOTE FOR 2.2.4.5.  REVISED. This was 2.2.4.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. The original requirement expected that this information be made publicly available. We are proposing to change it to a requirement that members of Indigenous Peoples communities be informed of the FPIC or remediation process, so that they are aware that these processes are occurring and can be in touch with their representatives if they have input and concerns that they want to be reflected in the discussions.  

Public disclosure of the process that was followed and the outcomes of the process are addressed in 2.2.5.7.

If the processes in 2.2.4.1 and 2.2.4.2 result in a remediation agreement (or equivalent) for addressing past and present impacts, or FPIC for proposed activities:
  1. A draft agreement is prepared that includes the terms and conditions reached during negotiations, including, if relevant:
    1. Agreed actions to be taken to prevent, mitigate, and compensate for potential and actual adverse impacts on the Indigenous Peoples’ right and interests;
    2. Agreed actions to be taken to deliver positive benefits to Indigenous Peoples;
    3. Terms related to the monitoring of commitments; and
    4. How the parties will resolve any future disputes;
  2. Affected community members are provided an opportunity to verify that the agreement’s terms and conditions reflect what was understood by them during negotiations; and
  3. The agreement is signed or otherwise validated by representatives of the Indigenous Peoples and the entity.

NOTE FOR 2.2.4.6.  REVISED. This was previously requirement 2.2.5.1., which stated that entities had to sign and make public (if accepted by Indigenous Peoples) a binding agreement outlining the terms and conditions reached. 

In 2.2.4.6 we expanded the language to be more specific about the content of the agreement (2.2.4.6.a.i to iv) and added sub-requirement (b) based on Expert Working Group discussions. Sub-requirements (c) reflects that the agreement be binding by having it be signed/validated. We moved the requirement for making the agreement public (if agreed by the Indigenous Peoples) to 2.2.4.7. 

The entity publicly reports, in a manner agreed by the Indigenous Peoples, the agreement-making or FPIC process that was followed, and the outcome of those processes. Any agreements reached are made public unless otherwise decided by the Indigenous Peoples.

NOTE for 2.2.4.7.  The content here is not new. It reflects previous expectations in 2.2.5.1 and 2.2.5.2 of the 2018 Mining Standard. We altered the language slightly to refer to ‘agreement-making’ processes, which include agreements for remedy related to past impacts and FPIC.

2.2.5: Implementation Plan and Monitoring of Agreements

NOTE for 2.2.5:  This criterion is NEW. It includes requirements from a criterion in the 2018 Mining Standard that is proposed for deletion (2.2.7 ‘Implementation and Ongoing Engagement’). 

An Indigenous Peoples’ Development Plan (or equivalent) guides the implementation of the agreement reached in 2.2.4.6. The plan:
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Outlines the agreed specific actions to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for potential and actual adverse environmental and social impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ right and interests, and actions to optimize positive benefits;
  3. Includes appropriate performance criteria and indicators agreed with Indigenous Peoples to enable evaluation of the effectiveness of actions over time as well as a plan to conduct monitoring and evaluation;
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE for 2.2.5.1.  NEW. Previously, there was no requirement for an actual plan that outlined the actions to be taken by the entity to honor the agreements with Indigenous Peoples. This requirement is similar to what is required in IFC Performance Standard 7-Indigenous Peoples, and the sub-requirements align with management plan expectations in other IRMA chapters.

In addition to developing an actual plan to carry out the agreed actions, we are also proposing that a monitoring and evaluation plan be developed. Although not specifically required in IFC’s Performance Standard, the guidance notes for that Performance Standard do include an Annex that includes suggested elements related to an “Indigenous Peoples Development Plan,” including monitoring, evaluation and reporting. Reporting in the IRMA chapter is covered in 2.2.6.2.

The entity tracks and documents the status of the commitments made in the agreement (see 2.2.4.6.a).

NOTE for 2.2.5.2.  This was included in 2.2.7.1 of the 2018 Mining Standard. It was separated out because this is the entity’s responsibility, while collaboration on monitoring the agreement (now 2.2.5.3, below) with Indigenous Peoples.

The entity collaborates with Indigenous Peoples to monitor:
  1. The commitments made in the agreement (see 2.2.4.6.a); and
  2. The implementation and effectiveness of actions included in the Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (see 2.2.5.1).

NOTE for 2.2.5.3.  This was included in 2.2.7.1 of the 2018 Mining Standard. It has been expanded to include monitoring of commitments made in the agreement as well as monitoring the implementation of the management plan.

2.2.6: Ongoing Engagement

NOTE for 2.2.6:  This criterion is NEW. It includes requirements from a criterion in the 2018 Mining Standard that is proposed for deletion (2.2.7. Implementation and Ongoing Engagement). 

The entity collaborates with Indigenous Peoples to develop and implement a mechanism or mechanisms through which complaints or grievances related to the entity’s actions and activities can be heard and addressed. At least one mechanism is in place that allows for complaints to be filed by individual members of affected Indigenous Peoples communities, and community members are aware of this mechanism.

NOTE for 2.2.6.1.  This is NEW.  It was added based on discussions by the Expert Working Group, because even though IRMA has a chapter on Grievance Mechanism it was felt there may be the need for specific mechanism(s) to address Indigenous Peoples concerns – and that such mechanisms need to be designed and implemented in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples specifically. There was also concern that one mechanism may not be sufficient, especially in situations where Indigenous Peoples’ communities are not entirely cohesive or united in their beliefs and perspectives. In such cases, there must be an accessible mechanism that allows any person to contact the company to express concerns or complaints.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.4-2 (repeated from Chapter 1.4 – ‘Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’)

Background:  Chapter 1.4 – ‘Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’ includes a range of requirements surrounding the existence of an accessible and effective operational-level grievance mechanism. It is not possible to score well on Chapter 1.4 if the mechanism does not have certain quality-related characteristics. Other chapters (i.e., human rights, gender, resettlement, security, ASM) also have requirements relating to the existence of a grievance mechanism; however, the requirements in each of those chapters ask only that a mechanism is in place that allows grievances to be filed and addressed, but they do not speak to the overall quality of that mechanism. This is an approach proposed by IRMA to avoid too much repetition across chapters. However, this creates a situation in which an entity could theoretically score ‘fully meets’ on the grievance-related requirement in an individual chapter (which in most cases only asks that stakeholders have “access to” a grievance mechanism), even if the grievance mechanism as a whole is not an effective one (as reflected in the overall score for Chapter 1.4). 

Question:  Should an entity’s score on grievance-related requirements within individual non-grievance-specific chapters be restrained or linked to the overall score that the entity gets on the grievance chapter (Chapter 1.4) as a whole? 

For example, if a site scores 80% on Chapter 1.4, the most the site could receive for a grievance requirement in the other chapters would be a ‘substantially meets,’ but if a site scores 100% on Chapter 1.4 then, assuming the mechanism can handle grievances specific to the other chapters, they could possibly get a ‘fully meets’ rating on those grievance requirements.

Ongoing engagement with Indigenous Peoples:
  1. Includes the regular sharing of information and consultation with a diversity of members and representatives of affected communities of Indigenous Peoples on the entity’s mining-related activities;
  2. Includes regular updates on the status of commitments made in any agreements and the implementation and effectiveness of actions included in the Indigenous Peoples Development Plan; and
  3. Continues throughout all stages of the project’s/operation’s life cycle.

NOTE for 2.2.6.2.  This was 2.2.7.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. The original requirement simply stated that engagement needed to occur throughout the life cycle. We are proposing to add sub-requirements (a) and (b) to indicate the various types of information should be shared on a regular basis.

We have added clarification, as well, that information sharing and engagement is with Indigenous Peoples communities generally, not just Indigenous Peoples representatives. This aligns with other standards such as IFC Performance Standard 7, which requires that ongoing engagement not only involve Indigenous Peoples’ representative bodies but also “Be inclusive of both women and men and of various age groups in a culturally appropriate manner.”

Chapter 2.3: Obtaining Community Support and Delivering Benefits

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  Changes to this chapter were relatively minor. There were no requirement/criterion deletions; the modifications and additions to requirements are outlined below. 

Proposed additions and changes:

  • In this chapter, we added clarifications to terms such as transparency, good governance, culturally appropriate and more onus on the entity to undertake more proactive (2.3.3.3) and predictable (2.3.3.5) approach to consultations. Other small revisions to organization of sub-requirements. 
  • We proposed making local procurement a standalone requirement (2.3.3.7) – in the 2018 Mining Standard it was grouped in with local development opportunities, but they are distinct as the latter is not based on philanthropy but rather a business relationship that can benefit the supplier and purchaser). We also proposed that the procurement policy includes minimum expectations related to supplier environmental, labor, human rights, and social standards (2.3.3.6).

2.3.1: Commitments to Affected Communities

The entity publicly commits to maintaining or improving the social and economic wellbeing of affected communities.

NOTE FOR 2.3.1.1:  NEW. We removed the reference to health, as that is covered in Chapter 3.3, and separated out the previous sub-requirement (b) related to a commitment to broad community support for projects that are being developed. Instead, we are proposing that entities be required to demonstrate that they have obtained and are maintaining such support in 2.3.2.1, below. 

2.3.2: Obtaining and Maintaining Community Support

NOTE FOR 2.3.2:  We have changed the title of this criterion to better reflect the expectations that community support must not only be obtained but also maintained over time. Also, in the requirements below, we combined two requirements, and removed the qualifier ‘for new mines’ and ‘for existing mines’ from 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2 as IRMA is moving away from this distinction of new versus existing mines. Instead, all projects/operations will be expected to demonstrate that they have broad community support no matter their phase of development.

The entity demonstrates that broad community support for projects/operations has been obtained through a local democratic process or governance mechanism, or another process or method agreed to by the entity and an affected community (e.g., a referendum) undertaken to gauge the level of support for a project/operation, and/or a signed agreement between the entity and affected communities (e.g., a benefit sharing agreement). In all cases, the process used to gauge community support and/or reach an agreement:
  1. Occurs after the entity carries out consultations with relevant stakeholders regarding potential or actual impacts and benefits of the project/operation;
  2. Is transparent;
  3. Is free from coercion or manipulation; and
  4. Includes the opportunity for meaningful input by all potentially affected community members, including different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups, prior to carrying out any decision-making or agreement-making process.

NOTE FOR 2.3.2.1.  REVISED. This was 2.3.2.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. In addition to local votes or referenda related to projects/operations, we are proposing to include signed agreements as possible evidence of broad community support. However, in such cases there must be evidence that potentially affected community members were aware of the impacts and benefits of the project/proposal and had the opportunity to provide input into any agreement-making process prior to an agreement being signed (just as there would need to be this opportunity prior to any vote/referenda).

If no such process has occurred, then we are proposing that an entity will not meet this requirement. However, the entity could request that such a community process occurs, or could sign an agreement with a community at any point, and demonstrate that it meets this requirement.

Also, even without meeting this requirement an entity could demonstrate in 2.3.2.2 that it is maintaining broad community support in 2.3.2.2 (even though broad community support was not officially obtained). See Note for 2.3.2.2, below. 

The entity demonstrates that broad community support from communities affected by the project/operation is being maintained over time.

NOTE FOR 2.3.2.2.  REVISED. This was 2.3.2.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard, and previously applied to existing mines. The requirement now applies to both projects (e.g., in the exploration or development stages) and operating mines/processing facilities, because even if evidence of broad community support is initially obtained, it must be maintained throughout the life cycle.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.3-1

Background:  ‘Broad community support’ neither requires nor implies 100% agreement in the community. Therefore, even if a democratic vote is taken or an agreement signed there will almost always be some community members who are supportive of a project or operation, and some who are opposed (see a similar discussion related to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.2-1 in Chapter 2.2). 

Furthermore, even if agreements have been signed or there was at some point in time a community vote, etc., sentiments can change over time: opposition may emerge or increase if entities are not responsive to community concerns and/or do not manage social or environmental impacts well; or support may increase if efforts are made to create positive opportunities or benefits such as jobs or training programs. As a result, at one point in time there may be significant enough community-based opposition to say that a site has not obtained or maintained broad community support, and a few years later this situation could reverse.

Ultimately, at every audit the auditors will need to determine about whether a project /operation has broad community support based on the weight of evidence that they have reviewed. Typically, auditors:

  • Carry out interviews with affected community members, local and regional non-governmental organizations, and local authorities to understand any processes, events, or outcomes that might indicate presence/absence or change in level of broad community support; and
  • Review current social and traditional media to ascertain community opinions and responses to the entity/project.  

IRMA will continue to train auditors so that the narratives that accompany this requirement in the public audit report reflect the weight of evidence (i.e., any positive support and any opposition that may exist) that led to their conclusions. We will also develop additional guidance and training for auditors on how to assess/factor in the presence of some opposition (i.e., how much weight to give to a handful of negative articles, a few oppositional tweets, a group of unhappy community members, etc.). 

Question:  Are there specific metrics that can consistently and objectively reflect whether or not broad community support is being maintained? Or is it enough that auditors weigh the evidence and are transparent about their findings?

2.3.3: Planning and Delivering Community Benefits

The entity, in collaboration with affected communities and other relevant stakeholders (including workers and local government), develops a culturally appropriate participatory planning process to guide the entity’s contributions to community development initiatives and benefits in affected communities. The planning process:
  1. Facilitates participation by a broad spectrum of the community (including different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups);
  2. Adheres to principles of good governance, including:
    1. An agreed set of procedures to guide the process; and
    2. An agreed set of criteria for how initiatives and beneficiaries will be selected;
  3. Adheres to the principle of transparency, meaning that:
    1. Information on the planning process and procedures and are widely available and understood within the community; and
    2. The planning process and any outcomes, decisions, and/or agreements are documented and made publicly available in languages and formats that are understandable to affected communities.

NOTE FOR 2.3.3.1.  REVISED. This requirement combines 2.3.3.1 and 2.3.3.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard, as both requirements related to the same participatory process. We added a reference to the need for the planning process to be culturally appropriate. 

More detail was added on what was meant by good governance and transparency. Previously, this information was in the IRMA guidance for this chapter, but to increase consistency in expectations we are proposing to add it here.

2.3.3.1.c.ii used was requirement 2.3.3.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Since it relates to transparency, it was moved here.

Affected communities are offered access to funding for mutually agreed-upon experts to aid in the participatory process (e.g., as facilitators and/or community advisors) if such assistance is not provided by the appropriate public authorities.

NOTE FOR 2.3.3.2.  REVISED. This was requirement 2.3.3.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It stated, “If requested by the community and not provided by the appropriate public authorities, the operating company shall provide …” – however, this was difficult to audit because if the communities didn’t know this was available, they were unlikely to ask for it, and if they didn’t ask for it, there was nothing to audit. We therefore altered the language in 2.3.3.2 to put the onus on the entity to explicitly offer this assistance, in line with similar changes in other chapters. Also added “e.g., as facilitators and/or community advisors” to guide entities and auditors as to what form this assistance might take. 

Community contributions include:
  1. Initiatives that benefit a broad spectrum of the community (e.g., women, men, children, youth, and vulnerable and traditionally marginalized groups) and are culturally appropriate; and
  2. Mechanisms that can be self-sustaining after closure of the operation (including building community capacity to oversee and sustain any projects or initiatives agreed upon through negotiations).

NOTE FOR 2.3.3.3.  REVISED. In the 2018 Mining Standard, this was requirement 2.3.3.4, and it had three sub-requirements. We separated out the previous 2.3.3.4.a, which referred to local procurement opportunities (now addressed in the new 2.3.3.6 below).  We added a reference to the need for the initiatives to be culturally appropriate.

In collaboration with the community, the entity establishes and implements a procedure to regularly monitor the effectiveness of any mechanisms or agreements developed to deliver community benefits, based on agreed-upon indicators, and to evaluate if changes need to be made to those mechanisms or agreements.

NOTE FOR 2.3.3.4.  REVISED. This was requirement 2.3.3.6 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We added language to indicate that the site must establish and implement a procedure to regularly monitor and assess revise the effectiveness of community initiatives. This more systematized approach reflects comments from stakeholders suggesting more predictability in terms of reviews and revisions of community initiatives. 

The entity develops and implements a procurement policy (or equivalent) that:
  1. Sets out minimum environmental, labor, human rights, and social standards for suppliers of goods and services to the project/operation;
  2. Includes targets for sourcing from and supporting local suppliers and businesses; and
  3. Is communicated to suppliers.
The entity monitors its suppliers for compliance with its policy and evaluates its own performance against its local procurement targets. Where supplier compliance is not occurring, or targets are not being met, the entity develops and implements an action plan to improve supplier compliance and its own performance.

NOTE FOR 2.3.3.5 and 2.3.3.6.  NEW. This is a new approach. Previously, a reference was made to procurement in requirement 2.3.3.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard; however, IRMA has received a suggestion that the Standard should separate local procurement from the participatory planning process for community development initiatives into a separate, standalone requirement. This is reasonable, as local procurement is another means to provide benefits at the local level but is not based on philanthropy but rather a business relationship that can benefit the supplier and purchaser.

The creation of these requirements is also in response to feedback received on IRMA’s draft Mineral Processing Standard. That standard proposed requirements for mineral processing sites that include due diligence on environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance for suppliers of raw materials, and suggestions were made that suppliers providing other goods and services should also be subject to some due diligence. We are not proposing to use the term governance here, but in addition to environmental and social expectations we are proposing to add human rights and labor, as these issues are already covered in the IRMA Standard in relation to suppliers.

In 2.3.3.5, we are proposing two elements. 

  • First, that the procurement policy includes minimum expectations related to supplier environmental, labor, human rights and social standards. Increasingly, this is an expectation for businesses. For example, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (and IRMA Chapter 1.3) include the expectation that entities identify and address human rights impacts across their operations, products and throughout supplier and business networks. 
  • Second, we have added that targets be set to “buy local”, which provides a demonstration that companies are interested in supporting local economies. Being transparent about local procurement intentions, by releasing a public policy, is another way to both manage expectations and demonstrate that local procurement is considered important by the company.

Requirement 2.3.3.6 has been added because there needs to be a way to determine if policies are being implemented effectively, and, if they are not, then action needs to be taken to improve implementation.

Chapter 2.4: Proposed Land Acquisition, Displacement and Resettlement

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  We are proposing to remove the flag from this chapter. The flag related to encouraging assessing mines to help us better understand if the metrics in the chapter were sufficient to ensure that resettlement would be carried out in a fair and respectful manner that leads to improvements in quality of life and economic opportunities for affected peoples. Through the first audits, and an Expert Working Group on Resettlement in 2022, a great deal was learned about the challenges of carrying out resettlement, and also challenges with the chapter as written. The proposed changes below attempt to address those challenges.

We are proposing to change the title of the chapter from ‘Resettlement’ to ‘Land Acquisition, Displacement, and Resettlement’ as not all land acquisition results in displacement (i.e., if acquired lands are vacant and publicly owned there may not be displacement) and, more importantly, not all displacement is addressed through resettlement. This latter point is because the term ‘resettlement’ refers to a conscientious process of moving affected populations from one area to another, which may not have happened with historical displacement, if there was no physical displacement, or if an entity simply engaged in forced evictions or cash compensations. Therefore, to encompass the variety of scenarios that may arise (no displacement, no resettlement, etc.) we are proposing this as a more encompassing and therefore accurate title.

Proposed additions and changes:

There are three major changes being proposed to the content in Chapter 2.4. 

1)  First, IRMA is proposing that all entities conduct land acquisition due diligence to support claims that no displacement occurred as a result of their land acquisition process. This is being proposed as it is not feasible for auditors to independently investigate such claims; rather, entities must provide them with evidence to evaluate (see ‘Rationale for Adding Requirements Related to Historical Land Acquisition and Displacement’ below). 

2)  Second, we are proposing to create a separate set of requirements – 2.4B – that will apply to circumstances where resettlements happened in the past. This would be distinct from those requirements 2.4A that apply to land acquisition that happened in the recent past and/or land acquisition proposed for the future. 

The objective is to ensure that recent resettlements (2012 or later) and proposed projects follow international best practices. We are proposing a cutoff date of 2012 because this date marks the release of the most up-to-date edition of IFC’s Sustainability Framework, including the Performance Standards (PS) on Environmental and Social Sustainability upon which these chapters are based. However, in recognition that Chapter 2.4A goes beyond the IFC PS in several ways, we are proposing to exempt entities that conducted land acquisition prior to the release of the final version 2.0 of the updated IRMA Standard from meeting those requirements that go above and beyond the IFC PS and therefore cannot be said to have been normative prior to the release of the updated IRMA Standard. This is explained in the ‘Scope of Application’ section of both 2.4A and 2.4B.   

For historical (pre-2012) resettlements, the intent is not to be punitive but rather to focus on how sites can remediate and continue to improve the lives and livelihoods of those who have been displaced as a result of mineral development. Where land acquisition due diligence reveals that displacement did occur, IRMA lays out an abbreviated (compared to Chapter 2.4A – ‘Proposed Land Acquisition and Resettlement’) set of criteria aimed at achieving the objectives of Chapter 2.4A, to the extent possible given the historic nature of displacement.  

The allocation of requirements based on entity circumstance would therefore be: 

  • Chapter 2.4B – ‘Historical Land Acquisition, Displacement and Resettlement’ – applies to all land acquisition and displacement taking place before 2012 (see below for cut-off date rationale).
  • Chapter 2.4A (modified requirements) – ‘Proposed Land Acquisition, Displacement and Resettlement’ – projects or operations with recent land acquisition processes, i.e., between 2012 and the release of the updated version of the IRMA Standard.  
  • Chapter 2.4A (full requirements) – ‘Proposed Land Acquisition and Resettlement’ – project or operations that are proposing new land acquisition that may lead to displacement. 

This approach is similar in some ways to that of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 

A resettlement guidance documented published by EBRD in 2017 states that:
“When land acquisition for a project has been completed prior to the EBRD’s involvement. . .any gaps in the achievement of aims and objectives of [EBRD’s Performance Requirement 5 or PR5] will have to be satisfactorily addressed by the client before approval of the loan. To identify the gaps, the Bank will usually require a review of the historic land acquisition process and compare it to PR5. . . Based on the outcomes of these activities, an action plan to fulfil gaps is prepared and agreed by the EBRD and the client.” 

However, IRMA recognizes that entities that undertook land acquisition long ago may not be able to simply identify and ‘fill gaps’ vis-a-vis the requirements in Chapter 2.4A (due to dispersion of the affected population, lack of documentation of assets affected, etc.). IRMA therefore takes a remediation-focused approach that encourages recognition and remedy of past displacement impacts in a manner that approximates the requirements of Chapter 2.4A to the extent possible but puts emphasis on negotiated remediation in cooperation with the persons affected based on what is realistic and feasible in a given context. 

3)  The third proposed substantive change is adding a requirement relating to voluntary displacement (2.4.7.9). 

Rationale for Adding Requirements Related to Historical Land Acquisition, Displacement and Resettlement: 

Resettlements that occurred in the past create a particularly challenging scenario from an auditing and certification process. On the one hand, many land acquisition processes occurred before the concept of what constituted ‘best practice’ with respect to resettlement had emerged at the international level, so it seems unfair to expect entities undertaking land acquisition and/or resettlement 50 years ago, for example, to the same standards as those undertaking it today. This is not to mention logistical difficulties determining impacts in the past and the inability of entities to go back in time to rectify or remediate for shortcomings vis-à-vis today’s standards. 

In recognition of 2006 (the year the IFC first published their Performance Standards (PS), including PS5 on land acquisition and involuntary resettlement) as a watershed moment for international guidance on resettlement best practice, the previous version of the IRMA standard did not include requirements for entities that acquired land, displaced people, or conducted a resettlement prior to 2006, beyond requiring that unmitigated human rights impacts be remediated per Chapter 1.3. For resettlements occurring between 2006 and the release of the 2018 Mining standard, IRMA required that entities meet a selection of Chapter 2.4 criteria, aimed at identifying and mitigating the impacts of resettlement, including human rights impacts. The full chapter only truly applied to mines that proposed and carried out a resettlement project as of the date the IRMA Mining Standard came into effect (June 2018). Finally, for an entity to mark the chapter as ‘not relevant,’ the entity had to provide a rationale that no displacement/resettlement occurred in the past (a claim that auditors had to verify).

While a reasonable solution in face of the complexities of addressing historical displacement and/or resettlement, some stakeholders and auditors subsequently expressed that the categories were somewhat arbitrary and could result in resettlement chapter scores for different mining entities that appeared equivalent even though actual performance and outcomes were very different. Thus, some opportunities for improvement emerged. Namely: 

  1. Although their prominence increased with the publication of the first IFC Performance Standards in 2006, international norms surrounding good practice in resettlement existed as early as 1980, with the release of the World Bank’s Operational Manual Statement OMS 2.33 (1980), which laid out basic principles for involuntary resettlement relating to fair compensation, the need to produce a resettlement plan to guide activities, and the mandate to leave affected people better off as a result of resettlement. These policies were further refined in 1990 in the World Bank’s Operational Directive 4.30 on involuntary resettlement, which introduced a preference for replacement land over cash compensation for those with land-based livelihoods and encouraged projects to provide financial management and livelihoods training to affected people. Therefore, to hold an entity that conducted resettlement in 2006 to drastically different standards than one that conducted resettlement in 2005 required rethinking. 
  2. Absent at least an obligation on behalf of the entity to conduct due diligence on historical (pre-2006 under the 2018 Mining Standard) land acquisition processes, there was a potential that projects initiated prior to 2006 could become certified by IRMA despite having knowingly or unknowingly committed human rights abuses and other impacts incongruent with the spirit of IRMA and the requirements of Chapter 2.4, as this information may not be forthcoming without a dedicated effort to evaluate the events surrounding land acquisition (see also point #3 below).
  3. By not requiring entities to develop and demonstrate an understanding of their own land acquisition processes, the onus was on the auditor to independently validate claims that ‘no displacement occurred’ (i.e., chapter ‘not relevant’) or that ‘no human rights abuses occurred’. This was not only a missed opportunity for entities to understand and recognize their past, but it also put undue pressure on auditors to identify potentially affected populations (that by definition are no longer in the project area) for validation interviews or to conduct independent research into land acquisition processes on which they have little information to guide them. While investigation of past environmental impacts is often facilitated by the proximity of impacted people to the source of the impact, resettlement by nature involves the removal of affected people from the source of the impact. This further complicated the auditor’s ability to independently determine whether displacement occurred in the past and, if so, whether human rights abuses resulted and/or whether those affected had or have access to grievance processes. 

The creation of Chapter 2.4B (‘Historical Land Acquisition, Displacement and Resettlement’) was motivated by a desire – expressed by working group members and other resettlement practitioners – to ensure all entities are held accountable at a minimum for understanding and assessing the events surrounding project-related land acquisition and, where relevant and to the extent possible, identifying and offering remedy for historical impacts. 

PARTICIPATE IN AN EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON THIS CHAPTER

If you are interested in participating in an Expert Working Group on Land Acquisition, Displacement, and Resettlement, please contact IRMA’s Standards Director, Pierre De Pasquale (pdepasquale@responsiblemining.net).

2.4.1: Land Acquisition Due Diligence

The entity hires competent professionals with resettlement expertise to document:
  1. Applicable host country laws related to land acquisition and resettlement;
  2. Circumstances of any land acquisition that already occurred in the project area, identifying, to the extent possible:
    1. Records of formal and informal land ownership, land use, and land occupancy on any lands acquired by the project/operation prior to acquisition by the entity, prior owner, or government in the case of government-led land acquisition;
    2. Records of other potential project-related displacement, i.e., due to impacts on natural resources utilized by communities, exposure to noise, vibration, etc.; and
    3. If there was any physical or economic displacement of Indigenous Peoples.

NOTE for 2.4.1.1:  NEW. We are proposing to add this because, for entities claiming that land acquisition will not result in displacement (i.e., those intending to mark the chapter ‘not relevant’), this step constitutes the burden of proof required to demonstrate to auditors that land acquisition due diligence has been formally conducted and no displacement will occur. For entities that believe or are aware that displacement will occur in a proposed project, the results of this due diligence will inform – and could constitute part of – the assessment outlined in 2.4.1.2. We also created a new criterion, ‘Land Acquisition Due Diligence,’ to distinguish it from risk and impact assessment (now criterion 2.4.2).

2.4.2: Risk/Impact Assessment

If there is the potential that land acquisition for mining-related activities or the level of direct or indirect impacts from the project/operation could result in the involuntary displacement (for the remainder of this chapter, referred to as ‘displacement’) of people, the entity undertakes a rigorous assessment to evaluate the potential direct and indirect risks and impacts related to the physical and/or economic displacement of people. The assessment:
  1. Is carried out by competent professionals with expertise in land acquisition and resettlement;
  2. Occurs during the early stages of land acquisition planning;
  3. Includes identification and systematic evaluation of project design alternatives to avoid or minimize the displacement of people if that is the most protective option for people;
  4. Identifies and analyzes the social, cultural, human rights, conflict, environmental, and economic risks and impacts to displaced people and host communities for each alternative, paying particular attention to potential impacts on different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups; and
  5. Identifies measures to prevent and mitigate risks and impacts and estimate the costs of implementing the measures.

NOTE for 2.4.2.1:  REVISED. This was 2.4.1.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Here we expanded the definition of “physical displacement” in the guidance notes to recognize involuntary displacement (of informal land occupants) resulting from voluntary land acquisition processes. We also combined previous 2.4.1.1 and 2.4.2.2 as the latter were qualifiers on the former. Sub-requirement (a) in this requirement was previously 2.4.1.2 and sub-requirement (c) was previously 2.4.1.2. 

We changed the word ‘experience’ to ‘expertise’ in sub-requirement (a) and will add guidance on how this should be defined, depending on the nature of the resettlement. 

We added to (c) language indicating that avoidance should only be an objective if doing so is in the best interest of affected people.

The assessment is made publicly available in the early stages of the resettlement planning process, and details on how it can be accessed are actively provided to potentially affected stakeholders and their advisors.

NOTE for 2.4.2.2: REVISED. This was 2.4.1.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We added language requiring entities to actively provide the assessment to potentially affected stakeholders and their advisors.

2.4.3: Community Engagement

The entity discloses, in a culturally appropriate manner, relevant information and conducts consultations with potentially affected people and communities, including host communities, to inform:
  1. The assessment of displacement and resettlement risks and impacts, including the consideration of alternative project designs to avoid or minimize resettlement; and
  2. The development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and/or Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP), including but not limited to soliciting input on resettlement and livelihood restoration options.

NOTE for 2.4.3.1:  REVISED. This was 2.4.2.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We combined sub-requirements (b) and (c) of the former 2.4.2.1 as the former was a constituent part of the latter. We also added language that consultations must be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, and are proposing the following definition of culturally appropriate: 

         Refers to methods, formats, languages, and timing (e.g., of communications, interactions, and provision of information) being aligned with the cultural norms, practices, and traditions of affected communities, rights holders, and stakeholders. 

Potentially affected people and communities, including host communities, are actively and explicitly offered access to independent legal or other expert advice. This offer is made at the earliest stages of project design and continue throughout monitoring and evaluation of the resettlement process.

NOTE for 2.4.3.2:  REVISED. This was 2.4.2.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. This has been revised to make it clear that the entity needs to actively inform the affected stakeholders that this is an option available to them, rather than assuming people must approach the entity to ask for it.

Potentially affected people and communities are actively and explicitly provided with information about, and access to, a mechanism to raise and seek recourse for concerns or grievances related to displacement and resettlement.

NOTE for 2.4.3.3:  REVISED. This was 2.4.2.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We have proposed new language that not only must affected people have access to a grievance mechanism, but that the entity must actively and explicitly inform them of the mechanism and provide them with information about how they can use it.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.4-2 (repeated from Chapter 1.4 – ‘Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’)

Background:  Chapter 1.4 – ‘Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’ includes a range of requirements surrounding the existence of an accessible and effective operational-level grievance mechanism. It is not possible to score well on Chapter 1.4 if the mechanism does not have certain quality-related characteristics. Other chapters (i.e., human rights, gender, resettlement, security, ASM) also have requirements relating to the existence of a grievance mechanism; however, the requirements in each of those chapters ask only that a mechanism is in place that allows grievances to be filed and addressed, but they do not speak to the overall quality of that mechanism. This is an approach proposed by IRMA to avoid too much repetition across chapters. However, this creates a situation in which an entity could theoretically score ‘fully meets’ on the grievance-related requirement in an individual chapter (which in most cases only asks that stakeholders have “access to” a grievance mechanism), even if the grievance mechanism as a whole is not an effective one (as reflected in the overall score for Chapter 1.4). 

Question:  Should an entity’s score on grievance-related requirements within individual non-grievance-specific chapters be restrained or linked to the overall score that the entity gets on the grievance chapter (Chapter 1.4) as a whole? 

For example, if a site scores 80% on Chapter 1.4, the most the site could receive for a grievance requirement in the other chapters would be a ‘substantially meets,’ but if a site scores 100% on Chapter 1.4 then, assuming the mechanism can handle grievances specific to the other chapters, they could possibly get a ‘fully meets’ rating on those grievance requirements.

2.4.4: Resettlement and Livelihood Restoration Planning and Preparation

Where displacement is deemed unavoidable, the entity undertakes the following prior to displacement:
  1. A household-level socioeconomic census to collect appropriate baseline data on the current livelihoods, standards of living, and socio-cultural practices of people who will be physically or economically displaced by the project/operation; and
  2. A land and asset survey to: establish an inventory of affected lands and other assets, along with their location, status, and condition; to determine owners or users of the assets; to determine eligibility for compensation; and to establish a cut-off for compensation claims.

NOTE for 2.4.4.1:  REVISED. This was 2.4.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We removed reference in sub-requirement (a) to identifying affected people, as this is done under the assessment detailed in 2.4.1.1. We separated the socioeconomic census from the land and asset survey for clarity and moved details from the guidance notes re: purpose of each into the requirement. We moved a guidance note pertaining to gender and eligibility for compensation down to NEW requirement 2.4.4.4.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.4A-1:  IRMA has identified climate resiliency and adaptation as a necessary consideration in the ESIA process.  Should IRMA also require that climate resiliency and climate adaptation be considered during resettlement planning (e.g., in terms of social capital development, social learning and effective community organization and leadership; livelihoods restoration strategies which respond to changing climatic conditions; climate-resilient housing, settlements layout and infrastructure; or other key areas of climate-related impact as it relates to resettlement)?  Examples of current, emerging, or predicted concerns are welcome for context.  

In the case of physical displacement, the entity develops and implements a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). If the project involves economic displacement only, then a Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP) is developed and implemented. In either case, these plans:
  1. Are developed by competent professionals with land acquisition/resettlement expertise;
  2. Include a gap analysis of host country laws and international laws pertaining to compensation and restoration for displacement and outline how any gaps will be filled;
  3. Document the socioeconomic baseline results for the area affected by land acquisition/displacement that describes the current livelihoods, standards of living, and socio-cultural practices of affected people;
  4. Describe how affected people will be involved in an ongoing process of consultation (including access to grievance processes) throughout the resettlement/livelihood restoration planning, implementation and monitoring phases, including how consultations will ensure the inclusion of potentially vulnerable groups;
  5. Describe the strategies to be undertaken to mitigate the negative impacts of displacement and restore or, ideally, improve livelihoods and standards of living of displaced people, paying particular attention to the needs of potentially vulnerable groups and the potential for compensation or livelihoods support to create or exacerbate conflicts within or between communities;
  6. Describe how livelihood restoration measures draw on consultations with affected people concerning their preferences, as well as a demonstrated understanding of local markets and feasible economic opportunities;
  7. Describe the methods used for valuing land and other assets;
  8. Establish the compensation framework (i.e., entitlements and rates of compensation for all categories of affected people, including host communities) in a transparent, consistent, and equitable manner;
  9. Describe how monitoring and evaluation will be conducted; and
  10. Include a budget and implementation schedule.

NOTE for 2.4.4.2:  REVISED. This was 2.4.3.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Previous requirement 2.4.3.2 moved down to 2.4.4.3. The proposed changes here include:

  • Adding sub-requirements (a), (b), (c), (g)
  • Adding reference in (d) to consultation with marginalized /vulnerable populations and access to grievance processes;
  • Adding reference in (e) to consideration of mitigation strategies in a manner that will not exacerbate conflicts within or between communities;
  • Adding reference in (f) to the need to explicitly consider stakeholder preferences and local market conditions;
  • Adding note to (h) stating that way of making the LRP/RAP publicly available must be appropriate to the affected population; and
Clear compensation eligibility criteria and a cut-off date for eligibility are established, and information regarding the cut-off date and eligibility criteria is well-documented and actively communicated to the project’s/operation’s stakeholders in advance of survey and census activities.

NOTE for 2.4.4.3:  REVISED. This was 2.4.3.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We removed reference to ‘in absence of government procedures’ to emphasize that entities must establish procedures aligned with the requirements even where government procedures exist, and where they are not aligned, make efforts to collaborate with government actors per the IRMA guidance note for 2.4.3.2.

The entity takes steps to integrate gender progressive approaches in the development of compensation and entitlement measures as appropriate to the context, including:
  1. Measures to address gender inequality in terms of access to and control of resources or assets;
  2. Ensuring gender responsive livelihood restoration approaches; and
  3. Ensuring adequate female representation on community-based resettlement, compensation, or grievance evaluation committees, if relevant.

NOTE for 2.4.4.4:  NEW. We are proposing to add this to more actively encourage gender progressive resettlement planning and implementation. Previously, such gender considerations were contained within the guidance notes.  

The RAP and/or LRP is made publicly available in a manner that is appropriate to the affected population.

NOTE for 2.4.4.5:  NEW. We separated this sub-requirement out from 2.4.4.3 (the rest of which deals with the content of the RAP/LRP, not the procedures surrounding it).

2.4.5: Specific Measures Related to Physical Displacement

In all cases where people are physically displaced, the entity:
  1. Provides relocation assistance that is suited to the needs of each group of displaced people and is sufficient for them to improve or at least restore their standard of living at an alternative location;
  2. Ensures that locations where displaced people are resettled offer equal or, ideally, improved living conditions;
  3. Takes into consideration displaced people’s preferences with respect to relocating in pre-existing communities and groups; and
  4. Respects and seeks to preserve and/or reestablish existing social and cultural institutions of the displaced people and any host communities.

NOTE for 2.4.5.1:  This was 2.4.4.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

In cases where physically displaced people have formal legal rights to the land or assets they occupy or use, or do not have formal legal rights but have a claim to land that is recognized or recognizable under host country law, the entity:
  1. Offers the choice of replacement land of at least equal value and characteristics, security of tenure, and advantages of location; and
  2. Offers the choice of replacement residential structures of at least equal value and characteristics; if original residential structures do not meet a minimum standard for dignified housing, the entity will provide replacement housing that meets these standards; or
  3. Offers as an alternative compensation that is sufficient to replace lost land and residential structures at full replacement cost in local markets, if cash compensation is appropriate and/or preferred by the affected person.

NOTE for 2.4.5.2:  REVISED. This was 2.4.4.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

In cases where physically displaced people have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land or assets that they occupy or use, the entity:
  1. Provides affected people with options for adequate housing with security of tenure; and
  2. Compensates for the loss of assets other than land at full replacement cost, provided that the people had been occupying the project area prior to the cut-off date for eligibility.

NOTE for 2.4.5.3:  REVISED. This was 2.4.4.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.4A-2

Background:  IFC guidance states that entities are not obligated to provide replacement land or compensation for land to affected people with no formal or customary claim to the lands on which they live /engage in productive activities. However, PS5 does state that affected people, “should be offered resettlement assistance sufficient to restore their standards of living at a suitable alternative site.” If not through offering replacement land or compensation for land, how should entities restore standards of living of affected people who do not own land and, without compensation, may not be able to purchase land to reestablish their affected structures/livelihoods?

Question:  What guidance should IRMA give to entities concerning obligations towards physically displaced households in particular, where those households do not own lands on which to reestablish their residential structures? How should IRMA guide auditors to interpret “options for adequate housing with security of tenure” and the overall obligation to restore previous standards of living? 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.4A-3

Background:  In the case of tenants, IFC does not specify a particular outcome. IFC guidance states that, “In some cases, tenants may qualify for replacement housing and in other cases they will be resettled in similar housing under similar or improved tenure arrangements.” Without some boundaries it is difficult for companies and auditors to know if the requirement for providing “adequate housing with security of tenure” is fully being met.

Question:  What should ‘security of tenure’ look like in practice for households renting residential structures that are affected by the project? Should IRMA specify a best practice outcome? If so, what would that look like, e.g., similar housing with a 12-month lease (if there was no previous lease), or something else?

2.4.6: Specific Measures Related to Economic Displacement

If project- or operation-related land acquisition or restrictions on land use result in economic displacement in the form of displaced business operations or commercial structures, regardless of whether the affected people are physically displaced, the entity:
  1. Compensates business owners for the cost of rebuilding affected non-moveable commercial structures, for re-establishing commercial activities elsewhere, for lost net income during the period of transition, and for the costs of the transfer and reinstallation of any moveable business-relevant equipment, goods, or structures;
  2. Compensates renters of commercial structures for lost net income during the period of transition, for the costs of the transfer and reinstallation of any moveable business-relevant equipment or goods, and provides assistance to establish a new, equivalent commercial lease with secure tenure (i.e., 12 months lease); and
  3. Compensates employees of affected businesses for lost income.

NOTE for 2.4.6.1:  REVISED. This was 2.4.5.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Divided this into separate requirements for clarity, addressing displacement of commercial structures (a), renters of commercial structures (b), and impacts on business-related income for employees of commercial business owners (c).

If project- or operation-related land acquisition or restrictions on land use result in economic displacement in the form of acquisition of lands on which affected people engage in productive activities or possess productive assets, regardless of whether or not the affected people are physically displaced, the entity:
  1. Compensates affected people with legal rights or claims to lands that are recognized or recognizable under national law with replacement land of equal or greater value appropriate to the affected people’s livelihoods or, where appropriate, with cash compensation for land/improvements to the land at full replacement cost; and
  2. Compensates economically displaced people who are without legally recognizable claims to land for lost assets other than land (i.e., productive structures, crops/trees/grasses, and other improvements to lands) at full replacement cost.

NOTE for 2.4.6.2:  REVISED. This was part of 2.4.5.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We incorporated aspects of the original 2.4.5.2 into 2.4.6.1 and 2.4.6.2.

To economically displaced people whose livelihoods are wage-based or dependent upon access to natural resources and where project- or operation-related restrictions on access or other impacts adversely affect livelihoods or income levels, the entity provides:
  1. Continued access to affected resources or access to alternative resources with at least equivalent livelihood-earning potential and accessibility; or
  2. Alternative income earning opportunities to restore livelihoods that are feasible and agreed to by affected people, where circumstances prevent the entity from providing land or similar resources as described above.

NOTE for 2.4.6.3:  REVISED. This was part of 2.4.5.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We incorporated aspects of original 2.4.5.2 into 2.4.6.1 and 2.4.6.2 above. Requirement 2.4.6.3 now focuses specifically on displacement of land-based or wage-based livelihoods due to land access restrictions or other project impacts.

2.4.7: Resettlement and Livelihood Restoration Agreements and Implementation

If proposed mining-related activities require the displacement of Indigenous Peoples’ communities from their traditional lands or economically displace them from pursuing their traditional livelihoods, the entity obtains the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities before proceeding with the resettlement and proposed mining-related activities (as per IRMA Chapter 2.2).

NOTE for 2.4.7.1:  This was 2.4.6.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. In the 2018 Mining Standard there was a similar requirement (2.4.6.2) that applied to non-Indigenous peoples, but we are proposing to remove because there was nothing to be evaluated that was independent of other requirements, i.e., the evaluation of the requirement was the culmination of all other requirements because the entire chapter is premised on negotiations occurring. 

Prior to negotiating with affected people, the entity provides or facilitates access to resources necessary to participate in an informed manner. This includes, at minimum:
  1. Copies of the RAP/LRP (based on results of consultations outlined in requirement 2.4.3.1);
  2. Details on what to expect at various stages of the resettlement or livelihood restoration process (e.g., when an offer will be made to them, how long they will have to respond, how to access the grievance mechanism if they wish to appeal property or asset valuations, legal procedures to be followed if negotiations fail); and
  3. Access to independent legal experts or others to ensure that affected people understand the content of any proposed agreement and associated information.

NOTE for 2.4.7.2:  REVISED. This was 2.4.6.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We will add a guidance note for 2.4.7.3.c to clarify that assistance of legal or other expert assistance must be explicitly offered to potentially affected stakeholders.

In cases where affected people reject compensation offers that meet the requirements of this chapter and where subsequent arbitration efforts fail and, as a result, expropriation or other legal procedures are initiated, the entity explores opportunities to collaborate with the responsible government agency, and, if permitted by the agency, plays an active role in resettlement planning, implementation, and monitoring to mitigate the risk of impoverishment of affected people.

NOTE for 2.4.7.3:  REVISED. This was 2.4.6.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Added language of “where subsequent arbitration efforts fail” to reflect that there are additional steps (previously left implicit) between presentation of compensation offers and expropriation.

The entity does not carry out forced evictions, defined as the permanent or temporary removal against their will of people from their homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection as outlined in this chapter.

NOTE for 2.4.7.4:  REVISED. This was 2.4.6.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard. The text of this requirement has been changed to reflect an important distinction between “forced eviction” in terms of arbitrarily or systematically removing people from lands that they either own or are occupying without due process or compensation, and the involuntary removing of people from removing people from lands that have been legally acquired through an expropriation process (dealt with in the new requirement 2.4.7.5). 

Should affected people refuse to leave the lands they own or occupy at the end of a legal expropriation process preceded by good faith negotiations that meet the requirements of this chapter, the entity only removes people from their lands in accordance with law and international best practice, meaning the entity:
  1. Provides affected people with clear and timely information on the procedures for and timing of proposed evictions;
  2. Gives adequate and reasonable notice to all affected people prior to the scheduled date of eviction;
  3. Arranges for government officials or their representatives, and any relevant local authorities, to be present during the removal;
  4. Does not carry out removals in particularly bad weather or at night unless the affected people consent otherwise;
  5. Provide information about legal remedies and where possible, legal aid to people who are in need of it to seek redress from the courts;
  6. Identifies all people carrying out the removal and ensures that they are trained on human rights and the appropriate use of force; and
  7. Establishes and trains relevant people on procedures describing appropriate actions to take in case of conflicts or violent opposition to the removals.

NOTE for 2.4.7.5:  NEW. We are proposing to add this requirement to address an absence of requirements concerning the conditions under which forced removals of project-affected people can take place (i.e., at the end of a legal expropriation process) and how those removals should occur. This requirement draws on guidance from the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  

The entity takes possession of acquired land and related assets only after full compensation has been made available and replacement housing/lands /assets and moving allowances have been provided to the displaced people, where applicable.

NOTE for 2.4.7.6:  This was 2.4.6.6 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

The entity takes steps to avoid temporary transitional resettlement. Where temporary transitional resettlement cannot be avoided, the entity ensures that:
  1. Affected people have been consulted on the implications of transitional temporary relocation and are in agreement;
  2. Transitional temporary residential structures and replacement lands meet the requirements of this chapter (i.e., housing adequate, respect for social networks and stakeholder preferences, access to basic amenities, adequate to support livelihoods including continued access to natural resources, etc.);
  3. Transitional temporary resettlement is time-bound and agreed upon with affected people; and
  4. Affected people are duly compensated for the multiple disruptions to their lives.

NOTE for 2.4.7.7:  NEW. We are proposing this addition to address a concern indicated by working group members and resettlement practitioners about the lack of attention paid to issues of temporary or multiple displacements. Temporary displacement can result from temporary land acquisition wherein an entity only requires use of/access to lands for a limited period of times (e.g., during construction due to noise impacts or risks associated with equipment transport). Temporary resettlement can also occur when entities permanently acquire lands and clear people from those lands before providing them with replacement lands/residential structures, thus requiring them to move to a transitional temporary location until their permanent location/assets are ready (hence, ‘temporary transitional resettlement’). For physically displaced people in particular, this entails a double disruption to their lives (the transitional move, and then the permanent move when replacement land/housing is available) and makes it difficult for them to reestablish social networks and build a sense of community. Therefore, best practice suggests that this should be avoided. 

PROPOSAL: For displacement taking place after 2012 and prior to the release of the updated version 2.0 of the IRMA Standard, entities can choose not to be audited against this requirement.  This ‘cutoff date ‘of 2012 because this date marks the release of the most up-to-date edition of IFC’s Sustainability Framework, including the Performance Standards (PS) on Environmental and Social Sustainability upon which many requirements in this standard these derive their content. However, in recognition that this requirement arguably goes beyond the IFC PS, we are proposing to exempt entities that conducted land acquisition prior to 2024 (i.e., the release of this standard) from meeting this requirement as it cannot be said to have been normative prior to the release of this standard.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.4A-4

Background:  Per IRMA guidance for requirement 2.4.7.6 (which was 2.4.6.6 in the 2018 Mining Standard) the IFC PS5 requires entities to pay compensation and provide affected people with replacement lands/structures prior to displacement, while recognizing that circumstances can arise in which it is not feasible to do so. However, there is little international guidance detailing how these ‘transitional’ temporary resettlements should occur. Requirement 2.4.7.7 is designed to fill this gap and ensure that the treatment of displaced people subject to transitional temporary physical resettlement is done in a manner that is consistent with the spirit of this chapter in terms of reducing vulnerability and ensuring that stakeholders are not made worse off as a result of displacement.

Question:  Do you agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed? And if so, do you have any feedback on the requirement as proposed?

All transactions to acquire land rights and all compensation discussions, measures, and resettlement activities are documented.

NOTE for 2.4.7.8:  This was 2.4.6.8 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

In the case of voluntary displacement (i.e., willing buyer-seller transactions where there is no recourse to expropriation), the entity ensures that:
  1. All land transactions are documented;
  2. Affected people are paid a fair (market) price paid;
  3. Landowners (sellers) have sufficient information about project timelines and the various options available to them (including the voluntary nature of the sale) to make an informed decision;
  4. Decisions are made free of coercion and on a timeline conducive to informed decision-making and consultation with family members/legal experts as necessary; and
  5. Informal land occupants are identified and considered in a way that is consistent with the contents of this chapter relating to involuntarily displaced people as well as the chapter on Human Rights Due Diligence (Chapter 1.3).

NOTE for 2.4.7.9:  NEW. We are proposing to add this requirement in recognition that risks in market transactions arise when there is incomplete information on behalf of the seller (e.g., as to what constitutes fair market value), inability/unwillingness of the seller to advocate for their own best interest, and/or feelings of coercion or obligation to sell (whether real or perceived). In many instances in which resettlement occurs, the ‘sellers’ are characterized by at least one of the above conditions. Moreover, inherent to the “willing buyer-seller” transaction is the idea of formal, private land ownership. This means that vulnerable households physically residing informally or without legal rights on project-affected lands could be forcibly evicted with no protections by a project subsequently seeking IRMA certification. Therefore, IRMA has added this requirement to ensure voluntary land transactions meet basic requirements for voluntarily displaced people (landowners engaged in willing buyer-seller transactions) and to identify and address involuntary displacement of vulnerable people that may occur as a result of willing buyer-seller transactions.

PROPOSAL: For voluntary displacement taking place after 2012 and prior to the release of the updated version 2.0 of the IRMA Standard, entities can choose not to be audited against this requirement. This cutoff date of 2012 because this date marks the release of the most up-to-date edition of IFC’s Sustainability Framework, including the Performance Standards (PS) on Environmental and Social Sustainability upon which these chapters are based. However, in recognition that this requirement arguably goes beyond the IFC PS, we are proposing to exempt entities that conducted land acquisition prior to the release of the updated IRMA standard from meeting this requirement as it cannot be said to have been normative prior to the release of this standard.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.4A-5

Background:  The current proposal for requirement 2.4.7.9 is that entities undertaking their land acquisition between 2012 and the release of the updated IRMA Standard can choose to be exempted from this requirement, based on the logic that regulation of voluntary land transactions goes beyond the IFC PS and therefore cannot be said to have been normative (and therefore expected of entities) beginning in 2012. 

However, one might also argue that the requirements indicated for voluntary transactions (fair market price, decisions made free of coercion, etc.) constitute norms of fair market value transactions that were normative long before 2012.

Question:  Do you agree with the proposed approach of allowing entities whose land acquisition occurred between 2012 and the release of IRMA Version 2.0 (2024) to choose to be audited (or not) against this requirement (2.4.7.9 – obligation to assess and ensure quality of “voluntary” [willing buyer-seller] transactions) as it was arguably not considered international best practice.  

Or do you believe that despite not falling under the gamut of the IFC standards (the motivation for the current ‘exemption’ clause indicated above), 2.4.7.9 reflects extant normative expectations since 2012 concerning the characteristics and outcomes of good faith free-market negotiations, and that it should therefore be applied retroactively to all voluntary land acquisition processes occurring between 2012 and the release of the updated IRMA Standard? Put differently, do you agree that entities should not be exempt from this requirement in the updated IRMA Standard, as they are from others that arguably go beyond IFC norms?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.4A-6  

Background:  The previous consultation question suggests that the conditions under which voluntary (willing buyer-seller) land transactions occur in the context of land acquisition for mining-related activities often do not meet the requirements for truly voluntary (informed, equitable, non-coerced) land transactions. 

Question:  If that is the case, should IRMA go further than the proposed 2.4.7.9 for entities undertaking land acquisition after the release of the updated IRMS Standard and require that all land acquisition be treated as “involuntary,” regardless of whether it is what the IFC deems to be involuntary (i.e., the entity has recourse to expropriation) or voluntary (willing buyer-seller)? 

This would mean that entities acquiring lands after the release of this version of the IRMA Standard would therefore be required to meet the full set of requirements in this Chapter 2.4A, including not only the outcome components (full replacement value, livelihood restoration, etc.) but also the process requirements such as creation of a transparent common compensation framework, community engagement, creation of a RAP/LRP, etc. 

2.4.8: Resettlement and Livelihood Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation

Procedures to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of a RAP/LRP are in place, and the entity takes corrective actions as necessary until the provisions of the RAP/LRP and the objectives of this chapter have been met. These procedures are designed and implemented by competent professionals with expertise and experience in monitoring and evaluation of land acquisition and resettlement.

NOTE for 2.4.8.1:  REVISED. This was 2.4.7.1 and was a critical requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above). We combined the previous 2.4.7.1 and 2.4.7.2.a to ensure that the ‘competence’ of those designing monitoring and evaluation activities was also incorporated into this critical requirement. We removed reference to ‘significant social impacts’ which was in 2.4.7.2.a, in recognition that 1) all resettlements pose a risk of significant social impacts if not done well, and therefore; 2) all resettlement monitoring and evaluation should be designed and/or implemented by competent professionals.

Monitoring and evaluation indicators will incorporate both input and outcome related criteria that are substantively and directly linked to the objectives of the RAP/LRP to restore or, ideally, improve affected people’s livelihoods and standards of living.

NOTE for 2.4.8.2:  NEW. We are proposing to add this because feedback from working group members and other resettlement experts indicated that monitoring and evaluation was too often focused on inputs rather than outcomes. An input-focused approach is not conducive to evaluating the success or impact over time of restoration measures on the lives of those impacted.

The entity reports periodically to affected people and other relevant stakeholders on progress made toward full implementation of the RAP/LRP.

NOTE for 2.4.8.3:  This was 2.4.7.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

When the entity determines that its RAP/LRP has been successfully and fully implemented, a completion audit is commissioned and undertaken to determine if the objectives of the RAP/LRP have been met. The completion audit:
  1. Is carried out by external competent professionals with expertise in livelihood restoration and/or resettlement as applicable;
  2. Includes a review of the mitigation measures implemented by the entity and a comparison of implementation outcomes against the requirements of this RAP/LRP;
  3. Clearly demonstrates that the objectives of the RAP/LRP have been successfully met (and therefore the monitoring process can be ceased); and
  4. Is made available to affected people and their advisors.

NOTE for 2.4.8.4:  This was 2.4.7.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Minor structural changes.

If the completion audit determines that the objectives of the RAP and/or LRP have not been met, a corrective action plan is developed and implemented. This plan includes concrete measures to be implemented and a timeline budget for doing so and provisions for a second completion audit that meets the requirements of 2.4.8.4 when the objectives of the correction action plan are deemed to have met the objectives of the RAP and/or LRP.

NOTE for 2.4.8.5:  NEW. We propose to add this requirement as the 2018 Standard offered guidance notes but did not explicitly include a requirement indicating obligations of entities in instances where the original completion audit determines the objectives of the RAP/LRP have not been met. This is based on guidance included in IFC PS Guidance Notes 5. Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement. Para. 15, Footnote 18.

2.4.9: Private Sector Responsibilities Under Government-Managed Resettlement

Where land acquisition and resettlement are the responsibility of the government, the entity collaborates with the responsible government agency, to the extent permitted by the agency, to identify government resettlement and compensation measures. If these measures do not meet the relevant requirements of this chapter, the entity prepares a supplemental plan that, together with the documents prepared by the responsible government agency, addresses the relevant requirements of this chapter. The entity includes in its supplemental plan, at a minimum:
  1. Identification of affected people and impacts;
  2. A description of regulated activities, including the entitlements of physically and economically displaced people provided under applicable national laws and regulations;
  3. The supplemental measures to achieve the requirements of this chapter in a manner that is permitted by the responsible agency and implementation time schedule; and
  4. The financial and implementation responsibilities of the entity in the execution of its supplemental plan.

NOTE for 2.4.9.1:  REVISED. This was a combination of 2.4.8.2 and 2.4.8.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We combined the previous 2.4.8.2 and 2.4.8.3 into this requirement reduce redundancy as both spoke to the need to collaborate with government bodies.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.4A-7 

Background:  As per IRMA Chapter 1.1, entities are not expected to violate host country law in order to meet IRMA requirements. Therefore, under both the 2018 and this proposed version of the IRMA Standard entities will only be expected to fulfill IRMA requirements to the extent that is possible within the law in situations where host country law largely controls the resettlement process. If the law is silent on aspects addressed in the IRMA chapter, then entities will be expected to advocate for their inclusion in government resettlement projects or plans, or the entity should include those provisions in their own supplemental resettlement plan. This is aligned with the IFC PS, which state that, “While government agencies are often mandated to lead resettlement efforts, experience indicates that there are generally opportunities for clients to either influence or supplement the planning, implementation and monitoring of government-led resettlement…”    

However, the auditing of this requirement as written is challenging because, if an entity applies for IRMA assessment and their land acquisition was (or will be) government-led, then the Standard as currently written asks them to attempt – to the extent possible – to meet all of the requirements in this entire chapter but only evaluates them against 2.4.9.1. This puts the full weight of the chapter onto a single requirement and does not allow the audit report to easily capture nuances such as which of the various components of this chapter the entity did or did not meet and/or where the entity failed to meet a component due to negligence/omission versus where they made a good faith effort to do so but were constrained by government regulations. 

Working group members also expressed concerns that hinging an entity’s performance on this ‘best effort’ requirement in the case of a government-led resettlement might allow entities to shift blame onto governments for poorly executed resettlements and claim ‘government restrictions’ prevented them from fair compensation and due process. Even where the entity does indeed make acceptable efforts to supplement or substitute government actions, in instances where government regulations are particularly restrictive, IRMA could end up certifying a land acquisition/resettlement process that is, in fact, deeply problematic.  

Question:  Is it common that host country laws explicitly prohibit private entities from supplementing/supporting land acquisition processes (i.e., engagement, notification timelines, etc.) and outcomes (i.e., compensation and other support) provided for by government bodies? If so, should entities be simply evaluated against the extent of their demonstrable efforts to influence government (the 2018 and proposed approach)? If not, should entities be audited against the full set of requirements of this chapter, regardless of whether it is an entity-led or government-led land acquisition/resettlement? 

Chapter 2.5: Community Emergency Preparedness and Response

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  We are proposing to rename this chapter Community Emergency Preparedness and Response. It was ‘Emergency Preparedness and Response’ in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Proposed additions and changes:

The requirements in this draft chapter take a different approach compared to the IRMA 2018 Mining Standard, which did not outline many specific requirements related to emergency response planning, but rather, expected that sites follow the UN Awareness and Preparedness for Emergencies and the Local Level (APELL) guidance for mining. The reference to that external document made it very difficult to audit, because there were not clear metrics against which all entities would be consistently measured.  

This proposed new chapter provides such metrics (unless otherwise noted, the requirements are NEW). The new requirements have been drawn from the UN APELL guidance for mining, and also UN APELL general guidance, International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 174, and the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM). [These are referenced in the requirements below]

This approach was tested in the draft IRMA Mineral Processing Standard, and feedback on that draft has helped to inform this proposed chapter.

Note, as well, that we have moved emergency preparedness and response measures that pertain to on-site accidents and unwanted events into Chapter 3.2 – ‘Occupational Health and Safety,’ as emergency preparedness and response plans for workers would often not require the engagement of outside entities (unless the accident was large enough to affect external stakeholders or, accidents within the site boundary necessitated outside resources). 

2.5.1: Identify Key Emergency Response Stakeholders and Capacity Needs

The entity identifies contractors, suppliers, public sector agencies, first responders, local authorities and institutions, and key individuals and organizations in potentially affected communities (hereafter referred to as “key stakeholders”) that should be involved in emergency preparedness and response planning for industrial accidents and unwanted events related to the project/operation.
The entity consults with key stakeholders to determine their roles and responsibilities with respect to emergency preparedness and response, and the current resources available for key stakeholders to respond to emergencies related to the project/operation.
If deficiencies in resources or weaknesses in community response capabilities are identified, the entity collaborates with key stakeholders to develop and implement a plan to build capacity and resources necessary to facilitate effective emergency preparedness and response.

2.5.2: Identify and Assess Risks and Emergency Scenarios

The entity consults with key stakeholders to compile a comprehensive list of foreseeable accidents and unwanted events related to the project/operation that could pose risks to individuals or communities (i.e., health, safety, livelihoods, local economy), cultural heritage, property, or the environment.
If there are any critical facilities that store or dispose of liquids or wastes (e.g., water dams, tailings facilities, etc.), the entity shares information on facility breach analyses and worst-case failure scenarios.

NOTE ON 2.5.2.2:   This aligns with GISTM [15.1.C]. The term critical facility was introduced in the new IRMA Chapter 4.X (see glossary at the end of this chapter for a definition).

The entity collaborates with key stakeholders to:
  1. Assess the level of risk with each potential emergency scenario based on the potential severity of consequence and probability of occurrence of each possible accident or unwanted event, including, but not limited to the potential credible failure of critical facilities;
  2. Identify and agree on key emergency scenarios to prioritize in the emergency preparedness and response plan, taking into consideration those that pose the greatest risk but also the greatest concern to communities; and
  3. Identify measures to prevent and, if that is not possible, minimize the negative consequences that could occur from all potential key emergency scenarios.

NOTE ON 2.5.2.3:   As mentioned above, the term critical facility was introduced in the new IRMA Chapter 4.X (see glossary at the end of this chapter for a definition). 2.5.2.3.a will use information generated in Chapter 4.X regarding the failure consequence classification of the critical facilities to inform the prioritization process.

The evaluation of emergency scenarios and assessment of risks are updated if there is a material change in the proposed project/operation or changes in the social, environmental or local economic context that could create new risks, or affect the probability or consequences of a potential accident or unwanted event, and emergency preparedness response plans are updated accordingly.

2.5.3: Emergency Preparedness and Response Planning

If significant risks to communities and/or the environment are identified, an emergency preparedness and response plan is developed in collaboration with key stakeholders. The plan:
  1. Includes warning stages and measures, if appropriate, and response measures to be taken in the event that industrial accidents or unwanted events occur, including immediate actions to save lives, protect vulnerable groups (e.g., children, the elderly, or people with disabilities), provide medical assistance, supply humanitarian aid, and minimize environmental harm;
  2. Includes contact information for all key stakeholders and the actions to be taken to communicate with key stakeholders during warning stages and if an industrial accident or unwanted event were to occur;
  3. Assigns actions to be taken by responsible staff (i.e., of the entity) and key stakeholders;
  4. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan; and
  5. Is publicly accessible in languages and formats that are un1derstandable to community members.

NOTE ON 2.5.3.1:  Requirement 2.5.1.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard required an emergency response plan, and that requirement was critical, so we have designated this one critical, too (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above). There was also a critical requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard to collaborate with potentially affected communities in the development of the emergency preparedness and response plans (2.5.2.1). This aspect is also integrated into the proposed 2.5.3.1.

The original requirement in the 2018 Standard has been expanded to include more details on what the plan includes. Several elements (sub-requirements a, d and e) were added to increase consistency with other management-type plans in the IRMA Standard. 

Sub-requirements 2.5.3.1.a and b align with ISO 174 (Article 9), and sub-requirement 2.5.3.1.b generally aligns with requirement 13.4 in the GISTM, although we added more specificity (e.g., that special measures be taken to protect vulnerable groups).

2.5.4: Education, Training, and Testing

Periodically, the entity undertakes public awareness raising efforts to share information about the hazards and risks related to the operation and proposed emergency response measures. Information is communicated to potentially affected stakeholders in languages and formats that are understandable to them.
If relevant, emergency-response-related communications and media training takes place for relevant spokespeople within the entity and the community.
The following exercises are performed to test emergency response plans and document lessons learned:
  1. Table top emergency response simulations occur annually or more frequently;
  2. Drills and exercises with key community stakeholders occur every two years or more frequently; and
  3. If relevant, on an annual basis or more frequently, early warning systems in communities are tested.

NOTE ON 2.5.4.3:  There was a similar requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard for testing emergency response plans (2.5.1.2).  That requirement has been expanded to include table top emergency response simulations, testing of any early warning systems, and documentation of lessons learned. 

It also includes engagement by the community in testing the plan, which was previously included in requirement 2.5.2.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Requirement 2.5.2.1 was a critical, so we have designated this one as critical too (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

2.5.5: Evaluation and Review

Emergency preparedness and response plans are evaluated annually and updated as necessary, taking into consideration:
  1. Changes in personnel and key stakeholders and/or changes in contact information;
  2. Challenges encountered or deficiencies identified during table top simulations or in-person drills;
  3. Lessons learned from actual accidents or incidents at the operation or other similar operations; and
  4. Grievances or input received from key stakeholders.
On annual basis, contact information for key stakeholders listed in the emergency response plan is reviewed and, if necessary, updated.

2.5.6: Response To and Recovery From Accidents and Unwanted Events

In the event of an actual emergency situation:
  1. Emergency preparedness and response plans are implemented including immediate actions are taken to save lives, protect vulnerable groups, provide medical assistance, supply humanitarian aid, and minimize environmental harm;
  2. When the critical elements of the situation are stabilized, the entity:
    1. Provides funding to affected people to hire independent legal and/or technical advisors;
    2. In collaboration with affected individuals and communities (hereafter “affected people”) and their advisors, assesses social, environmental and local economic impacts, and the temporal nature of the impacts (e.g., short-, medium- and long-term);
    3. In collaboration with affected people and their advisors, develops and implements an action plan to provide, as needed, restoration, reconstruction and recovery, and indicators to enable measurement of progress over time;
    4. Enables participation of affected people in the restoration, reconstruction and recovery activities;
    5. In collaboration with affected people and their advisors, develops and implements a monitoring program; and
  3. On a schedule agreed with affected peoples and their advisors, the entity reviews monitoring data and evaluates if measures in the action plan are being effectively implemented. If they are not, the entity, with collaborates with affected people and their advisors to develop and implement corrective actions; and
  4. If emergency accidents or events leads may result in temporary or permanent physical or economic displacement, the entity undertakes actions in alignment with Chapter 2.4.

NOTE ON 2.5.6.1:  NEW.  This will only be relevant in the event that an accident or unwanted event occurs that affects communities or the environment. Some of the requirements align with concepts in GISTM Principle 14, which requires engagement with stakeholders, assessment of impacts after immediate safety and survival needs have been met, working with stakeholders on reconstruction and recovery plans, including affected people in reconstruction/recovery activities, and collaborating on monitoring progress and adapting plans if necessary.

2.5.7: Public Liability Accident Insurance

Operations are covered by a public liability accident insurance policy for unplanned accidents or unwanted events. The insurance coverage remains in force for as long as the entity has legal responsibility for the site/operation.

NOTE ON 2.5.7.1:  This combines requirements 2.5.3.1, 2.5.3.2 and 2.5.3.3 from in the 2018 Mining Standard.

The intent of including an accident insurance requirement in the 2018 Standard was to require entities to obtain liability insurance in an amount sufficient to address an unplanned catastrophic accident, and the damage to people, property, livelihoods/economies and the environment that would result.

The importance of liability insurance cannot be overlooked. In January 2022, it was estimated that the compensation costs related to the Brumadinho tailings dam failure had cost the company US$3.66 billion (it is unclear what those numbers might be today). Without coverage, that amount could send a company into bankruptcy, and as a result not only might those affected by the catastrophic event not be compensated, but the interim work to stabilize and maintain the site could also be affected, creating even more risk of harm.

As written, however, 2.5.7.1 does not require entities to (1) estimate the cost of the worst-case catastrophic event that could happen at the operation, or (2) have insurance in an amount that covers the full costs of a worst-case scenario.

IRMA has now added requirements for entities to carry out “failure consequence classifications”, which involve estimating the human, economic, and environmental resources at risk if a facility were to fail (see proposed Chapter 4.X, requirement 4.X.1.7), which is informed by consultations with stakeholders (requirement 4.X.1.6).  Based on those estimates, the compensation costs associated with the worst-case catastrophic event at an operation could be calculated.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.5-1:  Should IRMA add requirements that the liability insurance needs to be in an amount sufficient to cover the costs related to the worst-case scenario for the failure of an operation’s critical facilities (i.e., sufficient compensate affected peoples and communities, and restore livelihoods/economies and the environment)? 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.5-2:  It has been suggested to IRMA that there might be other financial instruments that could be put in place others that would enable a company to cover the costs related to a major catastrophic incident. Do you know of any other financial instruments that have been used to cover the cost of major accidents/incidents? (Can you provide actual examples of alternative instruments being used?) 

Conversely, would you have any objections to expanding this requirement to include other financial instruments? If so, why?

Chapter 2.6.: Planning and Financing Reclamation and Closure

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  This chapter has gone through fairly extensive restructuring in an effort to streamline the chapter. In particular, requirements that referred to post-closure activities and financial assurance have been wrapped into the requirements that relate to closure, as there was already a lot of overlap (and some duplication). T

Proposed additions and changes:

  • Criterion 2.6.1 on Exploration Reclamation was deleted, and exploration was integrated into the requirements below, and a requirement relating to complaints was deleted (as it duplicated requirements in Chapter 1.4)
  • Criterion 2.6.5 on Post-Closure Planning and Monitoring was deleted. The requirements were moved into requirement 2.6.1.2, which lays out the details of what needs to be in the reclamation and closure plan. See sub-requirements 2.6.1.2 (j), (k) and (l).
  • Criterion 2.6.6 on Post-Closure Water Treatment was deleted, and the requirements contained within were moved to Chapter 4.2 on Water Management so that all water-related requirements could be consolidated (see 4.2.4.3, 4.2.4.4 and others). However, the calculating of costs and financial assurance for long-term water treatment are still included in Chapter 2.6 See 2.6.1.4.i and 2.6.3.1.c.
  • Criterion 2.6.7 on Post-Closure Financial Surety has been deleted. The criterion was deemed redundant because the reclamation and closure plan includes post-closure activities and the estimation of post-closure costs, and requirement 2.6.3.1 on financial assurance requires that financial assurance be in place for closure and post-closure activities.
  • And a couple of new requirements were developed from previously existing sub-requirements to ensure that adequate attention is paid to these elements during audits. In particular, see the proposed requirements on interim fluid and site management (2.6.1.2) and concurrent reclamation (2.6.1.3). And several requirements combined where there was overlap in intent. These are described in the notes below.

PARTICIPATE IN AN EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON THIS CHAPTER

If you are interested in participating in an Expert Working Group on Planning and Financing Reclamation and Closure (in particular, related to the issue of financial assurance), please contact IRMA’s Standards Director, Pierre De Pasquale (pdepasquale@responsiblemining.net).

2.6.1: Reclamation and Closure Planning

NOTE FOR 2.6.1:  The previous criterion 2.6.1 related to exploration-related reclamation in the 2018 Mining Standard has been deleted. Exploration phase requirements are included in the requirements below, where applicable.

A reclamation and closure plan is developed and implemented during exploration and operations, and a conceptual plan is developed during project development that contains, as relevant:
  1. A general statement of purpose, and description of the post-closure land and facility use objectives that, to the extent possible, align with affected communities’ preferred post-closure land and facility uses;
  2. Site location and background site characterization information;
  3. A description of the entire project/operation, including all facilities and individual site features;
  4. Earthwork, including permanent stabilization measures and final topography of the reclaimed lands;
  5. Water management:
    1. Source and pathway characterization including modeling of geochemistry and hydrology to identify the potential release of contaminants during closure;
    2. Source mitigation measures to prevent the degradation of water resources;
    3. Stormwater runoff/run-on management;
  6. Ecological restoration:
    1. Plant material selection for the preferred post-closure land use, prioritizing native species as appropriate;
    2. A defined period, no longer than 10 years after the facility is no longer is used, when all planned revegetation tasks will be completed;
    3. Quantitative revegetation standards based on analogous sites with clear measures to be implemented if these standards are not met within a specified time;
    4. Plans for control of noxious weeds and alien/non-native species;
    5. Planned activities to restore ecosystem processes, including clear objectives and indicators that will be used to demonstrate that objectives have been achieved;
  7. Polluted soil remediation;
  8. Hazardous material and hazardous waste disposal;
  9. Facility and equipment decommissioning (e.g., decontamination, demolition, disposition, clean-up and/or disposal), if not used for other purposes;
  10. Post-closure monitoring and maintenance of facilities:
    1. Inspection of surface stability (open pits) and/or underground mine workings subsidence;
    2. Monitoring and maintenance of waste facilities including effectiveness of revegetation, stormwater controls, and any cover and/or seepage capture systems; and
    3. For facilities where long-term risks have not been eliminated (e.g., some tailings facilities), mechanisms for contingency and response planning and implementation.
  11. Post-closure water management:
    1. Post-closure operation, inspection and maintenance of mitigation measures, including but not limited to, source controls and/or capture and treatment needed to prevent degradation of ground water and surface water, including measures related to pit lake and/or underground mine water quality;
    2. Post-closure water capture and treatment using treatment technology proven to be effective for similar water chemistry and under similar conditions and at a similar scale to the water that will need to be treated;
    3. Post-closure monitoring of surface waters, groundwaters, and biota, including a sufficient number of sampling sites to detect pollution from closed facilities and detect changes in water quality or ecosystem health at compliance and off-site locations;
    4. The plan includes monitoring for at least 25 years beyond the time when active mitigation ceases and water quality is no longer predicted to exceed IRMA water quality criteria;
  12. Post-closure monitoring of terrestrial resources, if necessary (e.g., to determine ongoing impacts or effectiveness of restoration efforts);
  13. Opportunities for affected communities to review the reclamation and closure plan (see 2.6.1.7); and
  14. The role of the community in post-closure monitoring and maintenance (if any); and
  15. A schedule for all activities indicated in the plan, including concurrent reclamation and closure activities (see 2.6.1.2).

NOTE FOR 2.6.1.1:  REVISED. We combined requirements 2.6.2.1 and 2.6.2.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard because 2.2.1.1 was a general statement of the need for a reclamation and closure plan with expectations that overlapped with sub-requirements in 2.6.2.2.

We are proposing that some sub-requirements that were previously in 2.6.1.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard be deleted or changed as follows:

  • The requirement now states that the various sub-elements need to be included in the reclamation and closure plan “if relevant”. As the footnote indicates, this is because certain elements may not yet be applicable for plans developed for exploration activities, or for proposed development projects. Our intention is to develop guidance on which elements may or may not be relevant for the different phases. Some ideas on guidance can be found in the draft IRMA-Ready Standard Mineral Exploration and Development (see note for 2.6.1.4 in that draft Standard).
  • 2.6.1.1.a includes language to replace a previous requirement that said the plan needed to include the “agreed-upon post-mining land use and facility use.” This has been changed to “to the extent possible” to recognize that there may be cases where government regulations may conflict with the post-closure land use vision of the community, or where the preferred land uses are not practicable, would compromise reclamation and closure objectives or create safety issues. However, we are requiring that there needs to be evidence that entities have consulted with communities to understand the community’s preferred uses for the site post-closure, if appropriate, and that the entity includes these preferences in their plans to the extent possible. Consultations would not be appropriate when host-country laws are in place that designate or decree the post-closure end uses. As noted in the footnote, such consultation should have happened as part of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment process (See Chapter 2.1, requirement 2.1.3.1.h) but if not, the consultation would need to occur and be integrated into the plan, to fully meet this requirement.
  • A sub-requirement related to interim operations and maintenance actions has been moved to 2.6.1.3.
  • We are proposing to add control of alien/non-native species to sub-requirement 2.6.1.1.f.iv, as it has been identified as a gap by IRMA stakeholders. We are proposing the following definition:

Alien/Non-Native Species:
Animals, plants or other organisms introduced by humans, either intentionally or accidentally, into areas outside their natural range. Some of these species become established and negatively impact native biodiversity. These species are classified as invasive alien species. (Source: IUCN. https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/invasive-alien-species-and-sustainable-development)

  • 2.6.1.1.f.v – changed wording from “restore natural habitats” to “restore ecosystem processes” because our definition of natural habitats suggests that they are habitats that have not been modified by human activity. Also added that there be indicators so that the entity (and stakeholders) understands what needs to happen for ecosystem processes to be restored. This is similar to the requirement for quantitative revegetation standards in g.ii. 
  • 2.6.1.1.g – NEW. Added this because soil remediation may be needed due to deposition of airborne contaminants, or it may be required when facilities are demolished and removed.
  • 2.6.1.1.i – changed wording from facility demolition and disposal to “facility and equipment decontamination, demolition, disposition and disposal.” Disposition was added because some of the materials may be able to be used for other purposes, rather than being disposed of. 
  • 2.6.1.1.j and 2.6.1.1.k – more detail has been added regarding what information on post-closure plans need to be included. These expectations were previously in 2.6.5.1, 2.6.5.2, 2.6.5.3 and 2.6.5.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard.
  • 2.6.1.1.l is NEW. It has been added because if some indicators of ecosystem health or the success of restoration measures require monitoring beyond closure, those elements need to be included in the reclamation and closure plan.
Concurrent reclamation is carried out as follows:
  1. The following activities are implemented on a concurrent or progressive basis, or a rationale is documented for why they are not practicable:
    1. Topsoil salvage to the maximum extent practicable, and topsoil storage in a manner that preserves its capability to support plant regeneration;
    2. Concurrent or progressive geotechnical stabilization of site features and waste sites;
    3. Control of noxious weeds and alien/non-native species;
    4. Revegetation, prioritizing use of native/local species as appropriate; and
  2. Actions are assigned to responsible staff.

NOTE FOR 2.6.1.2:  NEW. We are proposing to create this standalone requirement from the previous sub-requirement 2.6.2.2.i in the 2018 Mining Standard, which required that the reclamation and closure plan include plans for concurrent or progressive reclamation and revegetation. 

While many elements in the reclamation and closure plan cannot be undertaken until closure, this requirement pulls out the actions that can be done concurrently, and can be verified by auditors while on site.

We have added to 2.6.1.2.a.iv that native species be prioritized “as appropriate. This is in recognition that while preference should be given to native species, sometimes there may be value in the short-term use of non-native species.”

Our proposed definition of concurrent reclamation is:
A reclamation activity that is undertaken at the same time as mining and/or mineral processing activities, prior to the end of the operation’s life, that contributes to the final reclamation and closure goals, and the post-closure land use objectives. Also may be referred to as ‘progressive reclamation’ or ‘contemporaneous reclamation’.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.6-1:  Do you agree with the addition of this requirement? Are there other activities you would suggest be included in the list of concurrent reclamation activities that can be commenced/undertaken during the operations phase?

An interim fluid and site management plan (or equivalent) is documented, and it is implemented if operations at a mine/mineral processing site are suspended or unexpectedly cease. The plan includes, at minimum:
  1. Information on how process water systems, interceptor wells, seepage collection systems and stormwater management systems would be operated and maintained to prevent releases and continue to meet environmental compliance obligations;
  2. Process water flow charts showing electrical system requirements, pump operations, seepage collection and interceptor well operations, and applicable operation and maintenance requirements;
  3. Information on site management including:
    1. Measures to stabilize excavations and workings;
    2. Measures to isolate or control toxic or hazardous materials;
    3. Provisions for the storage or removal of equipment, supplies and structures;
    4. Measures to maintain the site in a secure, safe and clean condition;
  4. Provisions to monitor fluid and site conditions during periods of non-operation;
  5. A schedule of anticipated periods of temporary closure during which the interim fluid and site management plan will be implemented, including provisions for notifying regulators of unplanned or extended temporary closures; and
  6. The plan is updated as necessary, including when major process water system changes occur that would affect the interim actions necessary to prevent fluid releases.

NOTE FOR 2.6.1.3:  NEW. The concept of interim fluid and site management (also sometimes referred to as “care and maintenance”) was included as 2.6.2.2.h in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

Our proposed definition for interim fluid and site management is:
The management of process fluids and associated facilities and management of the site to ensure it remains in a safe and stable condition during unanticipated periods of temporary closure such as a suspension of operations, and for periods of anticipated seasonal closure where there is potential to recommence operations in the future. Also may be referred to as ‘care and maintenance’.

An interim fluid and site management plan is important to have in place due to the potential impacts on water and safety if an operation were to be unexpectedly suspended/cease operating. The Covid-19 pandemic was accompanied by temporary shut-downs, but other events such extreme weather and, more generally, the cyclical nature of mineral/metal commodity prices can also result in suspension or unexpected cessation of mining and mineral processing operations.

We are proposing to create this more detailed standalone requirement to more clearly specify expectations, and ensure that interim measures do not get overlooked in the auditing of 2.6.1.1. The provisions themselves do not need to be in a standalone plan (they can be integrated into the reclamation and closure plan), but they will be reported on and scored separately.

The reclamation and closure plan(s) includes a detailed determination of the estimated concurrent and final reclamation and closure and post-closure costs, based on the assumption that reclamation and closure will be carried out by a regulatory agency using a third-party contractor, and include, at minimum:
  1. Earthwork (see 2.6.1.1.d.);
  2. Source mitigation measures to prevent the degradation of water resources (see 2.6.1.1.e);
  3. Stormwater runoff/run-on management (see 2.6.1.1.e);
  4. Costs to carry out revegetation and ecological restoration efforts until areas can be demonstrated to be meeting revegetation standards and indicators of restoration of ecosystem functionality (see 2.6.1.1.f.);
  5. Polluted soil remediation (see 2.6.1.1.g.)
  6. Disposal of hazardous materials and wastes (see 2.6.1.1.h.);
  7. Facility and equipment decontamination, demolition, disposition and disposal (see 2.6.1.1.i.);
  8. Holding costs for interim fluid and site management (see 2.6.1.3) that would be incurred by a regulatory agency if the entity were to declare bankruptcy. These costs are calculated based on the assumption that there would be a two-year period before final reclamation activities would begin;
  9. Post-closure water management, including, as relevant:
    1. If water treatment is required post-closure, the water treatment cost component is calculated conservatively, using an appropriate discount rate and for a period of at least 100-years (see 2.6.3.3);
    2. Estimated costs for long-term surface and groundwater monitoring and biotic monitoring, at a sufficient number of sites to detect changes in water quality and aquatic ecosystem health for at least 25 years beyond the time when IRMA water quality criteria (or other applicable criteria) are predicted to be exceeded; and
    3. Operation and maintenance costs for water management and treatment (including treatment plant waste disposal, or ongoing measures related to pit lake water quality, etc.);
  10. Indirect Costs:
    1. Mobilization/demobilization;
    2. Engineering redesign, procurement and construction management;
    3. Contractor overhead and profit;
    4. Agency administration; and
    5. Contingency; and
  11. The estimated costs take into account inflation, and include a multi-year cost inflation that corresponds to the number of years until the reclamation and closure plan and costs are next scheduled to be reviewed (see 2.6.1.6).

NOTE FOR 2.6.1.4:  REVISED. This was 2.6.2.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Some proposed change include:

  • Added more detail in 2.6.1.4.i, which previously referred only to post-closure costs for long-term water treatment.  We moved expectations from 2.6.7.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard here, because they related to calculation of post-closure costs and are more relevant here.

In 2.6.1.4.i.iii, we added a reference to pit lake water quality. This is to integrate costs related to requirement 2.6.5.4 from the 2018 Mining Standard (now 2.6.1.1.k.i), which refers to providing adequate measures to protect organisms and the environment if pit lakes have poor quality.

Reclamation and closure costs are calculated by professional engineers using a credible method (i.e., a credible engineering cost estimate method) or the costs are reviewed by a third-party competent professional.

NOTE FOR 2.6.1.5:  NEW. There was no requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard to either use competent professionals or credible methods for calculating costs associated with reclamation and closure. We are proposing that the calculation of these costs requires experience and familiarity with reclamation and closure costs from other sites to ensure that the estimated costs are realistic and credible. If this is not done, then they must be reviewed by someone who is a competent professional.

The entity reviews and updates reclamation and closure plan(s) and estimated costs at least every five years or more often (e.g., if there is a proposed major modification, or a change in conditions such as a post-closure water quality issue not predicted or accounted for in the existing plan).

NOTE FOR 2.6.1.6:  REVISED. This was 2.6.2.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Replaced financial assurance with estimated closure costs, as the financial assurance is covered in 2.6.3.1.

Added that the concurrent or progressive reclamation plan also be updated. The requirement to share a concurrent or progressive reclamation progress report, which used to be part of this requirement, was moved to 2.6.4.1.c.

If not otherwise provided for through a regulatory process:
  1. For proposed mineral development projects, the entity:
    1. Provides stakeholders with at least 60 days to comment on the proposed reclamation and closure plan prior to the commencement of the construction of a mine or mineral processing facility the entity; and
    2. Offers resources to affected communities for capacity building and training to enable meaningful stakeholder engagement;
  2. During operations, the entity:
    1. Provides stakeholders with the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the reclamation and closure plans (including the interim fluid and site management plan and the concurrent reclamation plan) and updates, and the implementation of concurrent reclamation activities;
    2. Provides stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on the form and adequacy of the financial assurance; and
    3. Offers resources to affected communities for capacity building and training to enable meaningful stakeholder engagement;
  3. Prior to completing the final reclamation and closure plan the entity:
    1. Provides stakeholders with at least 60 days to comment on the final reclamation and closure plan and adequacy of the financial assurance;
    2. Offers resources to affected communities for capacity building and training to enable meaningful stakeholder engagement; and
    3. Provides affected communities and interested stakeholders with the opportunity to propose independent experts to provide input to the entity on the design and implementation of the plan and adequacy of financial assurance; and
  4. Prior to release of part or all of the financial assurance communities and/or their independent experts have the opportunity to provide input on the adequacy of the completion of reclamation and closure activities.

NOTE FOR 2.6.1.7:  REVISED. Most of the elements in this requirement were previously in 2.6.2.5, 2.6.4.5 and 2.6.4.6 in the 2018 Mining Standard. A few words changed (e.g., added mineral processing and changed from financial surety to financial assurance). 

The various expectations have been separated out by phase of development (e.g., project development, operations, and prior to the finalization of the reclamation and closure plan when the operation is close to closure), to try to make it clear that depending on the phase of mineral development some of the sub-requirements may not be relevant. Note that the original requirement in the 2018 Standard only required access to independent experts prior to completion of the final reclamation and closure plan, and so that element is only included in 2.6.1.8.c. Note, also that we are proposing that the resources for capacity building are provided to stakeholders from affected communities, not all stakeholders, as those living in affected communities are the ones who have the most to gain (or lose) if reclamation is or is not done well.

2.6.1.7.b is NEW. We are proposing that there be opportunities to provide feedback on the implementation of concurrent reclamation that occurs during operations, as well as the interim fluid and site management plan, and the form and adequacy of the financial assurance. In the 2018 Mining Standard there was a long lag time between when stakeholders would have the opportunity to provide feedback (once prior to construction and once just prior to the beginning of final reclamation and closure). Due to the long life cycle of most operations, we are proposing that these opportunities be provided more frequently. We have tied the frequency to the frequency of the updates in the plan.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.6-2:  Do you agree that stakeholders should be provided with the opportunity to provide input on reclamation, and reclamation and closure plans, throughout the operation’s life cycle?  If so, does it make sense to tie this opportunity to when the plans are updated?

2.6.2: Backfilling as a Part of Reclamation

NOTE FOR 2.6.2:  This was criterion 2.6.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Open surface features such as trenches and pits used for drilling mud, bulk sampling or geotechnical sampling are completely backfilled and regraded to original contours, or to contours that are compatible with the post-closure land use objectives (see 2.6.1.2.d).

NOTE FOR 2.6.2.1:  NEW. A similar requirement was proposed in the draft IRMA Ready Standard for Exploration and Development. We are proposing to add it here, given that this proposed new standard covers the exploration phase. 

For projects/operations with open pit mining operations the reclamation and closure plan includes the partial or complete backfilling of open pits if:
  1. A pit lake is predicted to exceed the water quality criteria in IRMA Chapter 4.2; and
  2. The entity and key stakeholders have agreed that backfilling would have socioeconomic and environmental benefits; and
  3. It is economically viable.

NOTE FOR 2.6.2.2:  This was requirement 2.6.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Updated language to distinguish these open pits from the pits in 2.6.2.1.

For projects/operations with underground exploration features or underground mining operations the reclamation and closure plan includes backfilling of voids to the extent practicable if:
  1. Subsidence is predicted to affect lands not owned by the entity; and
  2. The mining method allows.

NOTE FOR 2.6.2.3:  This was requirement 2.6.3.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Updated language to incorporate exploration features.

2.6.3: Financial Assurance

NOTE FOR 2.6.3:  This was criterion 2.6.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. The criterion title was changed from ‘Financial Surety for Mine Closure’ to ‘Financial Assurance.’ We selected the term financial assurance as being a more generic and applicable term because surety bonds are just one form of financial assurance. 

The proposed definition of Financial Assurance is:
A financial mechanism or instrument to ensure that funds are available for a regulatory authority (or functional equivalent) to ensure that the required reclamation, decommissioning, monitoring, cleanup or other activities at a specific facility or site are undertaken if the responsible entity is unable or unwilling to perform the required actions contained in the reclamation and closure plan. Acceptable mechanisms or instruments for financial assurance are limited to forms of cash (commercial deposits, trusts), irrevocable letters of credit from an established bank, surety bonds and insurance policies from bonded insurers, and trust funds.

Also, the following changes to this criterion are being proposed:

  • We deleted a requirement that said “self-bonding and corporate guarantees shall not be used” (requirement 2.6.4.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard), because it was duplicative, in intent, with another requirement that says, financial assurance needs to be “independently guaranteed, reliable and readily liquid” (requirement 2.6.3.1.b in this proposed standard). As seen in the definition, under this rubric, acceptable mechanisms or instruments for financial assurance are limited to forms of cash (commercial deposits, trusts), irrevocable letters of credit from an established bank, surety bonds and insurance policies from bonded insurers, and trust funds.
  • We deleted a requirement that the terms of the financial assurance must guarantee that the financial assurance is not released until the site is stable and public comment is taken (2.6.4.6 in the 2018 Mining Standard) because it duplicates other requirements. For example, the reclamation and closure plan includes the planned site stabilization expectations, and 2.6.3.1, below, says that financial assurance needs to be in place to cover those activities (so if the stabilization activities are not yet completed the financial assurance would not be released). Public comment on financial assurance is covered in 2.6.1.8.d.
Financial assurance is:
  1. In place throughout the project/operation life cycle;
  2. Independently guaranteed, reliable, and readily liquid; and
  3. Sufficient to cover the costs of interim fluid and site management, reclamation (including concurrent reclamation), closure and post-closure activities estimated in the most current reclamation and closure plan.

NOTE FOR 2.6.3.1:  REVISED. This combines requirements 2.6.4.1 and 2.6.4.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

Also, language in this requirement has been revised to make it clear that the amount of financial assurance needs to match the most current reclamation and closure plan (which contains the most up-to-date cost estimates). In the 2018 Mining Standard there was a requirement with a similar intent that said that financial assurance needed to be “Sufficient to cover the reclamation and closure expenses for the period until the next financial surety review is completed,” but we think the proposed language is clearer.  

CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

Background:  The rationale behind financial assurance is to ensure that sufficient funds are available to  guarantee that sites will be decommissioned and disturbed areas and affected resources will be restored, remediated and/or reclaimed to an acceptable and stable condition. If the entity successfully completes reclamation and closure according to the requirements of the reclamation and closure plan, the funds are released back to them. If the entity fails to reclaim the site as planned, and all means are exhausted to compel the company to reclaim the site, then the funds are forfeited and used to reclaim the land, typically under the supervision of a regulatory authority.

There are some jurisdictions, however, where the regulatory system does not require financial assurance for mining-related operations, or governments may not have the capacity to implement effective reclamation and closure or administration of activities. Without a regulatory agency willing and/or able to step in to oversee or carry out the reclamation and closure, it is not clear how any of the financial assurance instruments such as surety bonds or trust funds would work, as there needs to be a third-party beneficiary, which is typically a government entity (the party responsible for receiving and administering the funds). Mining is occurring and is likely to continue to occur in these jurisdictions, and so IRMA is grappling with what would be considered “best practice” financial assurance expectations for mines in those locations.

Our proposed definition of Financial Assurance describes it as “A financial mechanism or instrument to ensure that funds are available for a regulatory authority (or functional equivalent) to ensure that the required  reclamation, decommissioning, monitoring, cleanup or other activities at a specific facility or site are undertaken. . .”

A ‘functional equivalent’ would have to address all aspects attributable to a regulatory authority including having governmental permission to undertake the work, a duty or at least a commitment to carry out the work in accordance with host country laws and in the public interest, etc.  IRMA is open to any examples of how this might work.

This has been a topic of an IRMA working group, and no resolution has yet emerged that has satisfied all of the various stakeholder groups. IRMA is seeking input on these issues and offers these questions to support a range of input. Commenters may offer insights on these questions or suggest any other proposals to address these issues: 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.6-3

Note: This question has been asked specifically by NGO Sector leaders concerned with transparency of risks where mining operations lack government-supported financial systems.

Question:  Should IRMA leave the requirement 2.6.4.3 from the 2018 Standard unchanged (i.e., “Self-bonding or corporate guarantees shall not be used”)? In that case, if self-bonding is used, the most the entity can score on this requirement would be “partially meets” (and that would only happen if the site fully meets sub-requirement b). Or are there other ways to sufficiently highlight the financial risk of not having government-supported financial assurance in place?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.6-4:  Should IRMA add that that self-bonds or corporate guarantees are not used “unless there is no other option available,” and create some requirements that evaluate the credibility of any self-bond or corporate guarantee, so that stakeholders are provided with some information on the likelihood that funds would be available to cover the cost of reclamation and closure either at the end of the operation’s life or if the entity were to go bankrupt prior to the planned closure date. There are existing approaches such as ‘balance sheet tests,’ which require periodic verification of compliance with financial health criteria.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.6-5:  Are there realistic options for “Independently guaranteed, reliable, and readily liquid” that do not specifically require a government body to oversee financial management and reclamation execution?  What are those options and how have then been implemented to date in practical terms? Are there examples of success? challenges?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.6-6

Note: this question has been asked specifically by Mining Sector leaders seeking solutions where government supported systems are not in place or may not be sufficiently robust.

Question: Should IRMA consider provision of guarantees by corporates of sufficient creditworthiness that have secured an independently assessed “investment grade” credit rating by one of the recognized credit ratings agencies? What are the benefits and shortcomings of this approach?

PARTICIPATE IN AN EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON THIS CHAPTER

If you are interested in participating in an Expert Working Group on Planning and Financing Reclamation and Closure (in particular, related to the issue of financial assurance), please contact IRMA’s Standards Director, Pierre De Pasquale (pdepasquale@responsiblemining.net

Conservative assumptions are used to calculate long-term Net Present Value (NPV) calculations of any financial assurance as follows:
  1. Calculations use a net discount rate of 3% or less, unless the entity holding the financial assurance can document that a higher long-term net discount rate can be achieved; and
  2. NPV calculation are carried out until the difference in the NPV between the last two years in the calculations is US $10.00 or less (or its equivalent in other currencies).

NOTE FOR 2.6.3.2:  This was requirement 2.6.7.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Changed language from financial surety to financial assurance.

2.6.4: Disclosure

NOTE FOR 2.6.4:  NEW. This criterion has been added to make this chapter more consistent with the format of other chapters. The 2018 Mining Standard only mentioned taking practicable steps to minimize the volume of polluted water to be treated. We added here that companies need to demonstrate that they have and action plan and funding in place to fulfill that commitment.

The following information is publicly available, or a publicly available access to information (or equivalent) policy that commits the entity to providing stakeholders with this information upon request is in place and shared with stakeholders:
  1. The most recent version of the final reclamation and closure plan;
  2. The most recent version of the interim fluid and site management plan;
  3. Concurrent reclamation progress reports;
  4. Information on the form and terms of financial assurance (confidential information may be withheld with adequate rationale); and
  5. The results of financial assurance reviews (confidential information may be withheld with adequate rationale).

NOTE FOR 2.6.4.1:  REVISED. We have retained the option that information can be proactively made public, or it can be provided to stakeholders upon request (both options were in the original requirement).  Note that we refer to an access to information policy (or equivalent). That change is related to a proposed requirement in Chapter 1.2 (see explanation in Chapter 1.2, Note for requirement 1.2.4.3).

Sub-requirements 2.6.4.1 (a) and (b) align with 2.6.2.6, sub-requirement (d) aligns with 2.6.2.4 and sub-requirement (e) aligns with 2.6.4.4 from the 2018 Mining Standard.

NEW elements include: 

  • The disclosure of tailings-specific information in 2.6.4.1.c, added to align with proposed 2.6.1.5.
  • Disclosing the form and terms of any financial assurance in 2.6.4.1.e. Requirement 2.6.4.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard (now incorporated in 2.6.1.6) required companies to provide stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of financial assurance. This proposed requirement provides stakeholders with information on which to base such comments.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.6-7:  Sub-requirements 2.6.4.1.d and 2.6.4.1.e allow for the withholding of confidential information (similar to 2.6.4.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard). We are wondering, however, if such a caveat is necessary. Do you believe that there is any information relating to financial assurance that should be considered confidential business information? If so, we would appreciate examples, so that we can consider adding them in our guidance.

Chapter 3.1: Fair Labor and Terms of Work

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  This chapter has structural changes, as well as several additions and deletions.

Proposed additions and changes:

  • There has been reorganization of some requirements (3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2) to distinguish between things that we expect all entities to do or have done, and things we expect would be written in a policy stating how the entity would behave if a certain situation that had never arisen were to arise (e.g., a legal strike). Absent this ‘policy’ focus, if the circumstance had never arisen at a site, there was nothing to audit and marking these requirements as ‘not relevant’ did nothing to encourage/ensure good practices (e.g., non-interference in legal strikes) amongst entities.
  • We added nuance to existing requirements, for example adding explicit reference to ‘equal pay for equal work’ under the non-discrimination section (requirement 3.1.2.1), adding additional requirements for retrenchment planning (3.1.4.1), requiring entities to prioritize the most severe grievances, to actively inform stakeholders that using the grievance mechanism does not preclude use of other mechanisms, and to explicitly inform workers of their options for external recourse (beyond the grievance process) (3.1.5.1), requiring that entities utilize an internationally recognized methodology to calculate living wages (3.1.9.1), and strengthening or supplementing requirements related to benefits and working conditions across several requirements in criterion 3.1.9 and 3.1.10.
  • We are proposing written policies in several areas where it was not sufficiently clear before (i.e., 3.1.7.1. on child labor). For the criteria on child labor and forced labor, we removed guidance that entities should shift their supply chain over time if use of child/forced labor persisted and instead specified that entities should take responsibility for ensuring such situations are remedied (3.1.7.5 and 3.1.8.3). We added requirements obligating entities to conduct risk assessments for child labor (3.1.7.4) and forced labor (3.1.8.2), as previously this was not an explicit requirement under this chapter (rather the obligation was under Chapter 1.3 on human rights).
  • We are proposing a new anti-harassment criterion (3.1.3) as previously this was only mentioned in terms of disciplinary actions and treatment of women but did not address relations between all workers.
  • We added requirements relating to training of employees or supervisors on various policies/procedures (i.e., 3.1.2.2 on non-discrimination, 3.1.3.2 on anti-harassment, 3.1.5.5 on grievance/whistleblowing mechanisms, 3.1.6.4 on disciplinary actions) and obligations of the entity to socialize policies/procedures where a requirement to do so didn’t previously exist (i.e., 3.1.6.3 on disciplinary actions).
  • We added reference to a whistleblower mechanism and changed the name of criterion 3.1.5 from ‘Grievance Mechanisms’ to ‘Worker Grievance and Whistleblower Mechanisms’ to reflect the inclusion of an explicit whistleblower requirement (3.1.5.2) and to more clearly distinguish between the worker grievance mechanism covered primarily in this chapter, and the stakeholder grievance mechanism that is the subject of Chapter 1.4. We also introduced additional requirements relating to the worker grievance mechanism (e.g., 3.1.5.6) drawing on similar sub-requirements for the stakeholder grievance mechanism in Chapter 1.4.
  • Finally, we added new requirements to the sections on wages and benefits (3.1.9), and working hours (3.1.10) that require entities to document wages, benefits, and deductions (3.1.9.8) as well as hours worked (3.1.10.5), and meet sub-requirements relating to workers’ living accommodations (3.1.9.9) and break times (3.1.10.4).

NOTE ON SCOPE OF APPLICATION: This proposed version of the IRMA Standard is meant to apply to exploration, mining, and mineral processing projects and operations (see definitions of project and operation), but not all requirements will be relevant in all cases. We have provided some high-level information below, but the IRMA Secretariat will produce a detailed Scope of Application for each chapter that will indicate relevancy on a requirement-by-requirement basis (and will provide some normative language where the expectations may slightly differ for proposed projects versus operations, or for mining versus mineral processing, etc.).

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-1

Background: Throughout Chapter 3.1, reference is made to 'workers' as a general category, with equivalent obligations relating to contractors being derived implicitly in Chapter 1.1 (requirement 1.1.3.1), which obligates entities to ensure that contractors meet IRMA requirements that are relevant to them.

In some of the requirements below, we specifically mention contractors. Where contractors are mentioned, it is the entity’s responsibility to carry out an action (e.g., ensuring that contractors are informed of the entity’s policy, or undertaking and assessment of risks related to contractors, etc.).

Where contractors are not explicitly mentioned, then as per Chapter 1.1 it would be expected that contractors themselves have systems in place to meet the IRMA requirements. For example, a contractor that has its own direct employees who are working at a mine/mineral processing site (or a broker that hires out contracted workers to the entity) would be expected to be paying fair wages and benefits. The entity’s responsibility in such cases would be carrying out some monitoring to make sure that is happening.

Question: Are there any requirements in this chapter that are not currently the entity’s responsibility that you believe should be (for example, should the entity have a grievance mechanism for contractors, or should it be the responsibility of the contractor to provide such a mechanism for its subcontractors/employees who are working at the project/operation)?

Conversely, are there any requirements in Chapter 3.1 that you believe should not be applied to or expected of contractors?

3.1.1: Respect for Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining

NOTE FOR 3.1.1:  In the 2018 Mining Standard, criterion 3.1.1. was called ‘Human Resources Policy’ – the requirement in this criterion (3.1.1.1) asked for a human resources policy that aligned with the terms of this chapter. In the proposed update to the Standard this is redundant as we now ask for policies for specific subject areas throughout. Therefore, both the criterion and requirement have been removed. 

In the 2018 Mining Standard, the equivalent criterion to the current 3.1.1 was called ‘Workers Organization and Agreements.’ In that version of the standard, the various elements in 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2 are found in a number of individual requirements. Because these elements are all associated with freedom of association or collective bargaining in good faith, we have combined them to act as indicators that companies are, indeed, respecting these rights. In the 2018 Mining Standard, the requirement to respect freedom of association and collective bargaining was a critical requirement, so we have made both 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.2 critical requirements in this proposed Standard (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

The entity respects the rights of workers to freedom of association by:
  1. Informing workers of:
    1. Their right to freedom of association under national labor and employment law (if relevant); and
    2. That they are free to join (or refrain from joining) a workers’ organization of their choosing without any negative consequences or retaliation from the entity;
  2. Providing workers’ representatives with access to facilities needed to carry out their functions in the workplace, including provision of access to designated non-work areas during organizing efforts for the purposes of communicating with workers, and provision of accommodations for workers’ representatives at sites, where relevant;
  3. Developing and implementing a policy on freedom of association (or equivalent) that includes commitments to:
    1. Remain neutral in any legitimate unionizing or worker-organizing effort;
    2. Not produce or distribute material that disparages legitimate trade unions; and
    3. Not establish or support a “company union” that has the effect of undermining legitimate worker representation; and
  4. Where national law substantially restricts workers’ organizations, allowing workers to develop alternative mechanisms to express their grievances and protect their rights regarding working conditions and terms of employment, and not attempting to influence or control these mechanisms.

NOTE FOR 3.1.1.1:  REVISED. This requirement draws on requirements 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.2.5, and components of 3.1.2.6 from the 2018 Mining Standard.

In 3.1.1.1.a.ii, we clarified that workers must be free to join or not join a workers’ organization, in recognition that there may be pressure at some sites to join an organization where workers would otherwise choose not to do so. 

We re-organized 3.1.1.1 to distinguish between those points we expect would be written in a policy (e.g., how the entity would behave in during an organizing effort or in the event of a legal strike, even if neither has not occurred) and those that are actions we expect all entities to have taken. In the 2018 Mining Standard there are a number of requirements – including this one – that are difficult to audit as written, because if the entity tells auditors, for example, that there have not been any efforts to organize at the operation then the auditor has two choices – mark as ‘fully meets’ the requirement that the entity remains neutral during worker organization efforts (which is not accurate, since the entity can provide no evidence of this beyond perhaps a verbal guarantee that if organizing were to occur that the entity would remain neutral) or mark it as not relevant (which is more accurate, but is problematic because IRMA is trying to promote this best practice, and while there may not have been an organizing effort in the past one could happen). Requiring entities to make policy commitments to remain neutral during organization efforts demonstrates a respect for and intention to uphold the practice).

The entity demonstrates respect for the rights of workers to collective bargaining by:
  1. During worker induction:
    1. Informing workers of their right to collective bargaining under national labor and employment law, if relevant;
    2. Informing workers of their rights under an applicable collective bargaining agreement (CBA), if relevant; and
    3. Providing workers with a copy of the CBA and the contact information for the appropriate trade union (or workers’ organization) representative, if relevant;
  2. Negotiating in good faith with workers’ representatives and workers’ organizations and providing them with information needed for meaningful negotiation in a timely manner; and
  3. Developing and implementing a policy on collective bargaining (or equivalent) that includes commitments to:
    1. Respect the terms and agreements of CBAs;
    2. Not use short-term contracts or other measures to undermine a CBA or avoid or reduce obligations to workers under applicable labor and social security laws and regulations;
    3. Not impose sanctions on workers, workers’ representatives or workers’ organizations participating in a legal strike; and
    4. Not hire replacement workers in order to prevent, undermine or break up a legal strike, support a lockout, or avoid negotiating in good faith. The entity may, however, hire replacement workers to ensure that critical maintenance, health and safety, and environmental control measures are maintained during a legal strike.

NOTE FOR 3.1.1.2:  This requirement draws on requirements 3.1.2.3, 3.1.2.6, 3.1.2.7, 3.1.2.9, and 3.1.2.10 from the 2018 Mining Standard.

In the 2018 Mining Standard there are a number of requirements – including this one – that are difficult to audit as written, because if the entity tells auditors, for example, that they do not hire replacement workers to undermine a legal strike but there has never been a legal strike at the site, then the auditor has two choices – mark as ‘fully meets’ the requirement that the entity does not hire short term workers to undermine a legal strike (which is not accurate, since the entity can provide no evidence of this beyond perhaps a verbal guarantee that if a legal strike were to occur that the entity would not hire short term workers) or mark it as not relevant (which is more accurate, but is problematic because IRMA is trying to promote this best practice, and while there may not have been a legal strike in the past one could happen). Requiring entities to explicitly make policy commitments to remain neutral during organization efforts demonstrates a respect for and intention to uphold the practice.

We therefore re-organized 3.1.1.2. to distinguish between those points that we expect would be written in a policy (i.e., what an entity would do in the event of a legal strike, for example, which may or may not have occurred) (see 3.1.2.2.d) and those that are actions we expect all entities to take or have taken.

We also added a guidance note (currently footnote #3) that clarifies the conditions under which short-term contracts may constitute a violation of sub-requirement 3.1.2.2.d.iv.

3.1.2: Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity

NOTE FOR 3.1.2:  This was criterion 3.1.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

The entity develops and implements a policy on non-discrimination and equal opportunity (or equivalent) that:
  1. States that discrimination in the workplace is not acceptable;
  2. States that employment relationships are based on the principles of equal opportunity, fair treatment, equal pay for equal work, and non-discrimination, and that employment decisions are not based on personal characteristics that are unrelated to inherent job requirements;
  3. Only includes exceptions with respect to hiring and recruitment in the case of:
    1. Targets or quotas mandated by law; or
    2. Entity targets for the employment of local residents, Indigenous Peoples, or individuals who have been historically disadvantaged, if there are explicit goals and justification for such targets.
  4. Is communicated to all employees (e.g., managers, supervisors, workers) and contractors.

NOTE FOR 3.1.2.1:  REVISED. This was requirement 3.1.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We combined previous requirements 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.2, the latter which provided the exceptions to 3.1.3.1 as these should be audited and scored as one requirement.

We added sub-requirements (a) and (d) – similar requirements are found in the RBA/RMI ESG Standard for Mineral Supply Chains. 

We added in the concept of ‘equal pay for equal work’ to sub-requirement (b) as an objective indicator of the success of the entity’s efforts to ensure non-discrimination. While often used in relation to gender disparities in remuneration, we will include guidance that auditors are to ensure equal pay for equal work across a number of categories (see footnote 289). Insofar as it relates to gender, it is important to note that this criterion is complementary to a new proposed chapter on Gender Equality and Gender Protections, which contains additional requirements relating to gender in the workplace. If this proposed chapter is not approved for inclusion as a stand-alone chapter in Version 2.0 of the IRMA Standard, we will assess which requirements, if any, from that chapter should be incorporated into this chapter (3.1).

We removed 3.1.3.3 of the 2018 Mining Standard, “The operating company shall take measures to prevent and address harassment, intimidation, and/or exploitation, especially in regard to female workers”, as we now have an anti-harassment policy criterion below that fulfills this intent (3.1.3). 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-2:  Other standards have included requirements aimed at ensuring gender-based discrimination, such as not requiring women to undergo pregnancy or virginity tests as a condition of employment. IRMA currently proposes to include this as guidance notes for 3.1.2.1 above, i.e., as something that auditors should investigate as something that may be indicative of discriminatory practices. Are there other similar discriminatory recruitment/hiring practices you have experienced or seen that we should be including in this guidance? 

All employees (e.g., managers, supervisors, workers) and contractors are trained on the above policies and procedures as appropriate to their role.

NOTE FOR 3.1.2.2:  NEW. We added this requirement to ensure that policies are not only implemented in a top-down manner, but also understood by the workers themselves. 

3.1.3: Anti-Harassment

NOTE FOR 3.1.3:  NEW. This criterion did not exist in the 2018 Mining Standard. See explanatory note for creating a criterion for anti-harassment below (note for 3.1.3.1). 

The entity develops and implements an anti-harassment policy (or its equivalent) that:
  1. States that corporal punishment, harsh or degrading treatment, sexual or physical harassment, mental, physical or verbal abuse, coercion, or intimidation, particularly with regard to female workers, are not acceptable in the workplace; and
  2. Is communicated to all employees, workers and contractors and available to them on an ongoing basis.

NOTE FOR 3.1.3.1: REVISED. This replaces requirement 1.3.3.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard, which said “The operating company shall take measures to prevent and address harassment, intimidation, and/or exploitation, especially in regard to female workers.” That requirement was a critical requirement, and so we have made 3.1.3.1 critical, since it is this requirement that best captures that intent (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above). 

We wanted to make it clear that the behaviors listed in 3.1.3.1.a are not appropriate for anyone at the site (i.e., workers, supervisors, contractors), and so they all need to be aware of this policy. Previously, the only prohibition on these actions was in relation to disciplinary activities.

The entity provides mandatory training for all supervisors on the anti-harassment policy.

NOTE FOR 3.1.3.2: NEW. See note for 3.1.3.1.

3.1.4: Retrenchment

Prior to implementing any collective dismissals (i.e., retrenchment):
  1. The entity carries out an analysis of alternatives to retrenchment; and
  2. If the analysis does not identify viable alternatives to retrenchment, develops and implements a retrenchment plan that:
    1. Is developed in consultation with workers, their organizations, and, where appropriate, community leaders and/or the government;
    2. Includes measures to reduce the adverse impacts of retrenchment on workers;
    3. Outlines a clear timeline and budget for each stage of retrenchment; and
    4. Incorporates the principle of non-discrimination by developing objective, fair, and transparent criteria by which workers will be chosen for dismissal.

NOTE FOR 3.1.4.1: REVISED. This requirement was 3.1.4.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

We added NEW expectations in this requirement (sub-requirements b.ii to b.iv) to better approximate international best practice on retrenchment planning – this includes references to objective, fair, and transparent criteria, the requirement for a clear timeline and budget, and reference to consultations with community leaders if necessary. 

All workers subject to retrenchment:
  1. Receive notice of dismissal and severance payments mandated by law and collective agreements;
  2. Receive outstanding back pay, social security benefits, and pension contributions and benefits upon or before termination of the working relationship, or in accordance with a timeline agreed through a collective bargaining agreement; and
  3. Receive payments directly, or through an appropriate institution that provides certain benefits to workers (e.g., pension or health funds). Where payments are made to such institutions for the benefit of workers, the workers are provided with evidence of such payments.

NOTE FOR 3.1.4.2:  REVISED. This was 3.1.4.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We restructured this to more clearly lay out the expectations, and added clarifying language that this requirement refers specifically to workers subject to retrenchment (not regular acts of dismissal). Removed the language that payments be made in a timely manner, since we state outright that payments need to occur upon or before termination.

3.1.5: Worker Grievance and Whistleblower Mechanisms

NOTE FOR 3.1.5:  REVISED. We changed the name of this criterion from ‘Grievance Mechanisms’ to ‘Worker Grievance and Whistleblower Mechanisms’ to reflect the inclusion of an explicit whistleblower requirement (3.1.5.2) and to more clearly distinguish between the worker grievance mechanism covered primarily in this chapter, and the stakeholder grievance mechanism that is the subject of Chapter 1.4. In the guidance notes in both this chapter and 1.4, we will clarify this distinction and state how both Chapter 3.1 and Chapter 1.4 are to be audited if the mechanism for workers and communities/stakeholders are one in the same, or distinct. 

The entity provides a grievance mechanism for workers (and their organizations, where they exist) to raise workplace concerns. The mechanism is underpinned by a grievance procedure (or equivalent) that:
  1. Provides for the involvement of an appropriate level of management in the oversight of grievances;
  2. Outlines how grievances and communications with complainants are tracked, recorded, acknowledged, investigated, and equitably resolved in a timely manner, including general timeframes for each phase of the process;
  3. Provides that workers will face no retaliation relating to any grievance submitted;
  4. States that severe grievances such as those involving gender-based violence or other human rights abuses will be prioritized;
  5. Outlines how complainants can file anonymous grievances and how the confidentiality of a complainant’s identity will be protected, if requested by the complainant;
  6. States that participation in an operational level grievance mechanism does not preclude a complainant from seeking redress through administrative, judicial, or other non-judicial remedies, and that no remedy provided by an operational-level grievance mechanism requires or implies that complainants waive their right to seek recourse for the same complaint through other available mechanisms; and
  7. Lists options for recourse if a complainant does not find the resolution of their grievance satisfactory and/or if the mechanism is deemed inadequate or inappropriate for handling grievances pertaining to serious human rights abuses; and
  8. States that workers’ representatives can be present at any proceedings or discussions relating to a grievance, if requested by the aggrieved worker.

NOTE FOR 3.1.5.1:  REVISED. This was requirement 3.1.5.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard, and was a critical requirement (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above). We divided sub-requirement (a) from the 2018 Mining Standard into sub-requirements (a), (b), and (c), above, as they are distinct processes that exist independently of one another. 

We added two NEW sub-requirements: (d) which requires prioritization of the most severe grievances; and (g) which requires entities to explicitly inform stakeholders of their options for external recourse, pursuant to sub-requirement (f). 

In sub-requirement (f), we similarly clarified the need for entities to explicitly state (in a written procedure) that utilizing the grievance mechanism does not preclude recourse to other procedures; without an explicit statement to this effect auditors can only look for workers that have both utilized the grievance mechanism and sought recourse to alternative mechanisms (whether successfully or unsuccessfully), which in many cases might be difficult to identify. Furthermore, if workers do not know this is an option, they are unlikely to avail themselves of it, therefore there is nothing to audit. 

In sub-requirement (h), we clarified that there needs to be an explicit statement in a written grievance mechanism procedure that workers’ representatives can be present at proceedings/discussions. Previously this requirement was difficult to audit because, absent a requirement for this to be made explicit to workers, it was possible workers would not know this was available to them and if they did not know this was available, they were unlikely to ask for it, and if they did not ask for it, there was nothing to audit. We therefore altered the language to put the onus on the entity to explicitly state this option, in line with similar changes in other chapters where things were ‘upon request’ of affected stakeholders (see Chapter 1.2, Note for requirement 1.2.4.3).

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-3:  Working group feedback suggested that an independent third-party should be involved in the assessment of more grievances to ensure that resolutions are unbiased, impartial, and fair to all parties involved. Is this considered best practice and, if so: 

1.  Under what conditions should this be required (i.e., is it applicable to only the most serious grievances or to all grievances)?

2.  At what point in the grievance process should an independent third-party be brought in?

3.  Who should make the determination of an independent third-party should become involved?

The entity establishes a formal, confidential, and documented whistleblower process to enable workers and contractors to raise concerns regarding the unlawful or unethical activity or behavior (e.g., bribery, corruption, willfully ignoring safety standards) of an employee or contractor. The entity does not retaliate in any way against a whistleblower who, in good faith, has reported such issues.

NOTE FOR 3.1.5.2: NEW. We added this requirement in response to a noted gap in terms of best practice; previously there were no provisions pertaining to whistleblowing. This was added in the proposed IRMA Mineral Processing Standard but under Chapter 1.5 on Anti-Corruption rather than under Chapter 3.1. We are proposing to include it here, since it is an aspect of the grievance mechanism for workers. A whistleblower mechanism was added in the draft IRMA Mineral Processing Standard because it is required in other standards, for example, Responsible Jewellery Council’s Code of Practices and the RBA/RMI ESG Standard for Mineral Supply Chains.

The entity informs workers of the grievance mechanism and informs workers and contractors of the whistleblowing process at the time of recruitment/hiring and makes procedures easily accessible to them on an ongoing basis in languages and formats that are understandable to them.

NOTE FOR 3.1.5.3: REVISED. This was 3.1.5.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We added reference to a whistleblowing mechanism (in addition to the grievance mechanism) and added language to ensure that grievance and whistleblowing procedures and the mechanisms themselves are available in appropriate languages and formats (particularly where grievance mechanisms are designed at the corporate level, materials may be in English or another language that is not appropriate for workers). Previously whistleblowing protections/mechanisms were only addressed in Chapter 1.5 on Bribery and Corruption; however, as they relate to workers and working conditions it was appropriate to include it here as well. The guidance notes will indicate that auditors can consider the same evidence for both chapters. 

The entity maintains a record of all concerns submitted through the grievance and whistleblower mechanisms, communications with involved parties, final resolutions, and the entity’s actions taken to respond to and/or resolve the issue.

NOTE FOR 3.1.5.4: REVISED This was 3.1.5.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We added reference to a whistleblowing mechanism (in addition to the grievance mechanism). Previously, whistleblowing protections/mechanisms were only addressed in Chapter 1.5 (in requirements related to bribery and corruption); however, because whistleblowing can also occur in relation to behaviors in the workplace it was appropriate to include it here as well. The guidance notes will indicate that auditors can consider the same evidence for both chapters.

Relevant personnel (i.e., those managing grievances or whistleblowing incidents) are informed of and understand the proper procedures for handling grievances or concerns expressed through the grievance or whistleblower mechanisms.

NOTE FOR 3.1.5.5: NEW. We added this requirement, which in the 2018 Mining Standard was included only in Chapter 1.4 – ‘Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’). In this proposed update to the IRMA Standard we have separated the worker grievance mechanism requirements from the broader community/stakeholder mechanism. Therefore, it was necessary to bring this requirement over from Chapter 1.4. 

Periodically, workers:
  1. Are provided with clearly communicated opportunities to provide input on how to make the grievance/whistleblower mechanisms more trusted and accessible; and
  2. Receive feedback on how their input was considered.

NOTE FOR 3.1.5.6: NEW. We added this requirement, which in the 2018 Mining Standard was included only in Chapter 1.4. As mentioned in the note for 3.1.55, because of the separation of worker and community grievance mechanisms it was necessary to bring this requirement over from Chapter 1.4.

3.1.6: Disciplinary Actions

NOTE FOR 3.1.6: REVISED. We changed the name of this criterion from ‘Disciplinary Procedures’ to ‘Disciplinary Actions’ to better reflect the content of the chapter. 

The entity develops and implements a disciplinary policy (or equivalent) that:
  1. States that the entity does not use corporal punishment, harsh or degrading treatment, sexual or physical harassment, mental, physical or verbal abuse, coercion, or intimidation during disciplinary actions; and
  2. Is communicated to all employees, workers and contractors and available to them on an ongoing basis.

NOTE FOR 3.1.6.1:  REVISED. This was 3.1.6.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We modified this requirement to specifically ask for a written disciplinary action policy. In doing so, we separated the policy component out from the procedures that flow from it (now covered in 3.1.6.2) to be consistent with other structural changes to the Standard. The Responsible Steel Standard also requires a disciplinary policy. 

We added sub-requirement (b) because workers should be aware of behavior that is not acceptable by their supervisors, and also their rights in terms of not being subject to degrading treatment (per the prohibited actions listed in 3.1.6.1).

The entity develops and implements disciplinary procedures (or their equivalent) which:
  1. Provide specifics pertaining to the disciplinary actions associated with each type of infraction;
  2. Details the process that will be followed in the event of a disciplinary action (including timelines for resolution, appeals process, proper documentation, etc.); and
  3. Keeps records of all disciplinary actions taken.

NOTE FOR 3.1.6.2:  REVISED This was 3.1.6.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

We added sub-requirement (a) to expand on what the procedures should detail (under the 2018 Mining Standard no such specifics were given). 

The entity provides mandatory training for all supervisors on the disciplinary policy and procedures.

NOTE FOR 3.1.6.3: NEW Added this requirement for supervisor training on disciplinary procedures as previously there was no requirement that facilitated top-down understanding and capacity in this regard. 

3.1.7: Child Labor

The entity develops and implements a policy on the avoidance of child labor (or equivalent) that:
  1. States that:
    1. Children (i.e., people under the age of 18) are not hired to do hazardous work (e.g., working at heights or in confined spaces, or where there is exposure to hazardous substances ) or any other work defined as a worst form of child labor by ILO Convention 182 (Worst Forms of Child Labor) and ILO Recommendation 190 (Worst Forms of Child Labor); and
    2. Children (i.e., people under the age of 15, or the minimum age outlined in national law, whichever is higher) are not hired to do any work (hazardous or otherwise) for the entity; and
  2. Stipulates the entity’s expectations of contractors and suppliers vis-à-vis the above commitments;
  3. Is communicated internally, and is communicated to contractors, labor brokers (if relevant), and suppliers.

NOTE FOR 3.1.7.1:  REVISED This requirement combines the content from the critical requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard 3.1.7.2 and 3.1.7.3 (specifying the relevant ages for legal (15-18 yrs) and non-legal (under 15 yrs) child labor into this criterion. We added this explicit requirement for a written policy relating to child labor as previously this was not made explicit.

We do not believe that this changes the intent of the 2018 critical requirement, as a policy prohibiting child labor would by definition have had to specify what ages constitute ‘child’ labor, and any prohibition by the entity of labor under a certain age (whether or not it is written into a policy) would have to have been based on some sort of shared understanding (i.e., a policy) about what ages are and are not appropriate (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

We added reference to ILO Conventions 182 and 190, as there may be other forms of labor that are not fitting for persons under the age of 18 other than the examples provided. We will add guidance on this.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-4:  ILO 138 allows for ‘light work’ for children 2 years beneath the legal working age in the country (14 or 15, depending on the country) so 12- to 13-year-olds in some, and 13- to 14-year-olds in others. Other standards take differing positions on this. For example, the RBI/RMI standard prohibits labor under the age of 15 “unless the exceptions recognized by the ILO apply”. However, the Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) ‘Preventing Child and Forced Labour Protocol’ states that while there are exceptions contained in ILO 138 that allow for workers under the age of 15 in some circumstances, such exceptions are not applicable to mining. Can you think of any situations in which provisions should be made for “light work” by children under the age of 15 (according to the ILO-approved age scheme indicated above) in the context of mining entities?

The entity documents the ages of all workers.

NOTE FOR 3.1.7.2: This was 3.1.7.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

When a child between 15 and 18 years is legally performing non-hazardous work, the entity assesses and minimizes the risks to the child’s physical or mental health and ensures the national labor authority or, if that is not possible, the entity itself, conducts regular monitoring of the child’s health, working conditions, and working hours.

NOTE FOR 3.1.7.3:  REVISED. This was 3.1.7.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We added the ages into the requirement to add clarity.

The entity carries out an assessment of the risk of child labor amongst their contractors and in their supply chain.

NOTE FOR 3.1.7.4: NEW We are proposing to add this requirement for a risk assessment to be done to evaluate the potential for child labor amongst contractors and suppliers. Under the 2018 Mining Standard, there was no explicit requirement for a risk assessment in this chapter, but rather it was expected that this risk determination would be made under the auspices of Chapter 1.3 (Human Rights Due Diligence). However, this created the potential that it could be overlooked, especially if two different auditors were auditing the two chapters. 

The assessment may still be done as part of the human rights risk assessment in Chapter 3.1, but now the verification that the risk child labor has been assessed will be evaluated and reported in this chapter.

Where the risk assessment conducted in 3.1.7.4 indicates there is a high risk of child labor amongst contractors or suppliers in the project’s/operation’s supply chain, the entity develops and implement procedures to monitor its contractors and suppliers to determine if children below the minimum age for hazardous or non-hazardous work are being employed. If any cases are identified:
  1. The child is removed immediately from his or her job; and
  2. Remediation procedures are developed and implemented that provide the child with support in his or her transition to legal work or schooling and take into consideration the welfare of the child and the financial situation of the child’s family.

NOTE FOR 3.1.7.5:  REVISED This requirement combines 3.1.7.5 and 3.1.7.6 from the 2018 Mining Standard. We added specific reference to ‘contractors’ (in addition to supply chain) and We also replaced reference to entities “taking appropriate measures” to address any identified child labor to being specific about what those measures entail.

We are also proposing to remove reference to entity obligations to shifting supply chain over time where remedy to child labor in the supply chain is not possible. The motivation for this was to encourage operations to always take action to address incidents of child labor, as some for remedy should always be possible, rather than simply shifting suppliers, as shifting suppliers does nothing to improve the lives of those who have been harmed.

A similar change is proposed for forced labor, below. See CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-5, below.

3.1.8: Forced Labor and Trafficking of People

NOTE FOR 3.1.8:  REVISED. We changed the name of this criterion from ‘Forced Labor’ to ‘Forced Labor and the Trafficking of People’ to better reflect the content of the chapter. 

The entity develops and implements a policy (or procedures) on the avoidance of forced labor and the trafficking of people that:
  1. Includes the following practices:
    1. Workers are not required to pay fees or deposits associated with their recruitment or employment;
    2. Workers are not charged fees for food, clothing, transportation, health checks, documentation, or supplies as part of their recruitment;
    3. Workers are issued written contracts to workers in appropriate local language(s) for review prior to employment;
    4. The entity does not retain or restrict access to official identity papers and personal documentation originals provided by workers as part of the employment process;
    5. The entity does not unreasonably restrict the movement of workers or their access to basic liberties;
    6. Workers are allowed to terminate their employment without penalty if reasonable notice is given per the worker's contract; and
  2. Stipulates the entity’s expectations of contractors and suppliers vis-à-vis the above commitments;
  3. Is communicated internally, and is communicated to contractors, labor brokers (if relevant), and suppliers.

NOTE FOR 3.1.8.1: NEW. In the 2018 Mining Standard, the original requirement on forced labor (3.1.8.1) stated “The entity does not employ forced labor or participate in the trafficking of people.” We are proposing to replace it to provide more clarity on expectations (and a requirement that is more auditable) relating to forced labor and trafficking. These include specifics related to recruitment practices ([a] to [c]), treatment of workers ([c] to [e]) and employment termination (f), all of which are adopted from the RBA/RMI ESG Standard for Responsible Mineral Supply Chains. 

This was a critical requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard and it remains critical in this version of the Standard (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

We also added a footnote to sub-requirement (c) that will ultimately go in the guidance notes specifying entity obligations vis-a-vis foreign workers and presentation of work contracts. 

The entity carries out a risk assessment of the risk of forced labor and the trafficking of people amongst their contractors and in their supply chain.

NOTE FOR 3.1.8.2:  NEW. As with child labor, we are proposing to include a requirement for a risk assessment to be done specifically examining forced and trafficked labor amongst contractors/in the supply chain (new 3.1.8.2). We included specific reference to ‘contractors’ (in addition to supply chain). See note for requirement 3.1.7.4 above.  

Where the risk assessment conducted in 3.1.8.2 determines that there is a risk of forced or trafficked labor, the entity develops and implements procedures to monitor its contractors and suppliers to determine if forced labor or trafficked workers are being employed. If any cases are identified, the entity ensures the following are provided to the worker subject to forced labor, as appropriate to the situation:
  1. Shelter and accommodation;
  2. Medical and health-care services and counselling;
  3. Mental health and psychosocial support;
  4. Legal assistance;
  5. Financial assistance; and
  6. Repatriation assistance or reintegration into the labor market.

NOTE FOR 3.1.8.3:  REVISED. This was 3.1.8.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

We added explicit reference to contractors (in addition to suppliers), and also replaced reference to the entity “taking appropriate measures” to address any identified forced labor, as it was not clear what would constitute appropriate measures. Sub-requirements (a) through (f) were added to enumerate appropriate measures. These recommendations come from the International Organization for Migration (see footnote for sub-requirement [f]).

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-5 

Background:  We are proposing to remove reference to entity obligation to shift to other suppliers where remedy to forced or trafficked labor in the supply chain is not possible. The motivation for this was to encourage operations to take action to reduce forced and trafficked labor and improve the lives of those who have been harmed, as some for remedy should always be possible, rather than simply shifting suppliers. The language is open enough that either the entity could carry out remediation, or the contractor/supplier could do it (but the entity would need to ensure, through monitoring or other methods, that it is being done).

Question:  Do you agree that entities should to take responsibility for remediation of identified cases of child labor or forced labor amongst their contractors and suppliers, either through their own actions or by applying leverage/pressure on contractors and suppliers to provide remediation? Or are there cases where entities should immediately shift to other contractors/suppliers? Should IRMA provide a timeline by which entities (and their contractors/suppliers) have to remediate child/forced labor per the above sub-requirements?

3.1.9: Wages, Benefits, and Other Compensation

NOTE FOR 3.1.9:  REVISED. This criterion heading has been expanded from the 2018 Mining Standard, which was simply called ‘Wages’. We are now proposing to include all requirements that relate to benefits here, also. And we are proposing to include a requirement related to compensation (e.g., for lost time due to illness or injury), here, as all of these categories relate to payments to workers (or their families).

When workers are members of a workers’ organization that has negotiated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), wages are paid according to the terms of the agreement. If any workers are not covered by a CBA, then:
  1. Entities determine and demonstrate what constitutes a living wage using a credible methodology; and
  2. Wages paid to workers not part of a CBA meet or exceed the higher of applicable legal minimum wage(s), or the living wage.

NOTE FOR 3.1.9.1: REVISED. There may be situations where sites have both workers covered by a CBA, and those who are not. We have therefore changed the language to make it more clear of the expectation in such situations.

We are also proposing a NEW requirement that entities must proactively determine and demonstrate what constitutes a living wage. In the 2018 Mining Standard, there was no explicit obligation to do so, which did not encourage understanding on behalf of entities as to how their wages fit into the socioeconomic reality of their workers’ lives (i.e., ability to live a decent life on the wages being paid), and address a more challenging aspect, with the requirement as previously written. Without any determination by the entity on whether or not a living wage is being paid, it puts the onus on auditors to make this determination. We are proposing that it is not the job of the auditors to carry out studies to verify the truth of an entity’s claim that it is paying a living wage; it is the obligation of the entity to provide that evidence to the auditors. 

Overtime hours are paid at a rate defined in a CBA, where relevant, or the higher of the either the overtime rate outlined in national law or a rate that is at least 125% of the regular hourly wage.

NOTE FOR 3.1.9.2:  REVISED. The 2018 Mining Standard did not specify a minimum for overtime pay.  The ILO’s minimum recommend threshold for overtime pay is 125% of regular pay. We are proposing that if the rate suggested by the ILO is higher than any rate outlined in national law, then that is what should be paid.

Unless otherwise provided for in a CBA, the entity provides all workers the following benefits, at a minimum:
  1. An annual paid holiday of at least three working weeks per year, after achieving one year of service;
  2. A paid gender-neutral parental leave period of no less than 18 weeks for the primary caregiver, and one week for secondary caregiver, at full pay; and
  3. Paid medical leave with a sufficient wage replacement rate to prevent poverty and ensure essential needs can be met during leave-taking.

NOTE FOR 3.1.9.3:  REVISED. This was requirement 3.1.10.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We have moved this requirement out of criterion 3.1.10 ‘Working Hours’ and into this criterion, because it is more related to benefits than working hours. 

The requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard only required that the outlined benefits related to certain types of leave only needed to be provided if not covered in a CBA or in national law. That wording implied that, as long as there was some provision in national law, then that is all that needed to be met, even if that provision was weaker than IRMA’s expectations. However, we are proposing here to set some best practice expectations for these benefits and create the expectation that IRMA’s requirements be met regardless of what is required in host country law (unless the host country law is stronger, in which case the legal requirements should be met). 

  • Sub-requirement 3.1.9.3.a is unchanged. 
  • Sub-requirement 3.1.9.3.b has been REVISED. The 2018 Mining Standard only required 14 weeks of maternity leave and did not require that it be paid. We are proposing this revision so that the requirement aligns more closely with expectations in ILO Convention 183 – Maternity Protection Convention, including that “Cash benefits shall be at a level which ensures that the woman can maintain herself and her child in proper conditions of health and with a suitable standard of living.” However, IRMA is proposing that full pay be provided for two reasons; 1) calculating what level of cash benefits “ensure the [parent] can maintain themselves and [their] child” is subjective and difficult for the auditor to verify; 2) a review of current best practice amongst mining companies and other standards suggests that ‘full pay’ is common practice (Responsible Steel Standard and RBA/RMI both indicate ‘paid’ parental leave). 
  • Sub-requirement 3.1.9.3.c is NEW. The proposed language outlines a minimum standard meant to ensure that workers who are ill (but not as the result of a work-induced illness – that is covered in 3.1.9.4, below) are able to afford to take time off.  

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-6

Background:  Based on research pertaining to parental leave policies across six major mining companies, the following types of leave were identified that are not currently included in the IRMA standard: 

  • Paid leave for domestic violence (10 days) 
  • Paid parental leave at full duration/benefits for parents experiencing stillbirth or death of the child.
  • Paid parental leave applicable to either natural births or adoption.

Question:  Should IRMA require that entities provide these forms of leave to workers? If so, should this be provided to all workers, or only to certain categories (i.e., full time permanent, core services, etc.).

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-7:  Should IRMA strive to set a higher standard for paid medical leave (in 3.1.8.9.c) or be more specific about minimum number of weeks/months of paid medical leave and a lower limit to the wage replacement rate? Given the wide variation in paid medical leave (see, for example, https://www.worldpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/WORLD Report – Personal Medical Leave OECD Country Approaches_0.pdf) any thoughts on acceptable standards would be welcome.  

Workers are provided with compensation for work-related injuries and illnesses as follows:
  1. In countries where workers’ compensation is not provided through government schemes or a collective bargaining agreement:
    1. The entity compensates workers for work-related injuries or illnesses at a rate that, at minimum, covers medical expenses and wages during the recovery and rehabilitation period;
    2. The entity covers the cost of worker rehabilitation to facilitate an expeditious return to work;
    3. If a worker is not able to return to work due to the severity of a work-related injury or illness, the entity compensates for lost earnings until the worker qualifies for an adequate pension (i.e., 2/3 or more of the salary they would otherwise normally receive if healthy and working); or
    4. If an occupational illness manifests after a worker has retired, the entity or its corporate owner compensates the worker for related medical expenses, unless the entity or its corporate owner can establish that the illness was not connected to the worker’s employment at the operation.
  2. Where a worker dies as a result of a work-related injury or illness, the entity, at minimum:
    1. Covers the cost of funeral expenses and transportation of the worker’s body;
    2. Provides compensation to the family of the deceased work that is equal to or greater than three months of the worker’s salary; and
    3. Offers to pay for counselling or other forms of psychological support for family members.

NOTE FOR 3.1.9.4:  REVISED (and NEW to this chapter). This was previously requirement 3.2.4.4 in Chapter 3.2 – ‘Occupational Health and Safety’ in the 2018 Mining Standard. We are proposing to move it here so that we consolidate all requirements related to payments to workers in one place. Also, some content in the requirement has been modified.

There were three sub-requirements in the original (a), (b) and (c). We moved sub-requirement (b) related to worker rehabilitation into sub-requirement (a), as it also applied to the situation where national law or CBA did not address health and safety-related costs. It is now 3.1.9.4.a.ii.

The content in 3.1.9.4.a.ii was also REVISED. Previously it said that an entity needed to ensure that workers have free or affordable access to rehabilitation programs. However, it was unclear what was meant by “affordable” access. If the injury was suffered while on the job, then it would seem reasonable that the entity should pay for the rehabilitation. 

Sub-element 3.1.9.4.b.iii is NEW. It has been added as this is a practice that is occurring at some mine and mineral processing sites where fatalities have occurred. See note for 3.2.6.2.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-8:  Further to CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-1 above pertaining to contractor obligations in general, what would be the appropriate expectations for contractors who suffer injury or illness when engaged in work at a mining or mineral processing operation? Should the entity that owns/operates the site be accountable for providing compensation (if not covered by government programs), or is it the employer of the contractor (or labor broker) who should provide that compensation? And/or in the case of self-employed independent contractors, would there be no compensation guaranteed at all?

All workers are provided with written and understandable information about wages (overtime rates, deductions and bonuses) and benefits before they enter employment, and for the pay period each time they are paid.

NOTE FOR 3.1.9.5: This was 3.1.9.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Wages are paid in a manner that is reasonable for workers (e.g., bank transfer, cash, or check).

NOTE FOR 3.1.9.6: This was 3.1.9.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

Deductions from wages are not made for disciplinary purposes unless one of the following conditions exist:
  1. Deductions from wages for disciplinary purposes are permitted by host country law, and the law guarantees the procedural fairness of the disciplinary action; or
  2. Deductions from wages for disciplinary purposes are permitted in a freely negotiated CBA or arbitration award.

NOTE FOR 3.1.9.7:  This was 3.1.9.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

Employee wages, benefits, and deductions are recorded and documented.

NOTE FOR 3.1.9.8:  NEW This was proposed in the draft IRMA Mineral Processing Standard. Other standards require keeping such records, and this makes sense as these records will be necessary to demonstrate conformity with the IRMA Standard.

Entity-provided accommodations for workers, if applicable, meet the following requirements:
  1. Rental arrangements including any fees for accommodations or services are discussed during recruitment and are clearly specified in employment contracts;
  2. Rental rates do not exceed of local norms/market conditions;
  3. Workers and contractors are not required to sign up for rental of accommodations that exceed the period of employment; and
  4. There are no fees or penalties for leaving accommodations early, e.g., if workers or contractors voluntarily terminate their employment before their contract is up; and
  5. Workers and contractors are provided with a reasonable period of time to vacate the premises when the contract of employment is terminated.

NOTE FOR 3.1.9.9:  NEW. We added this requirement to address a gap wherein rules for rental accommodations for workers were not addressed. We have included it in this section as it relates to payments that may be made to the entity by workers where rental situations exist.

Sub-requirements (b), (c), and (d) are similar to expectations included in the RBA/RMI ESG Standard for Mineral Supply Chains. 

Note also that in IRMA Chapter 3.2 – ‘Occupational Health and Safety’ (requirement 3.2.4.6)) we are proposing additional requirements related to accommodations that are based on international best practices developed by the IFC/EBRD and ILO. Sub-requirements 3.1.9.9.a and 3.1.9.9.e are from that guidance.

3.1.10: Working Hours

NOTE FOR 3.1.10:  REVISED. In the 2018 Mining Standard, this criterion was called ‘Working Hours and Leave’; however, we have moved requirements relating to leave up to criterion 3.1.9 (‘Working Hours, Benefits, and other Compensation’. 

Also, in the 2018 Mining Standard, all expectations related to working hours were included in a single requirement. We are proposing to separate them out here, so that they get adequate attention and it is clear in the audit reports how an entity is performing on each element.

Regular working hours do not exceed eight hours per day, or 48 per week. Where workers are employed in shifts the 8-hour day and 48-hour week may be exceeded, provided that the average number of regular hours worked over a 3-week period does not exceed 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week.

NOTE FOR 3.1.10.1:  This requirement was 3.1.10.1.a in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

Workers are provided with at least 24 consecutive hours off in every 7-day period unless:
  1. A freely negotiated CBA is in force that allows variances to the rest period above; and
  2. A process is in place, carried out in collaboration with workers’ health and safety representatives, to assess the potential impacts of the alternative rest schedule on the health, safety and welfare workers; mitigation measures are developed to minimize the impacts; monitoring takes place to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation; and if impacts to worker health, safety or welfare are occurring, the 24 consecutive hours off in every 7-day period is reinstated until another assessment can be undertaken.

NOTE FOR 3.1.10.2:  REVISED. This requirement was 3.1.10.1.b and 3.1.10.1.d in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

The language in 3.1.10.2.b is different than the language in the 2018 Mining Standard, which said, “Through consultations with workers’ representatives a risk management process that includes a risk assessment for extended working hours is established to minimize the impact of longer working hours on the health, safety and welfare of workers.” 

We are proposing more detailed language because typically risk management processes involve monitoring of effectiveness, and if mitigation strategies are not being effective, then corrective action is taken. We are proposing that the reasonable corrective action would be to return to the “safe” schedule until another assessment can be done.

Overtime hours are allowed for workers under the following conditions:
  1. Working overtime is always consensual; and
  2. Overtime is limited to 12 hours per week unless:
    1. A freely negotiated CBA is in force that allows variances to overtime hours above; or
    2. A process is in place, carried out in collaboration with workers’ health and safety representatives, to assess the potential impacts of allowing more than 12-hours of overtime per week on the health, safety and welfare of either those working the extra overtime, or on others workers; mitigation measures are developed to minimize the impacts; monitoring takes place to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation; and if impacts to worker health, safety or welfare are occurring, the 12-hour-maximum overtime per week rule is reinstated until another assessment can be undertaken.

NOTE FOR 3.1.10.3:  REVISED. This requirement was 3.1.10.1.c and d in the 2018 Mining Standard. See note for 3.1.10.2, above.

Workers are provided with appropriate time off for meals and breaks, including reasonable accommodations of the timing of breaks to allow for workers' religious practices.

NOTE FOR 3.1.10.4:  NEW. The lack of a requirement for breaks was raised by stakeholders, and so we are proposing this new requirement as both Responsible Steel Standard and the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC) Code of Practice require that workers be provided with breaks (see consultation question below). We have also added that accommodation also be made for workers’ religious practices, as this is something mentioned in the RBA/RMI ESG Standard for Mineral Supply Chains.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.1-9

Background:  According to an International Labour Organization (ILO) fact sheet on rest periods, “Different forms of rest and annual leave are important for a workers physical and mental well‐being. If structured properly, they can all have a positive impact on occupational health and safety as well as improve productivity in the workplace.”

The ILO fact sheet also says that “in practice, coffee and tea breaks can be given for 10 – 30 minutes and are organized in the middle of each half of the work shift. Meal breaks are organized around the middle of the full shift and the last from 30 minutes to 2 hours.” Finally, the fact sheet says that “rest breaks can be included as working time and thus paid, as in Argentina, or they can be unpaid.” 

Neither the Responsible Steel nor RJC standards provide details on the length of breaks. Responsible Steel requires a policy that “all workers are provided with appropriate time off for meals and breaks,” and RJC requires that if not covered by law, employees are provided with “at least one uninterrupted work break of reasonable duration if they work longer than six hours.”

Question:  Would it be reasonable for IRMA to specify minimum break times as one of the following:  

Option 1. Two coffee/tea breaks of at least 15 minutes duration, and a meal break of at least 30 minutes for each six hours worked?

Option 2. One (1) hour of total break time per six hours worked (apportioned as appropriate for the work being undertaken)?

Should these breaks be considered paid working time? If they are not paid, will that result in breaks not being taken (thus creating risks to worker health and safety)?

Worker hours worked (regular and overtime) and hours taken for annual, medical and parental leave are recorded and documented.

NOTE FOR 3.1.10.5:  NEW. Other standards require keeping such records, and this makes sense as these records il be necessary to demonstrate conformity with the IRMA Standard.

Chapter 3.2: Occupational Health and Safety

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  We are proposing a significant expansion of this chapter – with 16 more requirements than the previous version. In reviewing this chapter content we took into consideration the fact that in June 2022, the International Labour Convention adopted a resolution to include a safe and healthy working environment as the fifth of International Labour Organization’s (ILO) fundamental principles and rights at work. Even though many in the mining industry have recognized the importance of worker health and safety, and even though IRMA’s 2018 standard included such protections, the ILO recognition of safety and health at work as being a fundamental right led us to re-evaluate our requirements related to the rights of workers, such as the right to stop work, the right to training, the right to report accidents and dangerous occurrences, etc., and are proposing revisions to support the realization of those rights. 

As part of our review, we also reviewed updates to Mining Association of Canada’s Safety and Health Protocol (2021), and other minerals industry standards like the RBA ESG Due Diligence Standard for Mineral Supply Chains (2021) and Responsible Jewellery Council’s Code of Practices (2019). 

Additionally, first audits revealed some shortcomings with the IRMA chapter – in particular, some requirements were too general, and so more detail was needed to ensure that the intent would be met, and there would be consistent measurement of performance from site to site. While IRMA auditors are required to have competencies on the topics they are auditing, the auditors are not and cannot be experts on all of the particular hazards that may be present at large scale mines or mineral processing operations. 

This has prompted IRMA to create proposed Annex 3.2-A, which enumerates the various hazards that are common at mines and mineral processing operations, so that auditors are aware and can determine if sites have adequately considered and controlled the range of hazards that may be present. Without this additional guidance, there is the potential that some entities and auditors may overlook major hazards, which could lead to consequences for workers, and also risks to IRMA if mines that score well on this chapter were to have major occupational health and safety events. This is not meant to place the burden on auditors. The entity being audited bears the sole responsibility for reducing and managing health and safety hazards in the workplace. 

Proposed additions and changes:

  • We are proposing to remove the flag from this chapter. There was one requirement that was being tested in the first audits, and there was no indication from those first audits that the flagged requirement was problematic. As a result, we are proposing that the requirements be incorporated into this version of the Standard (note that the previously flagged requirement on compensation related to injuries and fatalities has been moved to Chapter 3.1, into criterion 3.1.9 on ‘Wages, Benefits, and Other Compensation,’ so that all requirements related to payments to workers are consolidate in one place. See requirement 3.1.9.4.a.iv).
  • A new policy requirement (3.2.1.1) and setting of performance targets (3.2.1.2.a)
  • Addition of contractor requirements to manage contractors (3.2.1.3) and more references to contractors throughout because IRMA received feedback that it was not clear if/when there was a responsibility for an entity to apply OHS-related actions to contractors.
  • Additional expectations related to joint health and safety committees (3.2.1.5)
  • Separation of hazard identification (3.2.2.1) from risk assessment (3.2.2.2)
  • Expanded list of mitigation procedures for specific situations (3.2.3.3), including infectious diseases (now 3.2.3.5, moved from Chapter 3.3)
  • Emergency response requirements (3.2.3.6) were moved from Chapter 2.5, which now focuses on community emergency preparedness and response
  • Added additional procedures relate to stop work authority (3.2.3.7), and reporting and investigations (3.2.3.8)
  • Expanded requirements related to first aid requirements (3.2.4.4), and worker accommodations (3.2.4.6), and response to incidents and accidents (3.2.6.1)
  • Additional requirements to support worker mental health (3.2.3.4) including after accidents (3.2.6.2.b)
  • Significant expansion of worker training requirements (3.2.7.3, 3.2.7.4, 3.2.7.5)
  • And additional expectations related to review and reporting on occupational health and safety performance (3.2.8.2 and 3.2.8.3)

3.2.1: Policy and Governance

NOTE FOR 3.2.1:  This criterion has been created to include requirements related to policy and oversight of health and safety matters. Some requirements are new because a review of other standards demonstrates that a policy commitment and performance targets are common expectations (e.g., see Mining Association of Canada Safety and Health Protocol), and some requirements have been moved from elsewhere in the chapter.

A health and safety policy (or equivalent) is in place and implemented at the project/operation that:
  1. Includes commitments to prioritize the health and safety of workers over production, and to demonstrate continuing improvement in health and safety performance over time, with the objective of achieving zero harm in the workplace;
  2. Is approved at the most senior level of the operation;
  3. Is communicated to all employees, and relevant contractors; and
  4. Is publicly available.

NOTE FOR 3.2.1.1:  NEW. This requirement was not in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

A member of senior management is accountable for the development of a management system to support the achievement of the commitments in the health and safety policy, including:
  1. Setting of health and safety objectives and performance targets that include:
    1. Separate targets for health and for safety;
    2. Separate targets related to lagging and leading indicators;
    3. Separate targets for employees and, if relevant, contractors; and
  2. Implementing measures to support the achievement of health and safety objectives and targets

NOTE FOR 3.2.1.2:   REVISED. This was 3.2.1.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It has been revised to include that a member of senior management be accountable (i.e., responsible or answerable) for a health and safety management system that supports achievement of the policy commitments. 

Management systems typically include assessment of what needs to be done, development of plans, processes, and procedures to achieve objectives, implementation of plans, and monitoring to ensure that tasks are performed correctly, consistently and effectively, or drive improvement in performance to achieve objectives and targets. Aspects of the management system are captured in subsequent requirements.

We are proposing the following definitions:

Leading Indicators
Measure precursors to harm (e.g., conditions, events or measures that precede an undesirable event, whether it is an accident, near-miss incident, or undesirable safety state), and are associated with proactive activities that identify hazards and assess, eliminate, minimize, and control risk in order to achieve a desired outcome or avoid unwanted outcomes. 

Lagging Indicators
Measure outcomes and occurrences (e.g., the extent of harm that has occurred in the past). Reactive, tells you whether you have achieved a desired result (or when a desired safety result has failed) and provides historical information about health and safety performance.

A system is developed and implemented to manage the occupational health and safety of all contractors, including:
  1. A signed contract that outlines how occupational health and safety of contractors will be managed in a manner that aligns with the requirements in this chapter. The contract delineates the entity’s and the contractor’s rights and responsibilities, and addresses at minimum:
    1. Identification of hazards associated with contracted work (see 3.2.2.1), including responsibility to notify the entity if the contractor proposes to introduce new or different tools, equipment, materials, chemicals or work processes that could pose a new hazard or elevated risk to contractors and/or entity personnel;
    2. Assessment of risks associated with contracted work (see 3.2.2.3);
    3. Development of controls for high-risk hazards associated with contracted work (see 3.2.3.1);
    4. Provision and oversight of the proper use of personal protection equipment (see 3.2.4.3);
    5. The right of the entity to carry out inspections of work areas and work being conducted by contractors (see 3.2.5.1);
    6. Workplace monitoring and health surveillance and evaluation of the effectiveness of the controls (see 3.2.5.2);
    7. Reporting unsafe conditions and unwanted events to the entity and government authorities (see 3.2.6.1 and 3.2.6.2); and
    8. Training those carrying out contracted work on hazards, controls and any relevant plans and procedures that apply to them, such as stop work authority, and emergency response and reporting procedures (see 3.2.7.3);
  2. Clear stipulation of consequences if occupational health and safety performance of contractors does not meet the entity’s expectations;
  3. A clear process for communicating with and receiving input from contractors on health and safety matters; and
  4. A documented system for monitoring contractor occupational health and safety performance, overseen by a member of senior management of the entity.

NOTE FOR 3.2.1.3:  NEW. In the 2018 Mining Standard, only Chapter 1.1 laid out expectations for contractors, and in Chapter 3.2, we included the cross-reference table at the end of the chapter the following statement: “the operating company is responsible for ensuring that contractors involved in mining-related activities comply with the requirements of this chapter of the IRMA Standard, i.e., contract workers and any other workers who provide project-related work and services should be afforded a safe and healthful work environment.”

In this revised version of Chapter 3.2, we are seeking to add greater clarity on what the expectations are related to contractors. This is especially important, because contractors make up a substantial proportion of the mining industry workforce, and while entities like mining companies may hire contractors to perform a service, the industry recognizes that this “does not absolve the hiring company of the obligation to provide a healthy and safe place of work.”

According to the National Mining Association (NMA) in the United States: “Contractors play a significant role in safety and health management at facilities whether there are contract miners or contractors performing project work. They often face very similar, if not more significant, risk than do company employees. If contractors do not receive the appropriate instruction and direction to work safely, they can introduce new hazards to the workplace that put themselves and company workers at risk.”

The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) has found that: “Inefficient, incomplete or inconsistent contractor management practices greatly increase the risk of costly delays, mistakes, and hazards to health, safety, equipment and the environment. At worst, this can lead to serious injury or death of workers and can irrevocably damage corporate reputation. Between 2018-2020 there were 381 fatalities in ICMM member companies, 211 of which were direct employees, and 170 were contractors.”

Both the NMA and ICMM have developed guidance related to contractor management as it relates to health and safety. Requirement 3.2.1.3 attempts to incorporate some of that guidance, while also ensuring that the intent expressed in the original 2018 IRMA Standard be upheld (i.e., that contract workers . . . who provide project-related work and services should be afforded a safe and healthful work environment).

A joint health and safety committee (or its equivalent) that includes workers’ health and safety representatives and entity management is implemented to facilitate dialogue and worker participation in matters relating to occupational health and safety

NOTE FOR 3.2.1.4.  This was included in 3.2.3.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

The workers’ health and safety representatives on the committee:
  1. Are selected by workers;
  2. Make up 50% of more of the number of members on the joint health and safety committee;
  3. Are entitled to take time from regular work duties, with pay, to carry out committee related responsibilities;
  4. Receive free training, access to resources, and recourse to advisers and independent experts, as necessary, to participate effectively; and
  5. Are provided with the opportunity to:
    1. Participate in inspections and investigations conducted at the workplace by the employer and by the competent authority;
    2. Participate in the design and implementation of workplace monitoring and worker health surveillance programs;
    3. Monitor and investigate health and safety matters;
    4. Receive timely notice of accidents and dangerous occurrences; and
    5. Access the following data and documentation: hazard identification, risk assessments, risk management plans, procedures, training materials, monitoring data, health surveillance results, inspection reports, and reports related to unwanted events (i.e., injuries, diseases, fatalities, accidents, and near-miss incidents) including those submitted to regulatory authorities.

NOTE FOR 3.2.1.5.  REVISED. All of the sub-elements in 3.2.1.5.e were included in 3.2.3.5 and 3.2.6.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

Additional sub-requirements 3.2.1.5.a through 3.2.1.5.d are being proposed, however, as these joint committees serve as an important oversight role in the workplace, and thus contribute to the overarching goal of reducing harm. The additional sub-requirements are meant to add to the effectiveness of these committees.

NEW elements include that:

  • Workers’ must be selected by workers themselves, not by the entity, i.e., could be through the workers’ organizations, or via another mechanism such as elections (see 3.2.1.5.a).
  • Workers have equal or more representation on committees as per ILO Recommendation 164, which states that “in joint safety and health committees, workers should have at least equal representation with employers’ representatives.” (See 3.2.1.5.b)
  • Workers’ health and safety representatives be entitled to take time from regular work duties, with pay (see 3.2.1.5.c).  This is required by law in some jurisdictions, and is also included in ILO Recommendation 164.
  • Workers’ health and safety representatives receive training and resources to participate effectively (see 3.2.1.5.d). This is required by law in some jurisdictions, and is recommended practice by others, including ILO and other standard systems.

3.2.2: Health and Safety Hazard Identification and Assessment

A process is implemented to identify and document in a hazard register (or equivalent):
  1. The hazards that are or may be associated with the project/operation, including:
    1. Safety, chemical, biological, physical, ergonomic, and psychosocial hazards (see Annex 3.2-A);
    2. Hazards associated with the design of the workplace, organization of work, routine and nonroutine tasks, and foreseeable emergency scenarios; and
    3. External factors with the potential to exacerbate a hazard or affect the entity’s management of hazards; and
  2. The groups of people (e.g., workers, contractors, suppliers, visitors) who may be harmed by each hazard, and any individuals or sub-groups who may be particularly susceptible to the hazard (e.g., pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, people of different ages, genders, health status, physical characteristics, ethnicities, etc.).

NOTE FOR 3.2.2.1.  This requirement is NEW. Previously, the hazard identification step was combined with the risk assessment process as a whole. We are proposing to separate it out, primarily because if hazards are not identified in a comprehensive manner, there is the potential that important hazards may be overlooked when considering how best to eliminate and minimize serious health and safety risks to workers and others who may be present at a site. Furthermore, separating out this step ensures that it will be given adequate attention and review during audits.

The proposed requirement includes content from 3.2.2.2 (a), (b), and (d) in the 2018 Mining Standard, but has been reorganized and supplemented.

Sub-requirement 3.2.2.1.a.i now refers to six common categories of hazards experienced at industrial operations like mines and mineral processing facilities. We have created Annex 3.2-A to provide a summary of known hazards and classes of hazards associated with mining and mineral processing operations, with the idea that during audits the auditors would expect to see that that consideration has been given to whether or not these hazards are applicable for a particular project/operation.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-1:  Are there major potential hazards that have been missed in Annex 3.2-A or that you believe are not applicable to mining and/or mineral processing operations? 

Sub-requirement 3.2.2.1.a.iii is NEW. External factors can exacerbate hazards. In particular, climate-related events such as high heat waves, or unusually large precipitation events can lead to an increase in heat-related illnesses, flooding-related safety issues, or increase in vector-borne disease, etc.

Sub-requirement 3.2.2.1.b replaces 3.2.2.3 from the 2018 Mining Standard which said “The operating company shall pay particular attention to identifying and assessing hazards to workers who may be especially susceptible or vulnerable to particular hazards.” Instead of using the phrase ‘pay particular attention’ we are clear that susceptible workers, if any, needs to identified in relation to each hazard. 

A risk assessment process is implemented that follows a credible methodology for industrial operations

NOTE FOR 3.2.2.2.  REVISED. Requirement 3.2.2.1 from the 2018 Mining Standard required that entities follow a recognized risk assessment methodology. We have changed that to credible methodology, as this is consistent with changes throughout the IRMA Standard. 

We are proposing to define credible methodology as:
A method/methodology that is widely recognized, accepted, and used by experts and practitioners in a particular field of study. 

The entity consults with workers’ health and safety representatives and relevant workers and contractors to:
  1. Identify hazards (as per 3.2.2.1);
  2. Determine the potential severity of consequences and probability of occurrence of identified hazards;
  3. Identify any existing controls for the hazards;
  4. Identify high-risk (or equivalent) hazards for which additional controls should be prioritized, including but not limited to those that have caused or have a reasonable potential to cause a life-altering or fatal injury or disease; and
  5. Identify key potential emergency scenarios including, but not limited to, all potential accidents that have a moderate or high severity or probability of occurrence.

NOTE FOR 3.2.2.3.  REVISED. This requirement combines 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.3.4.a from the 2018 Mining Standard.

Sub-requirement 3.2.4.4. in the 2018 Mining Standard a required that workers representatives be engaged in hazard identification and risk assessment. We are proposing to add that workers and contractors should also be consulted, as there will be cases where workers and contractors who perform tasks that are linked to particular hazards will be best placed to provide input on the natural of the hazards, the existing controls, the likelihood that hazards will lead to events, etc. When there are sub-groups of workers who or contractors susceptible to harm from particular hazards, they could also be consulted during this process.

Requirement 3.2.2.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard mentioned the assessment of significant/consequence of hazards. Our proposed language here acknowledges that some prioritization will likely need to occur related to the development of controls (e.g., prevention, mitigation), given that there are many hundreds of hazards associated with large-scale mining and mineral processing operations. We refer to the prioritized situations as “high” risk hazards, although other systems use other terms (e.g., serious, key, critical, priority risks, principal or high consequence hazards, material unwanted events). We have included that high-risk hazards include those that have caused or have a reasonable potential to cause a life-altering or fatal injury or disease. This is consistent with many other standards and regulations.

Risk assessments are documented, including:
  1. Any assumptions made in relation to the number of people at risk, the probability, and severity of consequences for each hazard that inform the level of risk assigned to each hazard; and
  2. Any criteria used to determine the high-risk activities or conditions for which additional controls should be prioritized, and criteria to determine the key potential emergency scenarios.

NOTE FOR 3.2.2.4.  This requirement combines 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.4.4.a from the 2018 Mining Standard.

Hazard identification and risk assessments are reviewed and, if necessary, updated at least annually, and more frequently if changes in the workplace, in activities, processes or services, resources, operational context, or external factors have the potential to introduce new hazards or change the risk rating of any existing hazards.

NOTE FOR 3.2.2.5.  REVISED. The 2018 Mining Standard stipulated that the risk assessment process be “ongoing” process. This requirement seeks to provide clarification for what is meant by ongoing. We are proposing an annual review, as this corresponds to guidance provided by some mining jurisdictions.

Updates to risk assessments were also mentioned in a second requirement, 3.2.5.3, which has been deleted as it overlapped with this requirement.

3.2.3: Health and Safety Management Plans and Procedures

They entity consults with workers’ health and safety representatives and relevant workers and contractors to develop controls for high-risk hazards in a manner that aligns with the widely accepted hierarchy of controls. The process of selecting controls is documented, including:
  1. Documentation that the hierarchy of controls have been considered in proper sequence, beginning with serious consideration of the most effective strategies, even if they are the most expensive; and
  2. Rationale for rejecting higher hierarchy controls.

NOTE FOR 3.2.3.1.  REVISED. Requirement 3.2.2.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard mentioned hierarchy of controls (in a footnote), and specifically mentioned that elimination of hazards be a priority, but did not provide a way for that to be consistently audited. By requiring documentation of controls considered and rationale for the final selection of controls, it provides a way for entities to demonstrate that they are following the hierarchy of controls, or have a good reason (not solely based on cost) for not accepting the most effective strategies in all cases.  

We propose the following definition of hierarchy of controls:
A step-by-step approach to eliminating or reducing workplace hazards that ranks controls from the most effective level of protection to the least effective level of protection as follows:  Elimination (physically remove the hazard), Substitution (replace the hazard with something safer), Engineering Controls (use equipment or other means to isolate people from the hazard), Administrative Controls (change the way people work via procedures), Personal Protective Equipment (protect the worker using personal protective equipment).

A health and safety risk management plan (or equivalent) is developed and implemented for managing high-risk hazards that:
  1. Outlines specific controls to address the high-risk hazards identified through the assessment process;
  2. Includes performance criteria or indicators of effectiveness for each control;
  3. Includes specific actions to be taken if the controls are not working within established criteria;
  4. Assigns implementation of controls or actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 3.2.3.2.  REVISED to be more consistent with management plans in other chapters. 

If not covered in the plan for managing high-risk hazards, the entity demonstrates that documented procedures or measures are in place and implemented to address occupational health and safety hazards associated with the following, if relevant to the operation:
  1. Any unique occupational health and safety risks to specific groups of workers (e.g., pregnant women, children, HIV-positive, etc.) identified in the risk assessment;
  2. Ground control and physical stability;
  3. Electricity;
  4. Chemicals and hazardous material;
  5. Gases and dust;
  6. Explosives;
  7. Mobile (powered) equipment/vehicles;
  8. Equipment, including hand tools, and machinery;
  9. Pressurized systems or vessels;
  10. Confined spaces;
  11. Inundation and inrush of water or other substances;
  12. Working at heights; and
  13. Materials handling.

NOTE FOR 3.2.3.3.  REVISED. This requirement combines 3.2.4.2 and 3.2.2.5 from the 2018 Mining Standard. Requirement 3.2.2.5 drew directly from language in the ILO Safety and Health in Mines Convention (176), Article 7, which specifies that employers must take all necessary measures to eliminate or minimize risks associated with a number of known risk areas or issues in the mining industry. Thus, there was an expectation that over and above any plan to manage the “high-risk hazards” identified through risk assessment, that procedures also be in place to manage a set of known risks. 

This approach is not unique. For example, the New Zealand government requires mining entities to develop Hazard Management Plans for all “principal” mining hazards regardless of the level of risk determined by a risk assessment. They include as principal hazards: ground or strata instability; inundation and inrush of any substance; mine shafts and winding systems; roads and other vehicle operating areas; tips, ponds and voids; air quality; fire or explosion; explosives; gas outbursts; spontaneous combustion (for underground coal mines). 

Based on a review of various sources that identify major hazards in the mining and mineral processing industries (see list of sources for Annex 3.2-A), and also a consultation question in the draft IRMA Mineral Processing Standard, we have identified common areas of known hazards. These are now listed in 3.2.3.3. Not all will be relevant at every operation.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-2:  Do you agree with this approach? If so, do you agree with the categories of hazards listed, or would you suggest other types of hazards that should always have procedures or controls (if relevant at the operation)?

The entity collaborates with worker health and safety representatives to:
  1. Review psychosocial hazards and identify those that are priority concerns for workers. The identification process includes consultations with workers and contractors;
  2. Develop and implement programs to support the mental health of workers and contractors;
  3. Develop and implement programs to encourage and promote overall health and wellness in the workplace; and
  4. Review the effectiveness of the programs developed under (b) and (c) above and update them as necessary.

NOTE FOR 3.2.3.4:  REVISED. The idea of developing promotional programs to support wellness and mental health was addressed in two requirements in the 2018 Mining Standard (3.2.3.4.d and 3.2.4.2). However, neither requirement clearly articulated a need for such programs to always be developed, which made it difficult for auditors to interpret if and when such programs would be required.

The identification of psychosocial hazards (i.e., those that may affect workers’ metal or emotional health or wellbeing) occurs in a previous requirement (3.2.2.1.a.i). But there is no guarantee that a risk assessment will prioritize such hazards as being high-risk. In 3.2.3.4, we are proposing that programs to promote and support worker mental health and promote wellbeing more generally be required regardless of the outcome of the risk assessment, though we are not prescriptive about the content of such programs, as different types of programs will be more or less useful in different contexts.

This approach is taken in the Mining Association of Canada’s Safety and Health Protocol (2021). For example, they require at the AA level that sites demonstrate that “The facility’s programs promote and encourage health and wellness, including mental health, and a healthy lifestyle.”

In order to determine priority programs, we are proposing that collaboration occur with worker health and representatives and workers and contractors.

We are proposing a definition of psychosocial hazards:
Hazards that can have an impact on the psychological health or mental or emotional wellbeing of a person.

If this requirement is approved, we can add guidance related to psychosocial hazards. For example, the Western Australia Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety has a website that outlines examples of psychosocial hazards that include: work demands, low levels of control, inadequate support from supervisors or coworkers, lack of role clarity, poor organizational change management, low recognition and reward, poor organizational justice, extreme environmental conditions, remote work, isolated work, inappropriate behaviors, traumatic events, fatigue, alcohol and other drug use and poor physical health.

If the risk assessment demonstrates a significant risk of worker exposure to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, or SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) or another infectious disease, the health and safety risk management plan (or equivalent) integrates the following:
  1. In relation to HIV/AIDS (if relevant), the entity:
    1. Provides free, voluntary and confidential HIV testing and counseling for all workers and employees;
    2. Provides HIV/AIDS treatment for workers and employees where not covered by public or private insurance schemes at an affordable rate; and
    3. Provides contractors with access to education and other preventative programs, and works with contracting companies to identify ways for contractors to access affordable treatment.
  2. In relation to tuberculosis (if relevant), the entity provides free and voluntary testing for workers/employees where it is not reasonably likely to be provided by public or private health programs at an affordable rate.
  3. In relation to malaria (if relevant), the entity:
    1. Has a vector control plan;
    2. Takes action to prevent facilities from becoming breeding environments for malaria-carrying mosquitoes; and
    3. Provides protection from infection by malaria-carrying mosquitoes in company facilities and any company-provided housing.
  4. In relation to SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) or any emerging infectious diseases (if relevant), the entity:
    1. Provides no-cost training for workers and contractors on preventative measures to reduce the risk of infection and spread of the disease;
    2. Provides health screening of workers, contractors and visitors;
    3. Provides testing, and, if available, a voluntary vaccination program at no cost to workers;
    4. Cleans and disinfects the working environment based on best international guidance;
    5. Provides suitable personal protective equipment to workers, contractors and visitors at no cost;
    6. Modifies shift patterns and changeover times to minimize close contact between workers and/or contractors;
    7. Provides for isolation and/or medical treatment of workers where infection is suspected or confirmed; and
    8. Suspends non-essential activities, or all activities, if necessary.

NOTE FOR 3.2.3.5:  REVISED. 3.2.3.5 (a), (b) and (c) were previously in the Community Health and Safety chapter. The worker-related requirements have been separated out and added into this chapter, as they are more relevant here.

Sub-requirement 3.2.3.5.d is a NEW requirement borne out of experiences with Covid-19. However, these plans would also be appropriate if there is the potential for other infectious diseases. Our proposal is that all sites should have a plan in place that covers general elements of how to respond to outbreaks of known potential diseases. For new diseases, having a general plan in place will enable operations to more quickly adapt and develop disease-specific responses. 

The action plan is geared toward management of infectious diseases in the workplace, but also seeks to minimize risks to nearby communities by reducing the potential for significant outbreaks at the mineral processing site. If sites respond quickly when cases are found, and implement controls to limit the spread, then there will be less potential for movement of viruses/diseases between facilities and communities). See also Chapter 3.3 – ‘Community Health and Safety,’ where a similar action plan is required to be implemented if infectious diseases are found.

They entity consults with workers’ health and safety representatives and relevant workers and contractors to develop emergency preparedness and response systems and procedures, including:
  1. An emergency response plan that:
    1. Outlines the appropriate actions, including evacuation plans if relevant, to be taken for all reasonably foreseeable health and safety emergencies identified in the risk assessment process (see 3.2.2.3); and
    2. Is accessible to all workers and contractors in languages that are comprehensible to them.
  2. Exercises to test emergency response plans and documentation of lessons learned, including:
    1. Table top emergency response simulations on an annual basis or more frequently; and
    2. A full emergency simulation drill conducted every three years or more frequently;
  3. Equipping the workplace with emergency response equipment in sufficient quantities and in working condition to respond appropriately to foreseeable emergencies, and inspecting equipment on an annual basis;
  4. Ensuring that relevant first responders receive training in first aid, fire-fighting, and handling of hazardous chemicals and materials, as relevant;
  5. Implementing a system to identify and track at any time the probable locations of all individuals who are underground, if relevant;
  6. Implementing mechanisms to alert workers and contractors about emergency situations, and testing the mechanisms annually; and
  7. Reviewing the plan every two years, or sooner, if there are changes that may affect the scope, nature or scale of potential emergency scenarios or the ability to respond to potential emergencies (e.g., changes in the organization, hazards, resources, external factors, etc.).

NOTE FOR 3.2.3.6:  REVISED. 3.2.3.6.a and 3.2.3.6.b incorporate workplace-focused emergency preparedness and response requirements from Chapter 2.5 (that chapter now focuses on emergency preparedness and response planning that occurs with affected communities). 3.2.3.6.e, the requirement to be able to identify and track locations of individuals underground, was 3.2.4.1.f in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

We have expanded on the expectations beyond what was in the 2018 Mining Standard. 

  • 3.2.3.6.c, providing sufficient emergency response equipment and inspecting that equipment, was added based on similar requirements in the RBA/RMI ESG standard for Mineral Supply Chains. 
  • 3.2.3.6.f, having mechanisms to alert workers in emergency situations is based on similar requirements in Mining Association of Canada (MAC) Crisis Management Protocol.
  • 3.2.3.6.f, the frequency of review (and the frequency of tabletop and drills) aligns with MAC protocol.
A stop work authority procedure (or equivalent) is developed and implemented that provides workers and contractors with the right, the responsibility, and the authority to either refuse to undertake or to stop work if they believe that conditions or behaviors pose an imminent and serious danger to the health or safety of themselves or others, or serious risk of harm to the environment. The procedure:
  1. Is clear that the authority to stop work with reasonable justification may be exercised by workers or contractors without fear of reprisal by the entity, and that retaliation by other workers will not be tolerated;
  2. Outlines:
    1. The conditions whereby workers or contractors may initiate a stop work action;
    2. Who needs to be notified of the stop work action;
    3. The investigation process to determine validity of the stop work action (see 3.2.3.8.c);
    4. A process for coming to agreement on any containment actions and verifying that those actions have been implemented;
    5. Who has authority to restart work, and any monitoring that need to occur after work has resumed to ensure that corrective actions remain effective; and
    6. Follow-up steps for communicating the event to relevant workers, contractors and management, and integrating learning from the stop work event (e.g., into risk assessment updates, management plans or procedures, or training materials).

NOTE FOR 3.2.3.7:  NEW. The 2018 Mining Standard (3.2.3.1.e) included the workers’ right to remove themselves from unsafe situation, as this right is embedded in ILO conventions such as 176-Safety in Mines and 155-Occupational Safety and Health, in many national laws, and in company codes or policies.  

The 2018 Mining Standard, however, did not outline any obligations of the entity beyond informing workers of this right. There can be numerous reasons that workers may be reluctant to exercise their stop work authority, and if they do not understand the bounds within which they can exercise this right, or do not believe there is support from company leadership, then dangerous conditions may persist.

The importance of communicating this authority to workers so that they understand their rights and responsibilities has been written into voluntary standards such as the American Society of Safety Professionals Standard Z10-2019 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, which was developed with the cooperation of United Steelworkers along with corporations and trade associations, including Alcoa, Chevron, Nucor, Siemens, United Technologies, the American Chemistry Council, and the American Foundry Society.

We are proposing that there be both a procedure (3.2.3.7), and, later in the chapter, training on the procedure (3.2.7.4.d) to address this gap in the IRMA Standard.

A reporting and investigation procedure (or equivalent) is developed and implemented that outlines the steps to be taken by workers, contractors, internal inspectors, or others to inform the entity of unwanted events or unsafe working conditions. The procedure outlines, at minimum:
  1. The rights and responsibilities of workers, contractors, and internal inspectors to report unwanted events (e.g., accidents, near-miss incidents, injuries, illness or fatality), ineffective controls or unsafe working conditions (e.g., uncontrolled hazards) without fear of reprisal by the entity, and that retaliation by other workers for reporting unwanted events will not be tolerated;
  2. The process to be followed when reporting unwanted events or unsafe working conditions, including who to contact, how to contact them, what types of information to include, and any forms that need to be submitted as part of the process; and
  3. The investigation process to be followed for different situations (e.g., validating stop work actions by workers or inspectors, investigating accidents, near miss incidents or observations of hazards in the workplace, etc.) including:
    1. A provision that any use of stop work authority by workers or internal inspectors is investigated promptly;
    2. Expected timelines for commencing investigations of other reported unwanted events or unsafe working conditions;
    3. Who participates in different types of investigations; and
    4. How the outcomes of investigations are communicated to workers, contractors, and others.

NOTE FOR 3.2.3.8.  NEW. We are proposing this requirement because it seems reasonable to expect that there be clear procedures for how safety-related issues are reported and investigated. Having written procedures will help to promote consistency and predictability in the process, and provide reassurance to workers and others that when potential health and safety hazards or actual impacts are reported, there is a process for following up. Also, if protection of worker health and safety is a priority, then actions should be taken in a prompt manner (and having a procedure in place with clear timelines and responsibilities will help to facilitate those actions).  

We are proposing the following definition of unwanted event:
A situation or condition where there may be or is a loss of control of a hazard that leads to harm.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-3:  Is it common to have a procedure related to the reporting and investigation of health and safety issues in the workplace? If not, do you believe this is something that would be useful or not? Are there any elements you would add or remove from such a procedure?

3.2.4: Specific Measures to Protect Workers

The entity communicates with workers on health and safety matters as follows:
  1. Systems or processes are in place to communicate information to workers and contractors and receive input and respond to them on matters relating to occupational health and safety; and
  2. Health and safety data sheets, labels, and signage (e.g., warning signs, exits, evacuation routes) in the workplace are:
    1. In formats and languages that are understandable to the workers and contractors;
    2. Maintained in legible condition; and
    3. Kept up to date.

NOTE FOR 3.2.4.1.  REVISED. This was 3.2.3.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It has been revised to make it clear that there are two elements in the requirement. One is communication from the entity to the workers (and this includes all workers, not just workers’ health and safety representatives), and the other is from workers to the entity.

There is overlap between 3.2.4.1 and 4.1.4.1 in Chapter 4.1 – ‘Waste and Materials Management.’ Chapter 4.1 covers procedures related to hazardous chemicals and wastes. That chapter requires procedures related to hazardous chemicals that include informing workers about how to access the information on chemicals. This requirement, 3.2.4.1, however, makes it clear that that information must be in a format that is clear and understandable to workers.

Every shift has supervision at a level commensurate with the risks and the competence of workers. Supervision includes:
  1. Oversight and enforcement of adherence to relevant procedures and controls related to the tasks being carried out; and
  2. Consistent and correct usage of personal protective equipment and clothing appropriate to the working environment.

NOTE FOR 3.2.4.2:  REVISED. This was 3.2.4.1.e in the 2018 Mining Standard. Previously the requirement stipulated that there needed to be “adequate supervision and control” on each shift. We have added more clarity here as to what supervision entails.

Personal protective equipment and clothing:
  1. Provided, at no cost, to workers and contractors when exposure to adverse conditions or adequate protection against risk of accident or injury to health cannot be ensured by other means;
  2. Is fit for purpose, and the size and fit are gender-appropriate and provide adequate protection; and
  3. Is maintained by the entity in clean and good working condition, and replaced as necessary.

NOTE FOR 3.2.4.3:  REVISED. Sub-requirement 3.2.4.3.a was 3.2.4.1.b in the 2018 Mining Standard. This was a critical requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above). 

  • Sub-requirement 3.2.4.3.b was added based on recommendations from IRMA’s Expert Working Group on Gender.
  • Sub-requirement 3.2.4.3.c was added based on a review of PPE-related requirements in other standards. 
First aid is available on site as follows:
  1. All workers and contractors receive basic first aid training;
  2. Workers and contractors have unrestricted access to first aid and rapid response equipment appropriate to the work area;
  3. In areas where chemicals are stored, handled and used, safety data sheets, and instructions on first aid for all potential exposure routes (e.g., inhalation, ingestion, eye or skin contact) are available (see also 3.2.4.1.b).

NOTE FOR 3.2.4.4:  NEW. In the 2018 Mining Standard, the site was responsible for providing first aid to workers who suffered injury or illness, however, there was no mention of having first aid provisions/equipment easily accessible to workers. A similar expectation is included in other mining-related standards.

For example, Responsible Business Alliance’s ESG Standard requires that all employees receive basic first aid training, and Responsible Jewellery Council requires that there be trained first-aid personnel on site.

Also, we have added that first aid instructions be available where chemicals are stored or used, so that workers have information to understand the appropriate actions to take if exposures occur.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-4:  In 3.2.4.4.a, we are suggesting that all workers have at least basic training in first aid. Should there also always be others on site who have a higher level or depth of first aid training or certification (e.g., supervisors)?  Also, mine sites and mineral processing operations can be extremely large complexes. Do you have a suggestion for what might be an adequate number of on-site employees/workers with certified first aid on site at all times? 

Workplaces include:
  1. Safe, potable water that is readily accessible to workers and contractors;
  2. Clean toilet, washing and locker facilities commensurate with the number and gender of employees and contractors;
  3. Sanitary facilities for eating and storing food;
  4. Primary and emergency power supply and lighting;
  5. Adequate ventilation, in particular for confined spaces and underground workings;
  6. Fire safety equipment and alarms; and
  7. Clearly marked, unlocked and unblocked evacuation routes and emergency exits, including, for any underground workplace, two exits that are each connected to separate means of egress to the surface where practicable.

NOTE FOR 3.2.4.5:  REVISED. The requirement has been refocused on general elements of the workplace that should be in place to provide a healthy and safe environment for workers. Previously, many of the requirements were in a single paragraph. They have been separated out here to make the expectations clearer. In the 2018 Mining Standard, most of these expectations were included in requirement 3.2.4.3, except for the provisions of two exits for underground workplaces, and adequate ventilation in sub-requirements (g) and (f), which were 3.2.2.5.d and 3.2.2.5.e, respectively, in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Also, we are proposing to add three NEW sub-requirements – 3.2.4.5 (d), (f) and (g).  These are all expectations in the Responsible Jewellery Council’s Code of Practices (2019).

And we removed references to accommodations, as these are now included in 3.2.4.6, below.

Any accommodations for workers or contractors provided by the entity adhere to best international practices including:
  1. During time spent in workers’ accommodations, workers are able to enjoy their fundamental human rights, including the freedom of association and freedom of movement;
  2. Any fees for rent or services are discussed during recruitment, specified in employment contracts, and never lead to a worker becoming indebted to the employer;
  3. All accommodations provide:
    1. Safe and potable water in the dwelling in quantities sufficient to provide for all personal and household uses;
    2. Adequate sewage and garbage disposal systems;
    3. Appropriate protection against heat, cold, damp, noise, fire, and disease-carrying animals and insects;
    4. Adequate sanitary and washing facilities, ventilation, cooking and storage facilities and natural and artificial lighting; and
    5. A reasonable degree of privacy both between individuals within the household, and for the members of the household against undue disturbance by external factors;
  4. Where accommodations are provided for single workers or workers separated from their families:
    1. A separate bed for each worker;
    2. Safe accommodations and toilet/bathroom facilities separated by gender; and
    3. Common dining rooms, canteens, recreation rooms and health facilities, where not otherwise available in the community.

NOTE FOR 3.2.4.6.  REVISED. Requirement 3.2.4.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard included a single sub-requirement that, “Any accommodations provided by the operating company shall be clean, safe, and meet the basic needs of the workers.” It was not clear what was meant by safe, or “meet the basic needs of workers,” and so a review was undertaken of international practices related to workers’ accommodations.

Several international instruments recognize a right to an adequate standard of housing as part of respecting human rights, and the ILO and IFC/EBRD have produced separate guidance on adequate housing standards and practices when accommodations are provided by employers. This more detailed requirement includes provisions that have been drawn from those sources. 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-5:  There are many more specific requirements that could be added based on the ILO and IFC/EBRD guidance.  Do you have suggestions for additional or different requirements that should be viewed as the most material when it comes to worker accommodations?

3.2.5: Inspections, Workplace Monitoring and Health Surveillance

The entity and workers’ representatives if they so choose perform joint inspections of the working environment to identify any hazards to which workers or contractors may be exposed and evaluate the effectiveness of occupational health and safety controls and protective measures. The joint inspection program:
  1. Includes a plan that outlines the frequency of inspections for different work areas/tasks/equipment, ensuring coverage of the entire site and all high-risk hazards each year;
  2. Empowers those carrying out inspections to use stop work authority if a hazard is uncovered that poses an imminent threat to the health or safety of any person(s); and
  3. Documents, in an inspection report, any observed unsafe conditions and actions, recommended containment and/or corrective actions, and a priority level for actions (e.g., immediate action, short-term action or long-term action).

NOTE FOR 3.2.5.1:  REVISED. Workplace inspections are a critical component of occupational health and safety management. The 2018 version of the Mining Standard did not provide much detail on either the expectations or outcomes of these inspections. 

We are proposing a short-list of elements based on a review of guidance, including in 3.2.6.1.b. that inspectors to have the authority to stop work when there is an imminent threat to worker safety. 

A workplace monitoring and health surveillance program is in place to measure exposures to hazards, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls being implemented to protect health and safety as follows:
  1. Workplace monitoring and worker health surveillance are designed and conducted by certified industrial hygienists or other competent professionals;
  2. Workers’ health and safety representatives have the opportunity to suggest improvements to the design, and to participate in the implementation of workplace monitoring and worker health surveillance programs;
  3. Health surveillance is carried out in a manner that protects the right to confidentiality of medical information, and is not used in a manner prejudicial to workers’ interests;
  4. Samples collected for workplace monitoring and health surveillance purposes are analyzed in an ISO/IEC-17025-certified or nationally accredited laboratory, if available in the host country;
  5. Sample results are compared against national occupational exposure limits (OELs) and/or biological exposure indices (BEIs), if they exist, or OELs/BEIs developed by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH); and
  6. If an OEL/BEI is exceeded:
    1. Affected people (i.e., workers, contractors, supervisors, etc.) are informed immediately, and provided with instructions on the appropriate actions to take (e.g., evacuation, machinery stoppages, etc.);
    2. Any supervisors and management not present at the affected location are informed as soon as possible; and
    3. Controls are reviewed and revised in a timely manner to ensure that future exposure levels remain within safe limits.

NOTE FOR 3.2.5.2:  REVISED. Sub-requirement 3.2.5.2.b used to be 3.2.3.4.b. It was moved here. Minor revisions were made to:

  • 3.2.5.2.d (Added that certified labs must be used if available in the host country, recognizing that not all countries will have certification/accreditation systems).
  • 3.2.5.2.f (Added that in addition to being informed immediately, affected are provided with instructions on appropriate actions to take; and added that supervisors and management is informed as soon as possible so that they are made aware of the situation.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-6:  Is the selection of factors to be monitored and surveilled solely based on the outcomes of the risk assessment? Or should IRMA be requiring separate assessments (e.g., an exposure assessment or baseline monitoring) to help inform the monitoring program? For example, the ESG Standard developed by the RBA/RMI requires documentation of temperature exposure hazards, which presumably requires some monitoring of the workplace, and an “ergonomic assessment of workplace jobs, tasks and activities.”

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-7:  Should we be separating out workplace environmental monitoring from health surveillance activities, and adding more specific expectations for both? For example:

1) Environmental monitoring in the workplace (e.g., sampling for chemicals/toxins in air, measuring noise levels, monitoring temperatures in the workplace, evaluating ergonomics); and 

2) Worker health testing and surveillance (e.g., routine physical examinations, chest x-rays, pulmonary function tests (PFT), testing blood, hair for chemicals, etc.)?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-8:  If certain known hazards are identified during the entity’s hazard identification process (e.g., known carcinogens or hazardous substances, or potential that certain noise decibel levels will be exceeded) should the IRMA Standard outline specific monitoring and/or health surveillance actions to be taken? For example, OSHA in the United States has developed guidance related to a number of known hazards. Or, if normative requirements are not added, should IRMA add some guidance on what might be appropriate monitoring and health surveillance actions?

3.2.6: Response to Unsafe Working Conditions and Unwanted Health and Safety Events

NOTE FOR 3.2.6:  NEW criterion heading.

If unsafe working conditions are observed and reported by workers, contractors, supervisors, inspectors or others, they are investigated in a timely manner, and if an investigation verifies that there is an imminent and serious threat to human health:
  1. In cases where an area is affected:
    1. All workers and contractors are evacuated immediately;
    2. Workers or contractors re-entering the affected area to reinstate safe working conditions are protected from harm; and
    3. Working conditions in the affected area are verified as safe before general workers and contractors are allowed to enter.
  2. In cases where machinery or equipment is the cause of unsafe working conditions:
    1. Use of the machinery or equipment ceases immediately;
    2. The equipment or machinery is fixed or replaced by an appropriate trained specialist; and
    3. The equipment or machinery is verified as safe before being put into service.

NOTE FOR 3.2.6.1:  NEW. The requirement that work be stopped if dangerous conditions exist was not explicitly stated in the 2018 Mining Standard, and was an oversight that we are seeking to correct in this version of the Standard. 

We have proposed a stop work authority procedure (see 3.2.3 7), and this requirement follows on that – i.e., it evaluates whether or not that procedure is actually being followed – i.e., that when unsafe conditions are observed by workers, internal or external inspectors, or others (e.g., it could be an IRMA auditor), that work is stopped and appropriate follow-up actions taken. 

Whenever a near miss incident, accident, injury, illness or fatality occurs in the workplace:
  1. Workers or contractors who have suffered an injury or illness are provided with first aid, and, if necessary, prompt transportation from the workplace to appropriate medical facilities;
  2. Affected workers or contractors, including those present at the time of an accident, are offered counselling or other forms of psychological support;
  3. The events are reported to the joint health and safety committee and accountable member of senior management, and, if required, to the competent authority;
  4. The events are investigated by the entity, including a root cause analysis;
  5. Corrective action plans are developed and implemented; and
  6. The circumstances surrounding the event, the investigation, the corrective action plans and the outcomes are documented.

NOTE FOR 3.2.6.2:  REVISED. This was requirement 3.2.5.4. Previously, all steps were included in a single paragraph. We have separated out the steps to make it clear that response to events such as injuries, illness, accidents, fatalities, etc. require a series of actions and documentation. Audits should ensure that all of these steps are taken for each health and safety event.

Proposed definitions:

Accident
An event that results in injury, ill health, fatality or damage to property or the environment

Near Miss Incident
An unexpected event that disrupts regular work activity and there was the potential for injury, ill health, fatality or damage to property or the environment, but no actual harm occurred. Also known as a ‘close calls’, ‘injury-free event’, ‘near accident’.

Sub-requirement 3.2.6.2.b is NEW.  We are proposing this to address the potential psychological stress or trauma that may occur when experiencing or witnessing an accident, injury or fatality. Although few studies have been conducted on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the mining industry, a 2013 study found that PTDS “is a reality in the South African mining industry.” That study found that between 2006 and 2010 there were 671 claims for PTSD filed with the Rand Mutual Assurance Company for compensation benefits. Of those, 451 (66.9%) were from the mining sector. The mining industry claims filed by mine workers included those who directly experienced traumatic mine accidents and sustained physical injuries (87.8%) and those who witnessed the events 55 (12.2%). 

Some mining and mineral processing companies offer counseling support to employees and even their families following accidents that have led to fatalities. Note that a requirement to offer to pay for counselling for families of workers killed on the job is being proposed in Chapter 3.1, requirement 3.1.9.4.b.iii.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-9:  Do you support the addition of sub-requirement 3.2.6.2.b?  Do you agree that some form of counseling or psychological support be provided even if accidents don’t result in fatalities?  Should all employees (not just those who experienced or witnessed the accident be eligible for counseling or support?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-10:  

Background:   There are different ways to classify incidents, for example there are those that did cause an injury or fatal and those that may have (but didn’t) caused an injury or fatality. This chapter currently uses the term “near miss incident”, which IRMA defines as: “An unexpected event that disrupts regular work activity and there was the potential for injury, ill health, fatality or damage to property or the environment, but no actual harm occurred. Also known as ‘close calls’, ‘injury-free event’, ‘near accident’.”

However, it has been suggested that this chapter should focus on High Potential Incidents (HPI) rather than Near Miss Incidents. The Global Reporting Initiative 2018 Standard uses both terms. GRI recommends that entities report on the number of “high-potential worker-related incidents,” which are defined as “work-related incident with a high probability of causing a high-consequence injury.” (A high-consequence injury is a work-related injury that results in a fatality or in an injury from which the worker cannot, does not, or is not expected to recover fully to pre-injury health status within 6 months). GRI also recommends that entities report on the number of “close calls”, which corresponds to IRMA’s current definition of “near miss incident”. 

Question:  Should IRMA include requirements for entities to investigate and report on high-potential incidents instead of near miss incidents?  Or in addition to near miss incidents? Or not at all? Please provide a rationale for your opinion.]

3.2.7: Education and Training

NOTE FOR 3.2.7.  NEW criterion heading.

The 2018 Mining Standard included training and retraining in a single requirement (3.2.4.1.d). By including it at a sub-requirement of a larger requirement it failed to capture the importance of ensuring that all workers understand potential hazards and how to protect themselves in the workplace. Training is now being covered in three separate requirements 3.2.7.3, 3.2.7.4 and 3.2.7.5) to elevate the importance of training in the creation and maintenance of safe and healthy workplaces.

This is aligned with other mining standards, such as Mining Association of Canada’s Health and Safety Protocol, updated in 2020, which includes a larger focus on worker health and safety training than what was included in IRMA’s 2018 Mining Standard.

Workers and contractors are informed of their rights to:
  1. Know and be informed of workplace hazards that may affect their safety or health;
  2. Collectively select safety and health representatives;
  3. Report accidents, dangerous occurrences and hazards to the entity and to the competent authority;
  4. Request and obtain inspections and investigations by the entity and the competent authority where there is cause for concern on safety and health grounds; and
  5. Obtain personal data and information held by the entity or the competent authority that is relevant to their safety or health.

NOTE FOR 3.2.7.1:   REVISED. This was 3.2.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We removed one sub-requirements (i.e., the right to remove themselves from locations when there is a danger to safety or health), as this is specifically part of the training program, and so the auditors will determine there if the workers have not only been informed but also trained (which goes further than informing) on that rights/authority (see requirements 3.2.7.4.e.ii).

We have revised 3.2.7.1.e to make it clear that this refers to personal data for each individual worker, and added a footnote that personal data or information may be related to accidents, near-miss incidents, inspections, investigations and remedial actions, workplace monitoring, health surveillance and medical examinations. This content previously included in requirement 3.2.9.3 of the 2018 Mining Standard.

In all cases a worker attempting to exercise in good faith any of the rights referred to in 3.2.3.1 are protected from reprisals of any sort.

NOTE FOR 3.2.7.2:   This was 3.2.3.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

A training program is in place on workplace health and safety as follows:
  1. All workers and contractors receive an initial general training before they are allowed to commence their work;
  2. All workers and contractors receive specific task training under supervision for a required period before they are deemed qualified to undertake the work without immediate supervision;
  3. Periodically, retraining takes place;
  4. Worker competency for conducting work safety is verified using a variety of techniques such as training comprehension evaluation, observation of workers performing tasks correctly and safely, and incorporating results of work place evaluations and incident tracking to assess effectiveness of training;
  5. Records of worker and contractor attendance and competency evaluations are maintained;
  6. Trainings are conducted by competent professionals;
  7. Trainings are in formats and languages that are comprehensible to all workers and contractors; and
  8. Trainings are free for workers and contractors.

NOTE FOR 3.2.7.3:  REVISED. See note for 3.2.7, above. Requirement 3.2.7.3 contains elements from requirements in 2018 the Mining Standard (e.g., the requirement that instruction be provided in a comprehensible manner, now 3.2.7.3.g was previously covered in 3.2.4.1.a). But most of the content is new.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-11:  What is an appropriate periodicity for retraining workers, and would the retraining programs cover the same information as the initial training?

The content of the training program includes:
  1. The range of specific health and safety hazards associated with specific job/tasks, as identified through the hazard identification and risk assessment process;
  2. How to perform routine and non-routine tasks in a manner that avoids placing themselves or others at risk;
  3. Control measures that have been developed to prevent and respond to high-risk hazards relevant to specific jobs/tasks;
  4. Procedures that have been developed that are specific to their work area/job/tasks;
  5. The proper use and fitting of personal protective equipment; and
  6. Instruction on:
    1. How to identify workplace hazards;
    2. Emergency response plans, including evacuation plans if relevant; (see 3.2.3.7)
    3. The stop work authority procedure (see 3.2.3.8);
    4. The reporting and investigations procedure (see 3.2.3.9); and
    5. How to access first aid and medical assistance.

NOTE FOR 3.2.7.4:  NEW. See note for 3.2.7, above. In the 2018 Mining Standard, there was a critical requirement that entities inform workers, in a comprehensible manner, of the hazards associated with their work, the health risks involved and relevant preventive and protective measures. We are proposing that this training requirement replace that critical requirement, as it is the requirement that most closely matches the intention of the 2018 Mining Standard requirement (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

The training program is reviewed and updated when there are changes to procedures, risk assessments or management plans, or if evaluations of the operation’s occupation health and safety performance suggest areas that need attention.

NOTE FOR 3.2.7.5:  NEW. See note for 3.2.7, above.

All visitors and other third parties accessing the operation’s premises (e.g., suppliers, service providers):
  1. Receive an occupational health and safety briefing;
  2. Are provided with clean personal protective equipment, at no cost, that is relevant to the areas of the site that they will be entering; and
  3. Receive instruction on proper use and fitting of personal protective equipment and the entity’s expectations for when and where the equipment must be used.

NOTE FOR 3.2.7.6:  This was 3.2.3.6 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Previously, all requirements were in a single paragraph. They have been separated out here to more clearly delineate the expectations.

3.2.8: Health and Safety Performance Evaluation and Reporting

On an ongoing basis:
  1. The entity reviews inspections reports, industrial hygiene monitoring information, occurrences of stop work actions, hazards, accidents, near-miss incidents, injuries and fatalities; and
  2. If performance criteria or indicators related to control measures are not being met, the entity:
    1. Collaborates with workers to carry out a root cause analysis, develop corrective actions and modify controls;
    2. Revises the management plan and/or relevant procedures and training materials, accordingly; and
    3. Includes the information in the annual occupational health and safety management review (see 3.2.8.2).

NOTE FOR 3.2.8.1:  REVISED. Requirement 3.2.2.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard required that the company “systematically update a risk management plan.” Requirement 3.2.8.1 replaces 3.2.2.4, and provides more context for what information should feed into a review process that would inform the revision of management plans and other aspects of the OHS management system (e.g., procedures listed above, training, procedures, etc.).  

We replaced systematically with ongoing, because rather than a regular or systematic approach, the information coming in from various sources will occur at different times (e.g., incidents to not occur on a schedule) and management plans and procedures should be updated in a timely manner to reflect learning from those incidents.

Updates to management plans were also mentioned in 3.2.5.3 of the 2018 Mining Standard, which has been deleted due to overlap with this and other requirements.

Annually, the member of senior management accountable for the health and safety management system reviews the operation's health and safety record for the year (e.g., unwanted events, monitoring and inspection results, worker and contractor grievances, etc.) and if the entity’s goals and performance targets are not being achieved, documents and implements changes to policies or procedures to improve performance.

NOTE FOR 3.2.8.2:   NEW. This requirement fills a gap in the 2018 Mining Standard, where there was no requirement for annual review of OHS performance even though the very first requirement in the chapter outlined an expectation that they entity measure and improve its health and safety performance.

We are proposing, here, a concrete step for how entities can demonstrate that they are measuring health and safety performance and taking steps to improve it. A review process is included in the TSM Health and Safety Protocol, and includes comparing results against targets. 

On an annual basis, or more frequently, the entity publicly reports the following information, disaggregated by direct employees and contractors:
  1. Number of near-miss incidents;
  2. Number of accidents;
  3. Total number of injuries;
  4. Number of lost-time injuries; and
  5. Number of fatalities.

NOTE FOR 3.2.8.3:  NEW. Based on input on the IRMA draft Mineral Processing Standard, companies routinely report incident statistics publicly, although which statistics are report varies by country to country. We are proposing that the entity report the same statistics that are being collected in relation to the performance targets in 3.2.1.1, and that the statistics be reported in relation to those targets.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.2-12:  Are there any other health and safety statistics that may be relevant to publicly report? 

3.2.9: Health and Safety Data Management

NOTE FOR 3.2.9:  REVISED. This criterion was previously called ‘Health and Safety Data Management and Access to Information’. We moved the access to information expectations for workers’ health and safety representatives into 3.2.1.5, and moved those related to workers into 3.2.7.1.

The entity maintains the following records:
  1. Workplace monitoring (e.g., air quality, noise levels, temperatures, etc.) and health surveillance results (e.g., physical and biological assessments and testing);
  2. All data on unwanted events (i.e., injuries, diseases, fatalities, accidents, and near-miss incidents) collected by the company; and
  3. Reports on unwanted events submitted to competent authorities;

NOTE FOR 3.2.9.1:  In the 2018 Mining Standard, all of these expectations were in a single paragraph in requirement 3.2.6.1. They have been separated out here to make the expectations clearer. Also, the original requirement also stated that workers’ representatives have access to the data. This is now included in 3.2.1.5.e.v.

A data management system is implemented that enables worker health data to be readily located and retrieved. The system:
  1. Is overseen by a responsible custodian;
  2. Securely stores data that are protected by medical confidentiality; and
  3. Retains data on workers for a minimum of 30 years.

NOTE FOR 3.2.9.2:    In the 2018 Mining Standard, all of these expectations were in a single paragraph in requirement 3.2.6.1. They have been separated out here to make the expectations clearer.

Chapter 3.3: Community Health and Safety

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  There are a number of changes to this chapter to make its structure more consistent with other IRMA chapters. 

Proposed additions and changes:

  • Deleted a criterion (3.3.5) on ‘Stakeholder Engagement,’ and moved the requirements into other criteria.
  • Added a criterion on ‘Monitoring and Evaluation’ (3.3.4).
  • Adding baseline data requirement to enable assessment of risks and monitoring of effectiveness of mitigation measures (3.3.2.1)
  • Adding that risk assessment are periodically updated (3.3.2.4)
  • Added that health surveillance occurs if exposure to airborne emissions from an operation may pose a risk to people in the operation’s area of influence (3.3.4.3)

3.3.1: Scoping of Risks to Community Health and Safety

The entity identifies all of the potential sources of risks to community health and safety from the entity’s mining-related activities. Potential sources or risks include but are not limited to:
  1. Entity-operated equipment or vehicles on public roads;
  2. Stationary, mobile, or fugitive sources of airborne emissions from operations (e.g., dust, fumes, vapors);
  3. Stationary or mobile sources of noise or vibration;
  4. Transport of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes;
  5. Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes that may be released to water and/or land as a result of mining-related activities;
  6. Water-borne, water-based, water-related, and vector-borne diseases, and communicable and sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., HIV/AIDs, tuberculosis, malaria, Ebola virus disease or others) that could occur as a result of the project/operation;
  7. Project/operation-induced in-migration of workers, changes in community demographics and changes in community dynamics;
  8. Project/operation-induced changes in availability or capacity of community services (e.g., medical and public-health, emergency response, police), and infrastructure (e.g., potable water and sewage, energy, communications, transportation).
  9. Project/operation-related changes in access to land, water or ecosystem services; and
  10. Use of security personnel at the site or associated facilities.

NOTE FOR 3.3.1.1:  REVISED. Most of this content was included in requirement 3.3.1.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard). Requirement 3.3.1.1 was a critical requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard, and it remains critical in this proposed version of the Standard (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

Competent professionals carry out a documented scoping (or equivalent) similar process, including consultations with relevant stakeholders, to identify risks to/impacts on community health and safety from the sources identified in 3.3.1.1, including:
  1. Throughout the project/operation life cycle (from construction through post-closure);
  2. Under normal operating conditions; and
  3. From potential operational accidents and unwanted event.

NOTE FOR 3.3.1.2:  REVISED. This includes content from requirement 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard. Changes include adding that the scoping be done by competent professionals to align with similar expectations throughout the IRMA Standard.

Also, added stakeholder engagement here. Previously, all stakeholder engagement requirements were in a single requirement (3.3.5.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard). As with other chapters, we have moved them into each relevant section to make it clear when stakeholder engagement needs to occur. 

3.3.2: Risk and Impact Assessment

If baseline data on social-economic conditions were not previously collected at an appropriate level of detail to allow the assessment of the risks to community health and safety, then additional data are collected to estimate, to the extent possible, the baseline conditions prior to development of the operation.

NOTE FOR 3.3.2.1:  NEW. This has been added to be more consistent with other IRMA chapters. This information will also be needed to develop indicators to measure the effectiveness of mitigation measures (as per 3.3.3.2.c).

A credible methodology is used to assess and document:
  1. The nature, magnitude, extent and duration of the risks identified during scoping; and
  2. Evaluate the significance of each risk (based on the probability and severity of consequences), differentiated by different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups or susceptible individuals in the project/operation’s area of influence.

NOTE FOR 3.3.2.2:  REVISED. This combines requirements from 3.3.1.3 and 3.3.2.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

The assessment is carried out by competent professionals and includes consultations with relevant stakeholders in the project/operation’s area of influence to understand:
  1. The risks that are of greatest concern or significance to stakeholders; and
  2. Potential differences in impacts based on gender, age, ethnicity, or any other factor of factor of vulnerability or susceptibility in the project's/operation’s area of influence.

NOTE FOR 3.3.2.3:  REVISED. Previously, all stakeholder engagement requirements were in a single requirement (3.3.5.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard). As with other chapters, we have moved them into each relevant section to make it clear when stakeholder engagement needs to occur. 

We are proposing additional language to clarify that the assessment of what is a significant risk needs to take into consideration stakeholder input on the risks of most concern to them, as well as those that may cause differential impacts on certain members/groups.

Also added that the assessment be conducted by competent professionals.

Assessments are updated throughout the project’s/operation’s life cycle when there are proposed changes to mining-related activities or changes in the operational, environmental, or social context that may create new risks to community health and/or safety or change the nature or degree of an existing impact.

NOTE FOR 3.3.2.4:  NEW. This has been added to reflect that assessments are not a one-time thing. 

This requirement is aligned with other IRMA chapters, which require an updating of risk assessments when there are changes in the operation or operational, environmental or social context. For example, a new mineral processing technique may result in different or increased emissions of contaminants that could have impacts on health, or issues such as climate change may affect the types of ecosystem services affected by the operation, or increased in-migration over time may warrant a re-evaluation of measures to best mitigation the impacts to communities, etc.

3.3.3: Management of Community Health and Safety Risks and Impacts

NOTE FOR 3.3.3:  This was called ‘Risk and Impact Management and Mitigation’ in the 2018 Mining Standard.

The entity collaborates with relevant stakeholders to develop culturally appropriate strategies to mitigate risks that are relevant to them, prioritizing the avoidance of risks and impacts over minimization and compensation.

NOTE FOR 3.3.3.1:  This combines 3.3.3.2 and 3.3.5.1.c from the 2018 Mining Standard.

We can add guidance that in this case, collaboration with “relevant” stakeholders does not mean that all stakeholders need to be engaged when discussing mitigation of a particular risk, just those who are most likely to be affected and therefore have the greatest interest in helping to develop workable solutions. In some cases, this may require engagement with representatives or advocates for various impacted groups, rather than directly affected individuals (e.g., children).

A community health and safety risk management plan (or equivalent):
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Outlines specific actions to avoid, minimize, restore, and as a last resort compensate for past and/or potential impacts on community health and safety;
  3. Includes appropriate performance criteria or indicators to enable evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation measures over time;
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 3.3.3.2:  REVISED. We have updated this requirement to be more consistent with management plan expectations in other IRMA chapters. Sub-requirement a is similar to the previous requirement. 

The entity collaborates with relevant stakeholders to develop appropriate performance criteria or indicators (as per 3.3.3.2.c).

NOTE FOR 3.3.3.3:  REVISED. This was 3.1.5.1.e in the 2018 Mining Standard, but the wording has changed. That requirement said that the entity needed to collaborate with stakeholders on the design and implementation of community health and safety monitoring programs. Regarding ‘design,’ this proposed requirement clarifies that collaboration needs to occur on the design of performance criteria, as that is where stakeholder input seems most important (i.e., that communities have a say in what is being measured, and how to tell if mitigation measures are being effective or not).

If the assessment or other information indicates a significant risk of community exposure to an infectious disease such as SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19), HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, or other due to transmission between the operation’s workers or contractors and the community, the entity develops and implements business practices and targeted initiatives and incorporates them into the community health and safety management plan. These business practices and targeted initiatives include, but are not limited to:
  1. The creation and funding of initiatives, in partnership with public health agencies, workers' organizations and other relevant stakeholders, to educate affected communities and vulnerable groups on the infectious disease and modes of prevention, and to support efforts to achieve universal access to testing, vaccinations and treatment for affected community members;
  2. Sharing best practices on the prevention and treatment of these diseases with civil society organizations and policymakers in affected communities; and
  3. Making information publicly available on the entity’s infectious disease efforts.

NOTE FOR 3.3.3.4:  REVISED. This requirement was previously in criterion 3.3.4 called ‘Specific Provisions Related to HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, Malaria and Emerging Infectious Diseases’ in the 2018 Mining Standard. We have deleted that requirement and added it into this management section.

The requirement, itself, has changed significantly. In particular, references to actions related to workers have been moved to Chapter 3.2 – ‘Occupational Health and Safety,’ and this chapter focuses more on the public health aspects of infectious disease management (see Chapter 3.2, requirement 3.2.3.5).

3.3.4: Monitoring and Evaluation

NOTE FOR 3.3.4:  NEW criterion. In the 2018 Mining Standard, monitoring was integrated into a management-related requirement. Monitoring has been separated to be more consistent with other IRMA chapters, and to make it clear that there is a distinction between management plans and the monitoring of impacts. Also, a requirement to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions has been added.

A community health and safety monitoring program:
  1. Is developed and implemented to determine:
    1. The change in magnitude of impacts over time; and
    2. The effectiveness of mitigation measures based on performance against criteria or indicators;
  2. Is designed and carried out by competent professionals; and
  3. Uses credible methods.

NOTE FOR 3.3.4.1:  REVISED. This replaces the previous 3.3.3.1.f.  We updated this requirement to be more consistent with language in other chapters. and to make it clear that monitoring involves gathering data on impacts, and also comparing the data collected to performance criteria, to determine if impacts are being adequately managed/mitigated.

The entity offers to facilitate community participation in the monitoring of community health and safety criteria or indicators.

NOTE FOR 3.3.4.2:    REVISED. The 2018 Mining Standard requires that the entity collaborate with stakeholders on the design and implementation of community health and safety monitoring programs (3.1.5.1.e).  We proposed that 3.3.3.3 address the design element, and are proposing that 3.3.4.2 address the implementation element. The requirement did not previously specify that stakeholders be allowed to participate in the monitoring, but that is what was meant by, “collaborate … [on the] implementation of the monitoring program.” 

We are not requiring that there be community participation because there may not be any interest on the part of community members, but we are expecting that the entity let community stakeholders know that this is an opportunity available to them.

If significant risks or impacts to health from exposure to airborne emissions in the project’s/operation’s area of influence are identified, the entity collaborates with affected communities to develop and implement a program to monitor exposure levels and perform health surveillance of affected people as follows:
  1. Exposure monitoring and health surveillance are designed and conducted by a community health specialist or other competent professional selected in collaboration with community representatives;
  2. Health surveillance is carried out in a manner that protects the right to confidentiality of medical information, and is not used in a manner prejudicial to interests of the community member(s);
  3. Samples collected for monitoring and health surveillance purposes are analyzed in an ISO/IEC 17025 certified or nationally accredited laboratory, if available in the host country;
  4. Sample results are compared against national or international standards; and
  5. If a standard is exceeded, the affected community member(s) are informed immediately, and mitigation measures are reviewed and revised in a timely manner to ensure that future exposure levels remain within safe limits.

NOTE FOR 3.3.4.3:  NEW. This is being proposed because, as with occupational (workplace) exposures to chemicals or emissions (see Chapter 3.2, requirement 3.2.5.2), there is the potential that community members may be exposed to elevated levels of contaminants from industrial activities such as mining (e.g., contaminant-bearing dusts from roads, waste facilities) and mineral processing (e.g., smelters, refineries). 

We are proposing that if the assessment demonstrates the potential that airborne emissions may pose a risk to the health of community members (even if just a segment of the population such as those who are vulnerable due to age or pre-existing health conditions, or proximity to facilities), that communities are an active partner in developing a program of health surveillance and exposure monitoring. Data from health surveillance and monitoring would then be used to inform changes to management measures..

Annually or more frequently, the entity:
  1. Reviews monitoring results and any grievances related to community health and safety, and evaluates the effectiveness of its prevention, mitigation, and remediation strategies;
  2. Determines if there have been changes to the operation (e.g., expansions, changes in practices, etc.) or operating environment that have created new risks that need to be mitigated, or exacerbated existing ones; and
  3. Updates the management plan, if necessary, to improve management of community health and safety.

NOTE FOR 3.3.4.4:  REVISED. This was 3.3.3.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We have updated this requirement to be more consistent with language in other chapters. Previously we said updates occur as the result of risk and impact monitoring. But there may be other factors that feed into updates of plans, such as changes to the operation that create new risks that need to be mitigated.

3.3.5: Reporting

The entity makes information on community health and safety risks and impacts and monitoring results publicly available.

Chapter 3.4: Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Area Due Diligence

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  We have changed the chapter title to Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Area Due Diligence.

IRMA has been encouraged by stakeholders from different sectors to fully align with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas  (hereafter referred to as “OECD Due Diligence Guidance)”. IRMA did base Chapter 3.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard on the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, but did not fully integrate every step of the guidance’s 5-Step framework. 

In 2022, IRMA held an Expert Working Group to discuss whether IRMA should try to fully algin with OECD. In general, most working group participants said IRMA should align with OECD, not because it is necessarily the best approach to manage a company’s activities related to CAHRA (especially for mine operators, at the very upstream of the supply chain), but because OECD Due Diligence Guidance is now widely adopted and is even being written into regulations. Some suggested that OECD DD is especially useful in cases where LSM source from ASM. 

The working group discussions included a number of challenging aspects related to conflict-affected and high-risk area (CAHRA) and OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

First, there is no definitive or consistently updated list of CAHRA. As a result, when a site that is under assessment and IRMA auditors have a difference of opinion on whether the site is in a CAHRA (or there are “red flags” using OECD DD terminology – see requirement 3.4.3.1) based on the evidence presented, there is no obvious arbiter to make a final determination. The outcome of that disagreement, however, can mean passing or failing this chapter, which could result in site reaching or not reaching and achievement level in IRMA, and therefore these needs to be a way to address disagreements. At this time, IRMA assumes that when such disagreements arise IRMA will have to convene an ad hoc expert committee to review the information and make a final determination.

Second, OECD Due Diligence Guidance has some very clear recommendations on what should occur if an entity is found to be sourcing from or linked to another entity that has committed serious human rights abuses or supported armed groups. For example, if an upstream entity in the supply chain has been extorted by an armed group (e.g., forced to pay a bribe or “fee”) downstream entities are supposed to suspend or discontinue sourcing from the upstream entity. However, the working group discussed scenarios where this might not be the best course of action, especially for the mine workers and communities who might be receiving economic benefits from the mine. Clearly, CAHRA are very complex and challenging operating environments. Some IRMA expert working group participants suggested that perhaps OECD Due Diligence Guidance should be revised/updated, and that IRMA should have conversations with them about that. There were also suggestions that IRMA could look at producing its own guidance specific to mines or mineral processing operations that are operating/sourcing/transporting minerals/metals in such regions. [See discussion in the Note for 3.4.4.3, and CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.4-3].

Finally, the expert working group also suggested that IRMA should include requirements or guidance on how mines and mineral processing operations can contribute to positive impact on local governance, peace, and stability in CAHRA. At the present time, we have not added any specific requirements related to that suggestion.

Proposed additions and changes:

  • The language and requirements have been rewritten to more closely reflect the OECD Due Diligence Guidance expectations. 
  • We have removed a requirement on CAHRA screening [see CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.4-2]

PARTICIPATE IN AN EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS AND RESPONSIBLE SOURCING

This chapter 3.4 on Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Area due diligence has some overlap with a new chapter (1.XX) being proposed on Mineral Supply Chains and Responsible Sourcing. The chapter on Mineral Supply Chains and Responsible Sourcing (Chapter 1.XX) is still under development, and to aid in that process IRMA will be convening an Expert Working Group on the subject. One of the issues that will be considered in that working group is the possibility of combining a responsible sourcing chapter with this CAHRA chapter (since management of risks in CAHRA is a component of responsible sourcing).

The intention is that a draft Chapter 1.XX will be released separately for public consultation in the next few months.

If you are interested in participating in an Expert Working Group on Mineral Supply Chains and Responsible Sourcing, please contact IRMA’s Standards Director, Pierre De Pasquale (pdepasquale@responsiblemining.net).

3.4.1: External Certification of OECD Due Diligence

NOTE FOR 3.4.1.  This is a NEW criterion. The idea is that IRMA will recognize certifications by other systems, and if a mining and/or mineral processing operation has been evaluated as being compliant with a recognized OECD-aligned auditing system (determined on a case-by-case basis, based on the results of an OECD alignment assessment, and/or potentially if recognized by other entities or regulatory bodies) then IRMA would not necessarily require duplication of auditing efforts. 

Our proposal for how this chapter could be audited is:

SCENARIO 1:  If a site has not been audited by a recognized OECD-aligned system then IRMA auditors audit the chapter.

SCENARIO 2:  If a site has been audited by a recognized OECD-aligned system within the previous two years, AND the entity agrees to make its most recent audit report (and, if relevant, any corrective action plans) available to the IRMA auditor and agrees to allow certain findings to be reported in the IRMA audit report, then the IRMA auditor would review the audit report and:

  • If the other system’s audit report audit report clearly shows full conformity with all of the OECD due diligence expectations, the entity would score fully meets on 3.4.1.1 (and the IRMA chapter as a whole), and no other requirements would need to be scored.
  • If the other system’s audit report clearly indicates that not all expectations have been fully met then the IRMA auditor would assign ratings for each requirement in the chapter based on the previous auditor’s findings (e.g., if the entity was weak in its reporting on OECD due diligence, the IRMA auditor would not give full marks for that criterion). 
  • If the other system’s audit report is not complete enough to enable verification of any of the requirements in the IRMA chapter (which are aligned with OECD DD expectations), then IRMA auditor would either mark the requirements as ‘not met’ or the entity would have to furnish evidence to enable a different rating.

In this way, IRMA can maintain consistency with the scoring used in other IRMA chapters, and be consistent with respect to transparency of an entity’s performance. 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.4-1:  Do you agree with IRMA recognizing the results of audits conducted for other certification systems (even if the auditing procedures do not fully align with IRMA’s assurance procedures)? If not, please explain your rationale.

Do you agree with recognizing audits from other systems conducted within the past two years, or would you suggest a longer or shorter time period in order to recognize past audits? If you prefer a different period, please explain your rationale.

Within the past two years, entities:
  1. Have been audited against the due diligence expectations in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (hereafter referred to as “OECD Due Diligence Guidance”) within an OECD Due Diligence-aligned standard system;
  2. Have been verified as being fully compliant with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance expectations; and
  3. Shared their full audit results with IRMA auditors.

3.4.2: Establish Strong Company Management Systems

NOTE FOR 3.4.2.  REVISED. The name of this criterion was ‘Company Management Systems’ in the 2018 Mining Standard). It has been changed to align Step 1 of the 5-Step framework in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance).

The idea is that if 3.4.1.1 is not fully met, then requirements 3.4.2 through 3.4.7 are either audited by the IRMA auditor, or the auditor assigns scores on these criterion/requirements based on the results of the audit shared by the entity as per 3.4.1.1. If the audit results are not complete enough to enable verification of the following requirements, the auditor would either mark the requirement as ‘not met’ or the entity would have to furnish evidence to enable a different rating.

Entities develop and implement a supply chain policy, applicable to operations and activities of the entity, relevant contractors, and mineral suppliers (if applicable), that, at minimum:
  1. Outlines the principles and standards that they entity follows to identify and manage risks in the supply chain of minerals potentially from conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRAs);
  2. Is consistent with Annex II of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance;
  3. Includes a commitment by the entity to undertake due diligence on its operations and, where applicable, its supply chain in accordance with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance 5-step framework (and where applicable relevant Supplements) and sets out clear and coherent management processes for risk management;
  4. Is approved at the most senior level of the entity; and
  5. Is made publicly available and, where applicable, communicated to contractors and mineral suppliers.

NOTE FOR 3.4.2.1. REVISED. Requirement 3.4.2.1 and 3.4.2.2.a in the 2018 Mining Standard included a commitment that was meant to align with Annex II of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance (now 3.4.3.1 b). This requirement provides more details on the expectations related to the policy commitment.

This is the closest requirement to the critical requirement in the 2018 Standard, and so we have marked it as critical here (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

Entities develop and implement a management system to support due diligence that includes:
  1. Assigning responsibility and authority to senior staff with the necessary competence, knowledge and experience to oversee and ensure accountability for all due diligence activities;
  2. Allocating sufficient resources to ensure the operation and monitoring of due diligence, taking into account entity size and circumstances;
  3. Establishing communication processes to ensure that critical information about due diligence, including the company’s supply chain policy, reaches relevant employees (including senior management) and, where applicable, mineral suppliers;
  4. Undertaking training and capacity building for relevant staff and, where applicable, contractors and mineral suppliers on the supply chain policy and its practical application; and
  5. Maintaining records of findings and decisions made related to the implementation of the supply chain policy and associated due diligence activities.

NOTE FOR 3.4.2.2. NEW. Sub-requirements 3.4.2.2 (a), (b), (c) and (d) align with Step 1.B of the OECD Guidance, and sub-requirement 3.4.2.2.e is typically included in any management system.

Entities establish and implement a system of controls and transparency, including:
  1. Maintaining inventory and transaction documentation that includes information on the form, type and physical descriptions of mineral outputs;
  2. Maintaining documentation on the origin of minerals, transportation routes and payment of taxes, royalties and other relevant payments;
  3. Assigning unique references for minerals produced, processed and sold;
  4. Maintaining due diligence information for a minimum of five years and making due diligence information available to downstream purchasers and relevant institutionalized mechanisms with a mandate to collect and process information on minerals from CAHRAs, and for minerals identified as originating from red-flagged locations (see 3.4.3.1), making this information available in disaggregated format;
  5. Entities that source minerals from external mineral suppliers additionally:
    1. Incorporate disclosure requirements and the entity’s supply chain policy into commercial contracts with mineral suppliers in order to collect information on the origin of minerals, transportation routes and payment of taxes, royalties and other relevant payments;
    2. Collect and maintain mineral supplier details, including know your customer/supplier information and assigning unique references for all mineral purchases;
    3. Communicate to mineral suppliers the entity’s expectation that suppliers will undertake supply chain due diligence and risk management consistent with the standards defined in Annex II of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance; and
    4. Taking into account the entity’s own size and capacity, demonstrate that efforts have been undertaken to build capacity amongst mineral suppliers to improve risk management performance and to comply with the company’s supply chain policy.

NOTE FOR 3.4.2.3. REVISED. This requirement was previously 3.4.2.2.b in the 2018 Mining Standard. Sub-requirements 3.4.2.3.a, b, c and d were previously all in a single paragraph. They have been broken out to more clearly define each expectation.

Also, the requirement has been expanded to include additional requirements for those sourcing minerals from external mineral suppliers (3.4.2.3.e).

Stakeholders have access to and are informed about a grievance mechanism that enables stakeholders, including whistleblowers, to voice concerns regarding the circumstances of extraction, trade, handling, and export of minerals.

NOTE FOR 3.4.2.4. This requirement was previously 3.4.2.2.d in the 2018 Mining Standard.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.4-2 (repeated from Chapter 1.4 – ‘Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’)

Background:  Chapter 1.4 – ‘Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’ includes a range of requirements surrounding the existence of an accessible and effective operational-level grievance mechanism. It is not possible to score well on Chapter 1.4 if the mechanism does not have certain quality-related characteristics. Other chapters (i.e., human rights, gender, resettlement, security, ASM) also have requirements relating to the existence of a grievance mechanism; however, the requirements in each of those chapters ask only that a mechanism is in place that allows grievances to be filed and addressed, but they do not speak to the overall quality of that mechanism. This is an approach proposed by IRMA to avoid too much repetition across chapters. However, this creates a situation in which an entity could theoretically score ‘fully meets’ on the grievance-related requirement in an individual chapter (which in most cases only asks that stakeholders have “access to” a grievance mechanism), even if the grievance mechanism as a whole is not an effective one (as reflected in the overall score for Chapter 1.4). 

Question:  Should an entity’s score on grievance-related requirements within individual non-grievance-specific chapters be restrained or linked to the overall score that the entity gets on the grievance chapter (Chapter 1.4) as a whole? 

For example, if a site scores 80% on Chapter 1.4, the most the site could receive for a grievance requirement in the other chapters would be a ‘substantially meets,’ but if a site scores 100% on Chapter 1.4 then, assuming the mechanism can handle grievances specific to the other chapters, they could possibly get a ‘fully meets’ rating on those grievance requirements.

3.4.3: Identify and Assess Risks in the Upstream Mineral Supply Chain

NOTE FOR 3.4.3.  REVISED. The criterion heading has changed from ‘Conflict Risk Assessment’ to the proposed ‘Identify and Assess Risks in the Upstream Mineral Supply Chain.’ The requirements in 3.4.3 align with Step 2 of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

Using reasonable and good faith efforts, the entity assesses risks to determine if further due diligence steps are required. This involves:
  1. Using evidence gathered from credible sources and a review of information gathered in 3.4.2, to identify and assess whether the locations of mineral origin and transit, the nature of mineral suppliers (if applicable) or the circumstances within the supply chain may trigger any of the following ‘red flags’, as defined in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance:
    Red-flag locations of mineral origin and transit
    1. The mineral originates from or has been transported through a CAHRA.
    2. The mineral is claimed to originate from a country that has limited known reserves or stocks, likely resources or expected production levels of the mineral in question.
    3. The mineral is claimed to originate from a country through which minerals from CAHRAs are known or reasonably suspected to transit.

    Red-flag suppliers (if applicable)
    1. Suppliers or other known upstream companies operate in one of the above-mentioned red-flag locations of origin and transit, or have shareholder or other interests in suppliers from one of the above-mentioned red-flag locations of origin and transit.
    2. Suppliers or other known upstream companies are known to have sourced the mineral in question from a red-flag location of origin and transit in the last 12 months.

    Red-flag circumstances
    1. Anomalies or unusual circumstances are identified through the information collected in 3.4.2, which give rise to a reasonable suspicion the mineral may contribute to conflict or serious abuses associated with the extraction, transport, or trade of the mineral in question.
  2. Establishing if further due diligence is required based on the following criteria:
    1. No red-flags identified: if the entities determines that these red-flags do not arise in its operations or supply chain, no additional due diligence is required. The management systems established in 3.4.2 are maintained and reviewed on a regular basis and conflict-related risks are monitored at a level commensurate with the potential that red-flags may arise in the supply chain in the future. If new risks emerge, the entity determines if risks are significant enough to warrant undertaking the additional due diligence steps outlined in the remainder of this chapter. All entities, irrespective of risks identified, report on their due diligence practices and findings in alignment with 3.4.7; and
    2. Red-flags identified or information unknown: if the entity identifies one or more red-flags in its supply chain, or is unable to reasonably exclude one or more of these red-flags from its supply chain, then it carries out the additional due diligence starting with requirement 3.4.3.2.

NOTE FOR 3.4.3.1.  REVISED. This was requirement 3.4.1.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Although there was a similar requirement, the content in this requirement has been significantly revised and expanded to align with language and expectations in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.4-2:

Background: The 2018 Mining Standard (requirement 3.4.1.1) included an CAHRA screening step, similar to requirement 3.4.3.1.a, below. The difference is that the 2018 IRMA requirement allowed sites that were clearly not associated with a CAHRA (i.e., did not mine in a CAHRA, did not transport minerals through or to CAHRA, or did not source from other mines in CAHRA), to mark this chapter as not relevant. There was also an expectation that at every audit the sites would need to again demonstrate that the chapter was ‘not relevant’ (since political and operational contexts can change over time). 

However, the revised requirements have been written in a manner that expects that all sites carry out some due diligence, i.e., have a policy, document the circumstances of mineral extraction and/or mineral suppliers, etc. (see requirement 3.4.3.2).

Question: Do you agree with this new approach? Or do you believe that if mining and/or mineral processing operations are clearly not associated with CAHRAs that the chapter should not be applicable to them? A rationale supporting your opinion would be appreciated.

Where red-flags are identified or the entity is unable to reasonably exclude the presence of one or more red-flags, entities map the factual circumstances of the upstream supply chain, which includes:
  1. An in-depth review, carried out and documented by competent professionals, of the context of all red-flag locations (actual or potential) and the due diligence practices of any red-flag mineral suppliers, where applicable. This includes a review of relevant reports, maps and other credible information associated with the extraction, transport, and trade of minerals in the red-flagged locations, as well as consultation with relevant local and national stakeholders (such as representatives from government, civil society and upstream companies); and
  2. Identifying if material originates from ASM and/or large-scale mine (LSM) sources, and undertaking on-the-ground-assessments, performed by independent assessors who are competent professionals, of red-flagged sources of mined minerals. This information is made available to downstream companies in the supply chain.

NOTE FOR 3.4.3.2.  REVISED. Sub-requirement 3.4.3.2.a, above, aligns with requirement 3.4.3.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Sub-requirement 3.4.3.2.b is NEW.

Entities assess the factual circumstances of red-flagged supply chains against their supply chain policy (consistent with Annex II of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance as per 3.4.2.1) and determine if there are any inconsistencies between these factual circumstances and the principles and standards of the policy. Any identified inconsistences are considered as risks with the potential for adverse impacts.

NOTE FOR 3.4.3.3.  REVISED. Requirement 3.4.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard required a risk assessment. It did not link it directly to the entity’s policy. This revised requirement is more in alignment with OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

3.4.4: Management of CAHRA-Related Risks and Impacts

NOTE FOR 3.4.4.  REVISED. Some of the requirements in this criterion are aligned with Step 3 of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance (other OECD Step 3 expectations are found in IRMA criterion 3.4.5, below).

The criterion heading has changed from ‘Conflict Risk Management’ to the proposed ‘Management of CAHRA-Related Risks and Impacts.’ The word ‘impacts’ has been added because it is possible that the on-the-ground assessment may uncover actual impacts (not just risks, also known as potential impacts).

Entities report the results of the risk assessment to senior management, outlining the information gathered from the supply chain mapping exercise (in 3.4.3.2) as well as any risks or impacts identified (in 3.4.3.3).

NOTE FOR 3.4.4.1.  REVISED. Requirement 3.4.6.1 in the 2018 IRMA Standard required reporting of risk assessment results to senior management, but this requirement is now more specific on what needs to be reported in order to align more fully with OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

Entities that have identified red-flags in the supply chain:
  1. Establish a chain of custody or traceability system that collects and maintains disaggregated information on all inputs (if material is purchased from external mineral suppliers) and outputs of material originating from red-flagged supply chains;
  2. Enhance physical security practices for material as appropriate (e.g., security of transport, sealing material in tamper proof containers);
  3. Physically segregate material for which there is an identified risk of association with conflict and serious human rights abuses; and
  4. Entities that source minerals from external mineral suppliers also enhance engagement with red-flag mineral suppliers and incorporate into commercial contracts the right to conduct unannounced spot checks.

NOTE FOR 3.4.4.2.  NEW. Added to align with Step 3 of OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

Entities that have identified red-flags in the supply chain develop and implement a risk management plan to respond to identified risks or impacts. The risk management plan:
  1. Includes strategies for mitigating any OECD Annex II risks in accordance with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance;
  2. Includes specific measures to address non-Annex II risks;
  3. Includes plans to exercise leverage over actors in its supply chain that can most effectively and most directly prevent or mitigate the risk of adverse impacts;
  4. Includes performance criteria and indicators, linked to adequate baseline data, to enable monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation actions over time;
  5. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  6. Includes an implementation schedule and timelines for the demonstration of measurable improvement; and
  7. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 3.4.4.3.  Requirement 3.4.4.1 of the 2018 Mining Standard included a requirement for a risk management plan. 3.4.4.3.a, b and c integrate expectations from OECD Due Diligence Guidance. 

Sub-requirements d, e, f, and g are aligned with other management plans in the IRMA Standard. 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.4-3

Background: Annex II of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance is a “Model Supply Chain Policy for a Responsible Global Supply Chain of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas.” The annex identifies risks that should be mitigated by suspending or discontinuing/terminating mining operations or relationships with mineral supplier(s). For example, Paragraph 4 of the Annex says:

       “We will immediately suspend or discontinue engagement with upstream suppliers where we identify a reasonable risk that they are sourcing from, or linked to, any party providing direct or indirect support to non-state armed groups as defined in paragraph 3.”

       The direct or indirect support of nonstate armed groups in paragraph 3 of the annex includes, but is not limited to:
“…procuring minerals from, making payments to or otherwise providing logistical assistance or equipment to, non-state armed groups or their affiliates who:
(i)   illegally control mine sites or otherwise control transportation routes, points where minerals are traded and upstream actors in the supply chain;
(ii)   illegally tax or extort money or minerals at points of access to mine sites, along transportation routes or at points where minerals are traded;
(iii)  illegally tax or extort intermediaries, export companies or international traders.”

While it is completely understandable why these recommendations exist, the codification of OECD Due Diligence creates challenges for standard systems like IRMA, and their auditors who have to determine if an entity has taken action that aligns with OECD Due Diligence Guidance. The OECD guidance says entities “should” suspend or discontinue relationships, leaving room for interpretation, but OECD guidance does not provide any examples of allowable exceptions.

It’s additionally challenging for IRMA auditors because the OECD Due Diligence Guidance is somewhat in conflict with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP), which forms the basis for IRMA’s Chapter 1.3 on Human Rights Due Diligence. UNGP action depends on if the entity is causing, contributing to or is linked to an infringement of human rights The table below shows the different approaches.

OECD Due Diligence Guidance UNGP
“We will immediately suspend or discontinue engagement with upstream suppliers where we identify a reasonable risk that they are sourcing from, or linked to, any party providing direct or indirect support to non-state armed groups as defined in paragraph 3.” “Where a business enterprise has not contributed to an adverse human rights impact, but that impact is nevertheless directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationship with another entity, the situation is more complex. Among the factors that will enter into the determination of the appropriate action in such situations are the enterprise’s leverage over the entity concerned, how crucial the relationship is to the enterprise, the severity of the abuse, and whether terminating the relationship with the entity itself would have adverse human rights consequences.”

The more nuanced approach of the UNGPs allows entities (upstream and downstream) to consider the full scope of impacts of their actions/responses to discovering that they may be implicated in human rights. 

Take, for example, the extortion element listed in (ii) above. That particular element of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance can pose a challenge for both upstream entities (mines) and downstream entities (e.g., mineral processing sites, traders, manufacturers, purchasers of mined material) who are either trying to transport their materials to or receive materials from a mine (which may have been producing the materials in a responsible manner). If there are armed groups who are requiring “fees” to be paid for safe passage along a transport route, then either the mine or the downstream entity transporting the materials would be directly supporting that armed group.

Within OECD, the immediate suspension or discontinuation of engagement would cut off that single source of income for the armed group (a positive impact), but if all downstream entities were to suspend or discontinue sourcing from a mine because it had to pay fees to armed groups to ensure safe passage of its material, there could be a variety of unintended adverse impacts. For example, it would cut off income for all of the workers at the mine and any business that provides goods or services to the mine. Or it could force a mine into bankruptcy, and threaten the ability of the mine to be reclaimed and closed in a safe and environmentally sustainable manner. The UNGPs, in allowing entities to consider “whether terminating the relationship with the entity itself would have adverse human rights consequences,” appear to open up a wider range of responses.

IRMA continues to grapple with this issue. We could develop our own guidance on what might be appropriate action in certain circumstances, but if that guidance differs from Annex II of the OECD DD, then it is possible our standard would not be considered to be OECD-aligned. If, however, we require auditors to adhere to the letter of OECD Due Diligence Guidance, then we could be incentivizing the closure of mines in CAHRA and increasing pressure for new mines to be developed elsewhere to meet mineral demand.

Question:  Do you believe that IRMA must be fully OECD-aligned, or would you support IRMA integrating the OECD Due Diligence Guidance 5-Step framework but be more nuanced regarding the actions to be taken when Annex II risks are encountered? For example, IRMA could do away with 3.4.4.3.a, and require that all entities following the risk mitigation in 3.4.4.b. Please feel free to suggest additional or different options.

Entities collaborate with relevant stakeholders and, if applicable, mineral suppliers, to agree on mitigation strategies, performance criteria and timelines for demonstration of measurable risk mitigation.

NOTE FOR 3.4.4.4.  Requirement 3.4.4.2 of the 2018 Mining Standard included a requirement to collaborate with stakeholders on these elements. 

3.4.5: Monitoring and Evaluation

NOTE FOR 3.4.5.  Some of the requirements in this criterion are aligned with Step 3 of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance (the rest of OECD Step 3 expectations are found in IRMA criterion 3.4.4, above).

The entity monitors the implementation of the mitigation strategies included in the risk management plan. Monitoring includes:
  1. Documentation of actual performance in relation to indicators (see 3.4.4.3.3); and
  2. Input from relevant stakeholders, as necessary.

NOTE FOR 3.4.5.1.  This was requirement 3.4.5.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. included a requirement to collaborate with stakeholders on these elements. 

The entity evaluates the effectiveness of its risk management plan in addressing the identified risk(s), including undertaking additional fact and risk assessments as needed to evaluate effectiveness, and reports to senior management on effectiveness

NOTE FOR 3.4.5.2.  Combined requirement 3.4.5.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard, which mentioned effectiveness, and requirement 3.4.6.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard, which required reporting to senior management on the management plan and monitoring findings.

When monitoring or evaluation reveal that risk management is not being effective, new mitigation strategies or actions are developed, integrated into the management plan, and implemented to more effectively manage the risks.

3.4.6: Independent third-party audit of the entity’s due diligence practices

NOTE FOR 3.4.6.  NEW.  The requirement in this new criterion is aligned with Step 4 of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

The entity commissions an independent, third-party audit of its due diligence practices.

NOTE FOR 3.4.6.1.  NEW. Step 4 of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance is addressed via the IRMA third-party assurance program. There are no additional specific steps for companies undergoing assessment against the IRMA Standard other than facilitating auditor access to the entity’s site(s), documentation, records and, as appropriate, access to relevant stakeholders or contractors, such as on-the-ground assessment teams.

3.4.7: Reporting and Disclosure

NOTE FOR 3.4.7.  Requirements in this criterion are aligned with Step 5 of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

Entities report annually and publicly on their supply chain due diligence with respect to implementation of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance 5-Step framework. The report includes the following elements (as applicable):
  1. The location of the entity’s publicly available supply chain policy and a description of the management and internal control systems that have been put into place to support due diligence (see 3.4.2);
  2. A description of the systems used for identifying red-flags, details of any actual red-flags identified and information on actual and/or potential Annex II risks (see 3.4.3); and
  3. Information on steps taken to enhance engagement with red-flag suppliers, where applicable, and to mitigate risks (see 3.4.4).

NOTE FOR 3.4.7.1.  NEW. This was 3.4.6.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Entities publish the risk assessment and risk management plan with due regard for protection of confidentiality and safety of people, confidential business information and other competitive concerns

NOTE FOR 3.4.7.2.  NEW. These expectations align with OECD Due Diligence Guidance Supplement on Tin, Tantalum and Tungsten (pages 45 and 53).  

We have added a reference to consideration of the protection of people when determining the level of disclosure, as too much information could put certain populations in affected communities or workers at risk.

Entities publish summary audit report findings with due regard for protection of the confidentiality and safety of people, confidential business information and other commercial concerns.

NOTE FOR 3.4.7.3.  NEW. These expectations align with OECD Due Diligence Guidance Supplement on Tin, Tantalum and Tungsten (page 53), and OECD Due Diligence Guidance Supplement on Gold (page 109). IRMA requires that audit results are published, so if this chapter is audited in the IRMA system the entity will meet this requirement.

Chapter 3.5: Security Arrangements

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  The primary changes made to this chapter versus the 2018 Mining Standard are structural changes to increase clarity and auditability of some criteria, and increase alignment with other IRMA chapters.

Proposed additions and changes:

  • As with other chapters, we have altered language referring to the obligation of the entity to report ‘if requested by a community,’ and now put the onus on the entity to offer this rather than expecting the community to know to request it (requirement 3.5.6.1).
  • Also, we have clarified that references to ‘security risks’ in this chapter are meant to encompass both “security risks” (i.e., risks to the security of the mine site and its personnel, such as from robbery or social unrest) as well as “risks from security” (i.e., risks associated with the presence and use of security personnel, such as potential for conflict between communities and security, potential for unjustified use of force, etc.).
  • The requirements for a management plan and monitoring have been updated to align with other IRMA chapters (see 3.5.3.1 and 3.5.3.3).

3.5.1: Policy Related to Security and Human Rights

NOTE FOR 3.5.1:  We have re-structured policy expectation phrasing across chapters to increase overall consistency in the standard. Therefore, we restructured 3.5.1.1 and added 3.5.1.2. below with additional details as to the process through which IRMA expects polices to be developed and shared with stakeholders.

We moved the previous 3.5.1.2 and 3.5.1.3 down to criterion 3.5.3 ‘Management of Risks and Impacts’ where all plans and procedures are now included.

Finally, we renamed this criterion, as previously it referred also to procedures.

A security policy or its equivalent is in place that:
  1. Acknowledges the entity’s responsibility to:
    1. Respect human rights in its efforts to maintain the safety and security of operation; and
    2. Avoid using public or private security forces that have been credibly implicated in the infringement of human rights, breaches of international humanitarian law or the excessive use of force;
  2. Stipulates the entity’s expectations of contractors vis-à-vis the above commitments;
  3. Is approved at the most senior level of the entity; and
  4. Is publicly available and communicated to relevant stakeholders.

NOTE FOR 3.5.1.1: REVISED. Broke out the individual expectations in sub-requirements, and also added a new sub-requirement 3.5.1.1.b, because if contractors are hired to provide security, then the policy should be clear regarding the entity’s expectations of contractors. The other sub-requirements are consistent with human-rights related policy requirements in other chapters of the Standard.

3.5.2: Security Risk Identification and Assessment

NOTE FOR 3.5.2:  This name of this criterion has changed. It used to be Security Risk Assessment and Management. The management-related requirements (3.5.2.4 and 3.5.2.5) have moved down to the new criterion 3.5.3 “Management of Risks and Impacts” (they are now requirements 3.5.3.1. and 3.5.3.2. respectively).

The entity assesses security risks and potential human rights impacts that may arise from security context and security personnel arrangements. Assessments, which may be scaled to the size of the entity and severity of security risks and potential human rights impacts:
  1. Follow a credible process/methodology;
  2. Are carried out and documented by competent professionals; and
  3. Draw on credible information obtained from a range of perspectives, including different genders, ages, ethnicities, and any potentially vulnerable groups, as well as relevant stakeholders such as human rights defenders, and expert advice.

The scope of the security risk assessment includes, but need not be limited to:

  1. Analysis of the political and security context in the host country context (e.g., the human rights records of the government and public and private security forces, adherence to the rule of law, potential for corruption, whether or not the operation is located in a known conflicted-affected or high-risk area, etc.);
  2. Conflict analysis to determine current and potential conflicts or violence in the host country and affected communities;
  3. Identification of security risks and risks from security, paying particular attention to risks to women, children, and other vulnerable groups. These risks include:
    1. Security risks to the operation (e.g., protecting assets from being vandalized or stolen);
    2. Security-related risks to workers (e.g., risks to female workers when walking home or to accommodations at night); and
    3. Security-related risks to communities (e.g., conflict risks between security forces and communities during social protest, etc.).
  4. Risks related to the presence and equipping of security forces (e.g., misappropriation or diversion of security equipment, increased risk of violence associated with firearms or other equipment).

NOTE FOR 3.5.2.2:  REVISED. Sub-requirements a, b, c and d were all in the original requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard, but they have been slightly reorganized.

We added more detail to sub-requirement 3.5.2.2.c to further specify the full range of applicable security concerns to be identified and assessed, and included examples in sub-requirements 3.5.2.2.a, 3.5.2.2.c and 3.5.2.2.d, as there was some confusion in early audits around what might need to be assessed. In particular, we have clarified that references to ‘security risks’ in this chapter are meant to encompass both “security risks” (i.e., risks to the security of the mine site and its personnel, such as from robbery or social unrest) as well as “risks from security” (i.e., risks associated with the presence and use of security personnel, such as potential for conflict between communities and security, potential for unjustified use of force, human rights abuses, etc.).

Assessments of security-related risks and impacts are updated periodically, including, at minimum, when there are changes to mining-related activities, security arrangements, business relationships, or in the operational, environmental, or social context that may create new risks or change the nature or degree of an existing impact.

NOTE FOR 3.5.2.3:  NEW.  This was part of 3.5.2.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We have separated out the updating step to be consistent with other chapters.

3.5.3: Management of Security Risks and Impacts

NOTE FOR 3.5.3:  This is a new criterion heading. It encompasses a number of requirements already in the chapter that relate to the actions that should be taken to mitigate and manage security-related risks.

It contains all of the requirements that relate to having plans and procedures in place to manage security risks. This includes requirements that used to be in 3.5.2, as explained above, and also in the criterion 3.5.3 ‘Due Diligence Prior to Hiring Security Personnel’ from 2018 Mining Standard. That criterion heading has now been deleted.

The entity develops and implements a risk management plan that includes actions to be taken to prevent or mitigate identified risks in the security risk assessment. The plan:
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Outlines the mitigation measures to avoid and, where that is not possible, minimize adverse impacts on human health and the environment (including impacts to land, soil, water, and vegetation). The measures in the plan are specific, measurable, linked to clearly defined outcomes, relevant, and time-bound;
  3. Identifies key indicators, linked to adequate baseline data, to enable measurement of the effectiveness of mitigation activities over time;
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 3.5.3.1:  REVISED. This was 3.5.2.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. The requirement for monitoring was moved to its own requirement (3.5.3.3), and sub-requirements were added to align with management plans in other IRMA chapters.

If the security risk assessment reveals the potential for conflicts between security providers and affected community members or workers, the entity:
  1. Collaborates with communities and/or workers to develop mitigation strategies that are culturally appropriate and that take into consideration the needs of different genders, ages, ethnicities, or any potentially vulnerable groups;
  2. If specific risks to human rights are identified in the assessment, mitigation strategies conform with requirements in IRMA Chapter 1.3; and
  3. Mitigation measures are integrated into the management plan (see 3.5.3.1).

NOTE FOR 3.5.3.2:   This was 3.5.2.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We have added that the mitigation measures are integrated into the management plan.

A process is in place for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation of mitigation actions, and if necessary, outlining additional actions and updating the management plan to accord with desired or expected outcomes.

NOTE FOR 3.5.3.3:  REVISED. Requirement 3.5.2.4 included both management and monitoring. We have separated out the monitoring element. Most IRMA chapters that include management plans include a step to evaluate the effectiveness of the actions that are implemented, and if necessary, take further action. We are proposing to add this requirement because to create greater consistency throughout the standard.

The entity has procedures in place regarding the use of force and firearms that align with the best practices expressed in United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms. At minimum, the entity’s procedures require that:
  1. Security personnel take all reasonable steps to exercise restraint and utilize non-violent means before resorting to the use of force;
  2. If force is used it does not exceed what is strictly necessary, and is proportionate to the threat and appropriate to the situation; and
  3. Firearms are only used for the purpose of self-defense or the defense of others if there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

NOTE FOR 3.5.3.4:  REVISED. This was 3.5.1.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Requirement 3.5.1.2 was considered a critical requirement, and given that this requirement contains the majority of what was outlined in the previous 3.5.1.2, this has now become the critical requirement (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

If private security is used in relation to the operation, the entity has a signed contract with private security providers that at minimum:
  1. Sets out agreed on principles that are consistent with the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and the entity’s procedures on the use of force and firearms;
  2. Delineates respective duties and obligations with respect to the provision of security in and around the operation and, if relevant, along transport routes;
  3. Outlines required training for security personnel; and
  4. Stipulates termination of relationship between entities and private security providers where there is credible evidence of unlawful or abusive behavior by the latter.

NOTE FOR 3.5.3.5:  This was 3.5.1.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Sub-requirement (d) is NEW. It is from Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.[1]

[1] See Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights: Implementation Guidance Tool. pp. 53. https://www.voluntaryprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Implementation-Guidance-Tools_English.pdf

If public security forces are used to provide security to the operation and/or transport routes, the entity makes a good faith effort to sign a Memorandum of Understanding or similar agreement with public security providers that includes similar provisions to those in 3.5.3.5.

NOTE FOR 3.5.3.6:  This was 3.5.1.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

The entity develops and implements due diligence procedures to prevent the hiring of employee or contracted private security providers who have been convicted of or credibly implicated in the infringement of human rights, breaches of international humanitarian law, or the use of excessive force.

NOTE FOR 3.5.3.7:  REVISED. This was 3.5.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Clarified that this requirement applies to either security guards hired as company employees and/or contracted security providers.

The entity makes a good faith effort to determine if public security personnel providing security to the mine have been convicted of or credibly implicated in the infringement of human rights, breaches of international humanitarian law or the use of excessive force.

NOTE FOR 3.5.3.8:  This was 3.5.3.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

3.5.4: Training of Security Personnel

NOTE FOR 3.5.4:  Minor change to title to clarify who needs the training.

Prior to deployment of private security personnel (whether employees of the entity or contractors), the entity provides training that incorporates, at minimum, information related to ethical conduct and respect for the human rights of workers and affected communities, with specific reference to vulnerable groups, and the entity’s procedures on the appropriate use of force and firearms. Both initial training and refresher courses are mandatory for all security employees and for any private security contractors that have not received equivalent training from their employers.

NOTE FOR 3.5.4.1:  REVISED. This was 3.5.4.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It has been revised slightly to clarify that both employees and contractors who hired to prove security need to be trained.

If public security forces are to be used, the entity determines if public security personnel are provided with training on human rights and the appropriate use of force and firearms. If this training is not provided, the entity offers to facilitate training for public security personnel that provide mine-related security.

3.5.5: Response to Security Incidents

NOTE FOR 3.5.5:  Minor change to title to clarify that this refers to how the entity responds to incidents. 3.5.3 refers to management of security more generally.

The entity:
  1. Develops and implements systems for documenting and investigating security incidents, including those involving impacts on human rights or the inappropriate use of force;
  2. Takes appropriate actions to prevent or mitigate and provide remediation for human rights impacts (as per Chapter 1.3), injuries, or fatalities caused by security providers;
  3. Takes appropriate actions, including disciplinary measures, to prevent and deter abusive or unlawful acts by security personnel and acts that contravene the entity’s policies on rules of engagement, the use of force and firearms, human rights, and other relevant policies;
  4. Provides medical assistance to all injured people, including offenders;
  5. Ensures the safety of victims and those filing security-related allegations; and
  6. Reports security incidents, including any credible allegations of human rights abuses by private or public security providers, to competent authorities and national human rights institutions, and cooperates in any investigations or proceedings.

NOTE FOR 3.5.5.1:  The order of the sub-requirements has been shifted around to more accurately reflect the process entities would likely follow in terms of addressing incidents. No change in content or intent.

In the event of security-related incidents that result in injuries, fatalities, or alleged human rights impacts on community members or workers, the entity:
  1. Provides communities and/or workers with information on the incidents and any investigations that are underway; and
  2. Consults with communities and/or workers to develop strategies to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.

NOTE FOR 3.5.5.2:  This requirement was separated into two sub-requirements to make it clear that there are two distinct items to be audited. No change in content or intent.

3.5.6: Communication, Reporting, and Disclosure

The entity engages with stakeholders on security issues as follows:
  1. Stakeholders, including host governments and affected communities, are consulted about the impact of the entity’s security arrangements on those stakeholders, and the consultations occur at a frequency commensurate with the risks associated with security arrangements; and
  2. Community stakeholders are offered a briefing on the entity’s procedures on the use of force and firearms.

NOTE FOR 3.5.6.1:  REVISED. This requirement combines 3.6.5.1 and 3.6.5.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard.

In 3.5.6.1.a, the requirement previously said that consultations were to happen regularly. However, we are proposing to revise this to say “consultations occur at a frequency commensurate with the risks associated with security arrangements.” Depending on the circumstances, there may not be a need for regular consultations (e.g., the commodity being mined is not high value so the level of security at the site is low, security guards are not armed, and there is no nearby community), whereas in situation where there are obviously risks to communities from security arrangements frequent consultation may be necessary. We can add guidance to this effect.

In 3.5.6.1.b, we are proposing to require entities to explicitly offer to provide a briefing to communities. Previously, the language was “if requested by a community structure.”  However, if no such request is made, there is nothing to audit. Furthermore, if communities do not know that this is an option then they are unlikely to request such a briefing.

The entity reports annually on its efforts to manage security in a manner that respects human rights.

NOTE FOR 3.5.6.2:  REVISED. This was previously combined with the consultation requirement in 3.5.6.1.a.  We moved that as explained above, so that this requirement could focus solely on reporting.

Stakeholders have access to and are informed about a mechanism to raise and seek recourse for concerns or grievances related to the operation’s security.

NOTE FOR 3.5.6.3:  This was requirement 3.5.6.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.4-2 (repeated from Chapter 1.4 – ‘Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’)

Background:  Chapter 1.4 – ‘Complaints and Grievance Mechanism and Access to Remedy’ includes a range of requirements surrounding the existence of an accessible and effective operational-level grievance mechanism. It is not possible to score well on Chapter 1.4 if the mechanism does not have certain quality-related characteristics. Other chapters (i.e., human rights, gender, resettlement, security, ASM) also have requirements relating to the existence of a grievance mechanism;[1] however, the requirements in each of those chapters ask only that a mechanism is in place that allows grievances to be filed and addressed, but they do not speak to the overall quality of that mechanism. This is an approach proposed by IRMA to avoid too much repetition across chapters. However, this creates a situation in which an entity could theoretically score ‘fully meets’ on the grievance-related requirement in an individual chapter (which in most cases only asks that stakeholders have “access to” a grievance mechanism), even if the grievance mechanism as a whole is not an effective one (as reflected in the overall score for Chapter 1.4).

Question:  Should an entity’s score on grievance-related requirements within individual non-grievance-specific chapters be restrained or linked to the overall score that the entity gets on the grievance chapter (Chapter 1.4) as a whole?

For example, if a site scores 80% on Chapter 1.4, the most the site could receive for a grievance requirement in the other chapters would be a ‘substantially meets,’ but if a site scores 100% on Chapter 1.4 then, assuming the mechanism can handle grievances specific to the other chapters, they could possibly get a ‘fully meets’ rating on those grievance requirements.

[1] See: Chapter 1.3, requirement 1.3.3.3; proposed Chapter 1.X, requirement 1.X.3.2; Chapter 2.4, requirement 2.4.3.3; Chapter 3.5, requirement 3.5.6.3; and Chapter 3.6, requirement 3.6.2.1.d.

If public security forces are providing security for any aspect of the operation, the entity encourages host governments to make, or allow the entity to make, security arrangements such as the purpose and nature of public security transparent and accessible to the public, subject to any overriding safety and security concerns.

NOTE FOR 3.5.6.4:  Minor wording changes, but no change in content or intent.

Chapter 3.6: Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:   This chapter is similar to the 2018 Mining Standard, with only minor wording changes and some enhancements to requirements for entities that source from artisanal and small-scale mines (ASM), to better align with expectations in other standards (see 3.6.4.1).

3.6.1: Understand the ASM Context

A scoping process (or equivalent) is undertaken to understand the legal, social, and environmental context in which ASM activities are occurring in the project/operation’s area of influence.

NOTE FOR 3.6.1.1.  REVISED. Previously this requirement referred to ASM on the LSM concession or in close proximity. We have changed to in the area of influence, as “close proximity” is not clear.

3.6.2: Engage with ASM Entities and Communities

A good faith effort is made to:
  1. Engage with ASM entities including, where relevant, informal ASM operators and formal ASM associations, as part of ongoing stakeholder engagement efforts (see Chapter 1.2);
  2. Consult with informal and formal ASM entities during relevant risk and impact assessments and closure planning (see Chapters 2.1 and 2.6);
  3. Engage with communities that are or may be affected by ASM activities or interactions between the entity and ASM entities; and
  4. Informs ASM entities and communities that there is an operational-level grievance mechanism available to raise concerns and resolve conflicts related to the entity and its project/operation (see Chapter 1.4).

3.6.3: Foster Positive Relationships and Opportunities for ASM and Communities

The project’s/operation’s security personnel are trained in respecting the human rights of individuals engaged in ASM activities and members of affected communities.
The entity collaborates with ASM entities and affected communities to develop and implement measures to improve the safety and enhance the positive environmental and social impacts of ASM activities.

3.6.4: Perform Due Diligence in Commercial Relationships with ASM

When a mining or mineral processing project proposes to source from ASM, or a mining operation sources minerals from ASM entities, the entity:
  1. Identifies the legal status of the ASM entities and maintains commercial relationships only with entities engaged in legitimate ASM;
  2. Regularly assesses the safety, social and environmental risks and impacts related to the ASM entities with whom it may have or has a commercial relationship;
  3. Collaborates with those ASM entities with whom it can legally and legitimately engage to develop and implement a plan to eliminate or mitigate the most significant risks and, over time, address other social and environmental risks related to those ASM operations; and
  4. Periodically monitors the effectiveness of mitigation strategies, and adapts plans as necessary to facilitate continued minimization of risks;
  5. Participates in or supports initiatives that promote the professionalization, formalization and/or certification of ASM entities, as appropriate to the situation;
  6. Supports development opportunities for ASM communities; and
  7. Offers fair commercial terms to all ASM suppliers.

NOTE FOR 3.6.4.1:  REVISED. Sub-requirement (a) has been added. The previous 3.6.4.1 was missing the step of identifying the status of ASM and sourcing from those deemed legitimate. This is consistent with guidance provided by the OECD and others.[1] Sub-requirements (e), (f) and (g) align requirements in the Responsible Jewellery Council Code of Practices.[2]

To support interpretation of 3.6.4.1.a, we are proposing the following definition –

Legitimate Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining (ASM): ASM that is conducted in a manner that is consistent with applicable laws and does not contribute to conflict and  serious abuses associated with the extraction, transport or trade of minerals (as defined in Annex II of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas), or, in the absence of a legal framework or if the legal framework is not enforced, where ASM entities can demonstrate ‘good faith efforts’ to work within the legal framework (i.e., obtaining permits where available) and pursue formalization. (Source: Adapted from OECD.[3])

[1] For example, see: OECD. 2016. OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. (3rd Ed.) p. 84. https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/OECD-Due-Diligence-Guidance-Minerals-Edition3.pdf

[2] Responsible Jewellery Council. 2019. Code of Practices. Requirement 8.1.b. https://www.responsiblejewellery.com/wp-content/uploads/RJC-COP-2019-V1.2-Standards.pdf.

[3] OECD. 2016. OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. (3rd Ed.) p. 69. https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/OECD-Due-Diligence-Guidance-Minerals-Edition3.pdf

When a project proposes to, or an operation actually sources minerals from ASM entities that are located in a conflict-affected or high-risk area, the entity carries out additional due diligence requirements in Chapter 3.4.

Chapter 3.7: Cultural Heritage

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:   A number of changes have been made to more closely align the structure and flow of the chapter with other IRMA chapters, and also to streamline Chapter 3.7.

Proposed additions and changes:

  • There is one significant change discussed in Consultation Question 3.7-2, below.
  • Also, streamlining was done by moving the specific mitigation actions that should be taken if certain types of cultural heritage are encountered into normative Annexes (i.e., sites will still be assessed against the elements in the Annexes, if applicable). Since all of the different types of cultural heritage are not found at all sites, rather than mark 5 or 6 requirements as “not relevant” we believe this is a better approach. (See requirement 3.7.3.2)
  • One requirement related to Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation was moved from this chapter to Chapter 2.2—Indigenous Peoples and Free, Prior and Informed Consent.
  • We are also proposing to add a definition of cultural heritage. In the 2018 version of the Mining Standard, we only defined particular types of cultural heritage (e.g., intangible, tangible, replicable, non-replicable, critical) but not cultural heritage in its own right. We are proposing this definition, in particular, because to make it clear that cultural heritage encompasses a broad suite of concepts, including not only those that relate to human cultures, but also paleontological resources (e.g., fossils of animals and plants that existed in previous geologic periods).

Cultural Heritage
Refers to (i) tangible moveable or immovable objects, property, sites, structures, or groups of structures, having archaeological (prehistoric), paleontological, historical, cultural, artistic, and religious values; (ii) unique natural features or tangible objects that embody cultural values, such as sacred groves, rocks, lakes, and waterfalls; and (iii) certain instances of intangible forms of culture that are proposed to be used for commercial purposes, such as cultural knowledge, innovations, and practices of communities embodying traditional lifestyles.
Source:  Adapted from IFC Performance Standard 8.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.7-1

Background:  The original 2018 version of IRMA’s chapter was based on the IFC Performance Standard 8 (PS8) on Cultural Heritage, but we have received some comments from practitioners engaged in cultural heritage protection that while IFC is a globally known cultural heritage framework, it is “not well used/ mobilized/connected to best available practice thinking.”

Question:  We would be interested to hear if there are other frameworks being used by in cultural heritage practitioners if there are particularly areas of IRMA’s standard that could be strengthened to better reflect current best available practices in the field of cultural heritage protection.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.7-2

Background:  This proposed version of Chapter 3.7 has one significant addition to fill a gap that was identified with the current IRMA Standard. While the 2018 version of the chapter clearly addresses new impacts on cultural heritage, it does not provide adequate coverage of expectations for existing operations that may have impacted cultural heritage in the past. While many types of cultural heritage cannot be put back or restored once they have been disturbed, there are, nevertheless, steps that can be taken to provide mitigation or remedy after the fact.

As mentioned above, the original 2018 version of IRMA’s chapter was based on the IFC Performance Standard 8 (PS8) on Cultural Heritage. A guidance note in IFC PS8 says that PS8 applies both to cultural heritage that has not been disturbed as well as that which has already been disturbed,[1] but the requirements in PS8 do not specifically reference what to do in the case of past impacts on cultural heritage.

A number of new requirements are being proposed in IRMA’s revised chapter to help fill the gap in the IRMA and IFC Standards, such that if cultural heritage was disturbed at any point during the mineral development life cycle, those impacts need to be assessed, and, if necessary, addressed. The steps involved include identifying if past impacts have occurred (3.7.1.1) assessing the extent of the impacts and any past mitigation efforts and determining if additional mitigation is required (3.7.2.1), and developing and implementing additional mitigation measures to protect resources such as remediation of impacted areas, compensation for impacts, or other measures (3.7.3.1).

Question:  Do you agree that all operating mines and mineral processing sites should have to demonstrate an understanding of whether or not their past activities have impacted cultural heritage resources, and if residual impacts exist, mitigate them?

[1]  “Performance Standard 8 applies to cultural heritage that has been undisturbed as well as disturbed. The client may undertake measures for the protection of already-disturbed cultural heritage that are different from measures for the protection of untouched cultural heritage. Many types of cultural heritage cannot be put back once they have been disturbed, but they may still be valued.” (Source: IFC Guidance Note 8-Cultural Heritage. GN9. Available at: https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2012/ifc-performance-standards)

3.7.1: Cultural Heritage Due Diligence and Scoping

NOTE FOR 3.7.1.  In the 2018 version of the Mining Standard, criterion 3.7.1 was called General Stipulations. It included expectations related to use of competent professionals, stakeholder engagement, and access to information on cultural heritage. The General Stipulations criterion has been removed, but the expectations have not been lost – they have been integrated into criteria and requirements below, in a manner more consistent with other IRMA chapters.

In the 2018 version of the Mining Standard, requirements related to scoping and assessment of potential impacts on cultural heritage were listed under a criterion called Cultural Heritage Screening and Assessment. We are using the work scoping to be more consistent with other IRMA chapters. And have now created one criterion for scoping, and other for assessment in order to be more consistent with the structure of other IRMA chapters.

All operations demonstrate an understanding of their cultural heritage context by:
  1. Using competent professionals to:
    1. Identify if replicable, non-replicable or critical cultural heritage exists in the operation’s area of influence; and
    2. Determine if there have been any past impacts on cultural heritage related to the operation;
  2. Identifying Indigenous Peoples and others who may have rights associated with cultural heritage (hereafter collectively referred to as rights holders) and stakeholders who may have an interest in cultural heritage; and
  3. Consulting with relevant rights holders and stakeholders in the identification of cultural heritage and determination of past impacts on cultural heritage that may be related to the operation (3.7.1.1.a).

NOTE FOR 3.7.1.1:  NEW. Requirement 3.7.1.1 has been added to fill a gap with the 2018 IRMA Mining Standard. The version of this chapter in the 2018 Standard clearly addresses the screening and assessment of potential new impacts on cultural heritage but does not outline expectations for existing operations that may have impacted cultural heritage in the past. While many types of cultural heritage cannot be put back or restored once they have been disturbed, there are steps that can be taken to provide mitigation or remedy after the fact.

Requirement 3.7.1.1 therefore asks that companies be able to demonstrate an understanding of the impacts of their past activities on cultural heritage. Later in the chapter, we propose that if some of those impacts have not been sufficiently remediated, there will be additional steps that must be taken. See CONSULTATION QUESTION 3.7-2.

Re: 3.7.1.1.c, we use the wording “impacts on cultural heritage related to the operation” rather than impacts related to a particular entity’s activities, because it is possible that the entity that caused the impact is not the entity in charge of the mine or mineral processing operation. No matter who caused the damage, the current owner/operator of the project/operation bears the responsibility for ensuring that mitigation for those impacts occurs, if necessary.

If the results of 3.7.1.1 or 3.7.1.2, below, demonstrate that no replicable, non-replicable, or critical cultural heritage exists in the actual or proposed area of influence, then the remainder of the chapter may be marked as not relevant.

When new projects are proposed and/or when changes are proposed to mining-related activities, a scoping (or equivalent) process is undertaken that includes:
  1. Using competent professionals to:
    1. Identify if replicable, non-replicable, or critical cultural heritage exists in the project’s/operation’s area of influence, If not done previously; and
    2. Identify if there are risks to cultural heritage posed by proposed mining-related activities;
  2. Identifying Indigenous Peoples and others who may have rights associated with cultural heritage (hereafter collectively referred to as rights holders), and stakeholders who may have an interest in cultural heritage;
  3. Conducting consultations with relevant stakeholders and rights holders in the identification of cultural heritage and determination of risks to cultural heritage posed by proposed mining-related activities (3.7.1.2.a).

NOTE FOR 3.7.1.2:  This requirement differs from proposed requirement 3.7.1.1 in that companies are assessing the risks to cultural heritage in 3.7.1.2, rather than the past impacts on it.

Requirement 3.7.1.2 has been expanded compared to the version of the requirement in the 2018 Mining Standard. We’ve added a sub-requirement (b) that potentially affected Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders be identified.

Use of competent professionals (a) and requirements related to consultations with stakeholders/rights holders (c) were previously part of the criterion on General Stipulations, which is being proposed for deletion.

3.7.2: Cultural Heritage Assessment

If past impacts on cultural heritage are identified (see 3.7.1.1), a damage assessment (or equivalent) is undertaken that:
  1. Is carried out by competent professionals;
  2. Documents the nature of the cultural heritage that has been impacted (i.e., was it replicable, non-replicable or critical cultural heritage, and was it tangible or intangible), the location of the impacts, and extent of the impacts;
  3. Documents any past activities taken to mitigate the impacts on cultural heritage;
  4. Determines if past mitigation efforts were agreed by affected Indigenous Peoples, if relevant;
  5. Includes consultations with relevant rights holders and stakeholders in the identification of past impacts and the nature of the cultural heritage that was impacted; and
  6. If past mitigation measures did not accord with the measures related to replicable, non-replicable or critical cultural heritage found in Annex 3.7-A, or, if relevant, the measures for cultural heritage in protected areas found in Annex 3.7-B, then additional mitigation measures are developed in collaboration with affected rights holders and stakeholders.

NOTE FOR 3.7.2.1:  NEW.  See note for 3.7.1.1. Depending on the outcome of the due diligence undertaken in 3.7.1.1, additional assessment of past impacts on cultural heritage may be necessary. Requirement 3.7.2.1 outlines a proposal for what that assessment might entail.

The term “mitigation measures” is meant to encompass the range of strategies that could be taken to prevent further impacts, minimize actual impacts, restore, or remediate areas that have been impacted, or compensate for past impacts.  Strategies could include, for example, actions like stabilization, use of barriers or protective devices, rehabilitation of disturbed areas, restoration, repair, removal, and preservation of cultural resources, and/or compensation to Indigenous Peoples or affected communities.

If proposed mining-related activities may lead to new or additional impacts on cultural heritage (see 3.7.1.2), an assessment is undertaken that:
  1. Is carried out by competent professionals;
  2. Documents the nature of the cultural heritage that may be affected (i.e., is it replicable, non-replicable or critical cultural heritage, and is it tangible or intangible), and the likely extent of the potential impacts;
  3. Includes consultations with relevant rights holders and stakeholders in the identification of the nature of and extent of the potential impacts on cultural heritage; and
  4. Includes collaboration with affected rights holders and stakeholders to identify mitigation measures that are consistent with the measures related to replicable, non-replicable and critical cultural heritage found in Annex 3.7-A, and the measures for cultural heritage in protected areas found in Annex 3.7-B, as relevant.

NOTE FOR 3.7.2.2:  All of the provisions in 3.7.2.2 are in the 2018 Mining Standard. Assessing the nature of the cultural heritage is in the original 3.7.2.2. The use of competent professionals (a) and requirements related to consultations with stakeholders/rights holders (c) and (d) were originally in criterion 3.7.1 ‘General Stipulations’ in the 2018 Mining Standard, which is being proposed for deletion.

3.7.3: Cultural Heritage Management

A cultural heritage management plan or its equivalent is in place and implemented to protect cultural heritage. The plan:
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Outlines specific actions to mitigate past and/or potential impacts on cultural heritage;
  3. Identifies key indicators, tied to an identified baseline, to enable evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation activities over time;
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff, ensuring that only competent professionals carry out the mitigation work;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 3.7.3.1:  REVISED. We have updated this requirement to be more consistent with management plan expectations in other IRMA chapters.

The mitigation measures in the management plan are:
  1. Consistent with the mitigation measures for replicable, non-replicable, and critical cultural heritage in Annex 3.7-A, as relevant; and
  2. If actual or potential impacts are associated with cultural heritage in a protected area, mitigation is aligned with the requirements in Annex 3.7-B.

NOTE FOR 3.7.3.2:  NEW. This replaces a number of requirements in the 2018 version of this chapter (see the Annexes for more information on which ones have been moved there).  Rather than include all of the specific mitigation measures in the chapter itself, we are proposing to move them to Annexes to improve readability and flow of the chapter. Those measures are still normative and, if not being met, will be reflected in the rating and narrative for the requirement in the public audit report.

A process is in place for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation of mitigation actions, and if necessary, outlining additional actions and updating the management plan to accord with desired or expected outcomes.

NOTE FOR 3.7.3.3:  NEW.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 3.7-3: 

Background:  This is a new requirement. Most IRMA chapters that include management plans include a step to evaluate the effectiveness of the actions that are implemented, and if necessary, take further action. We are proposing to add this requirement because to create greater consistency throughout the standard.

Most IRMA chapters also have requirements related to monitoring, which typically include expectations that indicators be developed, and sampling or inspections occur to determine if mitigation measures are being effectively implemented. IFC Performance Standard 8 does not include monitoring of mitigation measures implemented for the protection of cultural heritage.

Question:

Do you agree that it is reasonable for mitigation actions to be evaluated for effectiveness? If you agree that the lack of monitoring-related requirements is a gap that should be filled in the IRMA Standard, can you suggest examples of best practices in the monitoring or surveillance of cultural heritage mitigation activities?

When Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage exists in a project’s/operation’s area of influence:
  1. Proposed mining-related activities that may impact Indigenous Peoples’ critical cultural heritage proceed only with the free, prior and informed consent of the affected Indigenous Peoples;
  2. Mitigation strategies for past impacts and new impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage are agreed by Indigenous Peoples prior to their implementation;
  3. The commercial use of Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage only takes place:
    1. After the Indigenous Peoples have been informed of their rights under host country law, the scope and nature of proposed commercial development, and the potential consequences of such development; and
    2. With the free, prior and informed consent of the Indigenous Peoples.

NOTE FOR 3.7.3.4:  NEW. Although a new requirement, none of the content is new. All of the provisions include content related to the free, prior and informed consent and agreements with Indigenous Peoples from requirements that have been moved to Annex 3.7-A.

Procedures are in place and implemented for:
  1. Managing chance finds, including, at minimum, a requirement that employees and contractors do not further disturb any chance find until an evaluation by competent professionals is made and mitigation actions consistent with Annex 3.7-A and Annex 3.7-B of this chapter are developed, as relevant;
  2. Managing potential impacts to cultural heritage from visitors to the project /operations site;
  3. Allowing continued access to cultural sites, subject to:
    1. Consultations with relevant Indigenous Peoples and affected communities; and
    2. Any overriding health, safety, and security considerations; and
  4. The sharing of information related to Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage, subject to agreement with affected Indigenous Peoples.

NOTE FOR 3.7.3.5:  This was requirement 3.7.7.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Only minor changes have been proposed to increase clarity of expectations and more consistent auditor scoring.

Relevant employees and contractors receive training on cultural heritage site recognition and care, and the entity’s plans and procedures related to cultural heritage management.

NOTE FOR 3.7.3.6:  This was 3.7.7.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard.  Removed reference to training on cultural awareness because that is now being addressed in Chapter 1.2-Stakeholder Engagement, so that any of the entity’s staff that interact with Indigenous Peoples, or peoples from a different cultural background, be trained in cultural awareness and sensitivity.

3.7.4: Disclosure

Cultural heritage assessments, management plans and procedures are publicly available or a publicly available access to information (or equivalent) policy that commits the entity to providing stakeholders with this information upon request is in place, and shared with stakeholders.

NOTE FOR 3.7.4.1:  REVISED. This was 3.7.1.3 in the 2018 version of the Mining Standard. It required that information be provided to stakeholders upon request. As with other chapters, we have added that information can also proactively be made public.

Note that we now refer to an access to information policy (or equivalent). That change is related to a proposed requirement in Chapter 1.2 (see explanation in Note for requirement 1.2.4.3).

Chapter 4.1: Waste and Materials Management

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  We are proposing a NEW APPROACH to this chapter. In the 2018 Mining Standard, the primary emphasis was on ‘mine waste,’ which included include tailings, waste rock, spent ore from heap leaches, and wastes generated during mineral processing (e.g., residues and used processing fluids, wastes from thermal processing). Much less attention was paid to understanding risks and managing risks from chemicals that were used in the processing, or the chemical constituents of brines, or other substances like fuels, etc. Also, there was little attention paid to the management of non-mine wastes, which can be generated in considerable volumes at industrial-scale mines and processing facilities, and, depending on the wastes, can pose varying degrees of environmental and health hazards.

Proposed additions and changes:

We are proposing to separate the aspects of waste management into two chapters: this Chapter (4.1) will be focused the management of the chemicals and the potential pollution-related aspects of wastes, and a new Chapter 4.X- ‘Management of Physical Stability,’ currently inserted after Chapter 4.2, has been designed to evaluate the physical stability risks related to mine waste (and other) facilities.

  • Because the waste issues are now split between two chapters, we have not included criterion 4.1.1 from the 2018 Mining Standard, which required a waste policy, and have opted to focus more on waste assessment and management processes and procedures. Also, most other environmental chapters do not require policies.

We are proposing that this chapter now focus on systems to better understand the hazardous properties of materials and wastes. We are proposing to present requirements according to three categories of materials and wastes (see ‘Scope of Application’ section, below for more details):

  • Materials and chemicals brought to the site;
  • Materials that are produced (or extracted) as part of the mining and mineral processing processes; and
  • Wastes that are produced (wastes generated by the mining/mineral processing processes, and wastes generated as a result of using the materials and chemicals that are brought to the site).

One of the challenges with having a chapter on wastes and materials management is that there is a considerable overlap with a number of other chapters in the IRMA Standard. Depending on the characteristics and volumes of materials and wastes, as well as treatment and disposal methods, materials/chemicals and wastes have the potential to adversely impact: workers (occupational health and safety), community health and safety, cultural heritage, water quality, air quality, soil quality, and biodiversity and ecosystem services, human rights, Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

Thus, we have added numerous cross references to other chapters when information gained through the requirements in 4.1 can be integrated into other chapters. For example, we have retained requirements to characterize the potential contaminants in ore, concentrates and waste rock in this chapter. If contaminants of concern are identified, the risks from those contaminants can be evaluated alongside other risks in the air, water and soil chapters, and then mitigated/managed accordingly.

Other changes:

  • We are proposing some management-related requirements, for example, that there be some evidence that efforts are made to reduce the volume of hazardous materials and wastes (using the waste mitigation hierarchy), and that procedures be put in place to ensure safe handling, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes, and emergency response procedures for accidental releases of the materials.
  • Reporting requirements have been updated to be more consistent with other IRMA chapters. (see criterion 4.1.9)

4.1.1: Identification and Characterization of Materials and Wastes

NOTE FOR 4.1.1:  In 4.1.1.3 and 4.1.1.4, below, we use the terms “hazardous material” and “hazardous waste.” We recognize that in some jurisdictions these terms may have a regulatory definition. We are not proposing to adopt any one jurisdiction’s definition, but rather, use the term hazardous more generally, as in “creating a danger or a risk.”

Thus, we are proposing the following definitions:

Hazardous Materials
Chemicals and materials with properties or characteristics that make them a physical, health or environmental hazard.

Hazardous Wastes
Wastes with properties or characteristics that make them a physical, health or environmental hazard.

The entity identifies:
  1. All chemicals and materials that are transported to the site and associated facilities, including, if relevant, ores, concentrates or other materials from third-parties used as feed materials for mineral processing operations;
  2. All solid and semi-solid materials/products that are produced (e.g., ore, concentrates) and wastes that are produced (e.g., tailings or other residues, waste rock, overburden, slag or mineral processing wastes, etc.) as a result of mining-related activities at the site and associated facilities; and
  3. All liquid materials/products that are produced (e.g., brines) and liquid wastes that are produced (e.g., mine-influenced waters stored in pregnant and barren solution ponds, tailings supernatant ponds, industrial stormwater ponds, treatment plant surge ponds, etc.) as a result of mining-related activities at the site and associated facilities; and
  4. All wastes that are produced at the site and associated facilities that are not derived from mining or processing activities (e.g., spent equipment, used materials, used containers, garbage, sewage, construction waste, etc.).

NOTE FOR 4.1.1.1:  NEW. The results of this requirement feed into 4.1.1.2, below.

We have started a list of potential materials and wastes that may contain chemicals or substances that make them potential hazards. (See the Scope of Application section, above) These can be included in an Annex or in Guidance.

For each chemical and material transported to the site or associated facilities (see 4.1.1.1.a), including ores, concentrates or other materials from third-parties used as feed materials for mineral processing operations, the entity:
  1. Determines if it has characteristics or properties that make it dangerous or capable of having a harmful effect on human health or safety, the environment, or communities;
  2. If relevant, identifies contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) in feed materials purchased for mineral processing operations; and
  3. Documents the hazardous properties or characteristics, and the related potential health, safety, environmental or community impacts.

NOTE FOR 4.1.1.2:  REVISED. 4.1.1.2.a was previously 4.1.2.1.a in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Re: 4.1.1.2.a, in guidance note we can elaborate on methods that could be used to identify chemicals, materials and wastes that pose hazards.[1]

And we can add more guidance on what sorts of chemicals and materials might pose physical, health or environmental hazards. For example, the UN Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) elaborates on chemicals and physical, health and environmental hazards.[2]

4.1.1.2.b is NEW. This information will feed into risk assessments in 4.1.3.1.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-2

Background:  We are not proposing to require that mineral processing entities carry out a chemical characterization of purchased ore, concentrates or other feed materials from third-party suppliers, as we are assuming that elements present at concentrations in the feed with the potential to impact human health or the environment, would be disclosed as part of the contract with the supplier. However, this is an assumption, and we are not clear if all elements that may pose a hazard to humans or the environment are disclosed, or if only those that interfere with or affect the efficiency of the mineral processing are included.

As a result, we have added a footnote for 4.1.1.2.b, that if information from the supplier on feed constituents is not comprehensive, then the mineral processor would need to carry out a characterization in order to credibly predict potentially hazardous emissions and develop strategies to address them.

Question:  Do you agree with this approach? Is it reasonable to expect that if supplier information is not sufficient that mineral processors do a thorough analysis of all feed materials in order to fully understand the range and concentrations of potential contaminants that may be emitted to air or present in effluent? If not, then how else can the mineral processor demonstrate to auditors that they fully understand the range of containments that may be released (and that have adequate controls in place to address them)?

[1] For example, hazardous properties of chemicals and some materials being used (or that will end up as wastes) can be found in Material Safety Data Sheets (also referred to as Safety Data Sheets) provided by chemical manufacturers, and also on International Chemical Safety Cards (International Labour Organization/World Health Organization International Chemical Safety Cards (ICSCs) available at: https://www.ilo.org/safework/info/publications/WCMS_113134/lang–en/index.htm)

[2] The United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) lists properties of chemicals, including:
Chemicals posing physical hazards (e.g., explosives, flammable gases, aerosols and chemicals under pressure, oxidizing gases, gases under pressure, flammable liquids, flammable solids, self-reactive substances and mixtures, pyrophoric liquids, pyrophoric solids, self-heating substances and mixtures, substances and mixtures that emit flammable gases when in contact with water, oxidizing liquids, oxidizing solids, organic peroxides, corrosive to metals, desensitized explosives).

For health hazards the properties include acute toxicity, skin corrosion/irritation, serious eye damage/irritation, respiratory or skin sensitization, germ cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, specific target organ toxicity (single or repeated exposure) and aspiration hazard.

For environmental hazards, properties include being hazardous to the aquatic environment or hazardous to the ozone layer. (EDITORIAL NOTE: Others would likely go beyond these factors to include not only hazards to aquatic but also terrestrial environment, including any living organizations within those environments).

(Source: United Nations. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). 9th revised edition. 2021. https://unece.org/transport/standards/transport/dangerous-goods/ghs-rev9-2021)

For each solid or semi-solid material and waste produced as a result of mining-related activities (as identified in 4.1.1.1.b), a chemical characterization, using industry best practice, is carried out to determine the potential for acid rock drainage (ARD), and the potential for contaminant or metals leaching (ML), including, as relevant:
  1. Analysis of petrology, mineralogy, and mineralization;
  2. Identification of geochemical test units or representative ranges of chemical composition;
  3. Estimation of an appropriate number of samples for each geochemical test unit or range of material compositions;
  4. Performance of comprehensive geochemical testing on all samples from each geochemical test unit, or, for solid wastes for which geochemical test units are not relevant (e.g., mineral sands), on samples representative of the range of compositions; and
  5. Identification of COPCs for each material.

NOTE ON 4.1.1.3:  REVISED. This requirement was 4.1.3.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

The requirement now has more detail, as it was unclear that both the potential for acid rock drainage (ARD) and the potential for metal/contaminant leaching from materials need to be evaluated. Depending on the ore and waste mineralogy, some mines can have a low ARD potential but still leach metals, sulfate, and other contaminants of concern at circumneutral pH or higher. For example, Price (2009) reports that “Circumneutral drainage can contain relatively high dissolved concentrations of trace elements such as nickel, cobalt, zinc, molybdenum, arsenic, and antimony. Concentrations of molybdenum, arsenic, and antimony, in particular, may remain elevated even as pH increases above 7.”[1]

Additionally, we have elaborated in a footnote that “comprehensive geochemical testing” of solids should include tests for radioactivity, as this is a concern for worker exposure at some mining operations and may also show up in the mined ores or wastes. An example is the Lisbon Valley Copper Mine, an active, open pit, heap leach copper mine in southeastern Utah, USA, that has identified uranium as a constituent of concern and is located near uranium deposits.[2]

[1] Price, W.A. 2009. Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic Geologic Materials. MEND Report 1.20.1. December, 579 pages. https://mend-nedem.org/wp-content/uploads/1.20.1_PredictionManual.pdf

[2] See Lisbon Valley Mining Company, 2022. Notice of intent to commence large mining operations & modification of plan of operations. BLM Proposed plan of Operations

For each liquid material and waste produced as a result of mining-related activities (as identified in 4.1.1.1.c), chemical characterization is carried out as follows:
  1. Full chemical characterization of the liquids and brines for constituents identified in the IRMA water quality criteria (see Tables 4.2.a – 4.2.h in Chapter 4.2); and
  2. Identification of the COPCs for each liquid and brine.

NOTE ON 4.1.1.4:  NEW.  This requirement has been added to ensure that contaminants of potential concern are also identified for mineral processing operations, given that we are proposing that this version of the IRMA Standard also applies to standalone processing facilities. The first audits of lithium operations also identified chemical characterization of brines as something that needed more elaboration.

We can add more detail on tests that can be conducted to determine if wastes have potentially dangerous or harmful characteristics.[1]

[1] For example, the U.S. EPA has information on tests that can undertaken to determine hazardous characteristics of wastes, such as test methods for ignitability (e.g., Pensky-Martens Closed-Cup Method for Determining Ignitability), use of pH values to identify corrosivity (e.g., aqueous wastes with a pH of less than or equal to 2, a pH greater than or equal to 12.5), and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to determine toxicity of leachate from wastes. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website. “Defining Hazardous Waste.” https://www.epa.gov/hw/defining-hazardous-waste-listed-characteristic-and-mixed-radiological-wastes#characteristic)

Chemical characterization of solid, semi-solid and liquid materials/products and wastes produced as a result of mining-related activities are updated regularly to account for variability in properties and processing.

NOTE ON 4.1.1.5:  This requirement aligns with 4.1.3.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

For each waste material not derived from mining or processing activities (as identified in 4.1.1.1.d), the entity:
  1. Determines if the waste has characteristics or properties that make it dangerous or capable of having a harmful effect on human health, safety or the environment; and
  2. Documents the hazardous properties or characteristics, and any related potential health, safety or environmental impacts.

NOTE ON 4.1.1.6:  NEW.  This was a gap identified through early audits. Previously, there was no specific requirement to identify (and therefore, no expectations to manage) waste facilities containing hazardous or harmful substances unrelated to mining or processing activities that could be released to the environment.

We can add more detail on tests that can be conducted to determine if wastes have potentially dangerous or harmful characteristics.

4.1.2: Material and Waste Reduction and Mitigation

NOTE FOR 4.1.2:  NEW. This is a new criterion, and all of the requirements within are new.

Other standards refer to the waste mitigation hierarchy, and we have incorporated that concept here. This hierarchy differs from the mitigation hierarchy referred to in other chapters, but like the general mitigation hierarchy the waste mitigation hierarchy sets out a priority of actions that should be taken in managing wastes, moving in order of highest priority to lowest as follows: Prevention, reduction/minimization, re-use, recycling, energy recovery and disposal.

The proposed definition for waste mitigation hierarchy is:
A ranking of waste management options according to what is best for the environment. The priority order is to prevention, reduction, reuse, recycling (including composting), recovery (e.g., of energy from waste) and disposal, with prevention being the most preferred option and the disposal at a landfill being the least preferred option. 

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-3

Background:  There are some who believe that the step of energy recovery from waste (also known as waste-to-energy) should not be part of the hierarchy because waste incineration can lead to toxic air emissions, contribute to climate change, destroy resources that could otherwise be re-used or recycled, and the ash by-product still requires landfilling and management for toxic leachate. Opponents of waste-to-energy argue that it is outdated concept, and cite that some European financial institutions are beginning to exclude the practice from financial support.[1] Others argue that with more efficient incineration technology, the emissions are minimal, and that combustion of wastes results in lower greenhouse gas emissions because landfills generate and release methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas. And the waste ash can be used, for example in road building, rather than disposed of in a landfill.[2]

Question:  Do you think energy recovery from waste is still considered an acceptable practice in terms of human health, safety or environment? Should IRMA include it in the list of waste mitigation hierarchy options?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-4

Background:  The top tiers of the mitigation hierarchy approach (prevention, minimization, re-use, recycling) fits in with the concept of circularity, which was a topic of discussion in one of IRMA’s Expert Working Groups in 2022. For example, the top priority in the mitigation hierarchy is to prevent generation of waste in the first place, which aligns with the circularity-based idea of designing and using durable products so that the generation of waste is prevented (rather than using products that by design will be obsolete and thrown away in a short period of time). Circularity also stresses the re-use and repurposing of materials, which is also a high priority in the mitigation hierarchy.

Both mining and mineral processing offer opportunities for re-use/repurposing of waste streams. For example, tailings can be “re-mined” to extract minerals/metals, and mineral processing operations can include recycled content in their processes so that the products are not solely from newly mined materials. However, these opportunities may not exist at every site, or there may be technical, environmental, safety or climate implications that create obstacles or barriers to implementation.

As a result, in this revised chapter we have stopped short of requiring that entities demonstrate that they are integrating circularity concepts, but in requirements 4.1.2.2 and 4.1.2.3 we are proposing that entities at least document a rationale as to why they cannot successfully achieve the higher levels of the mitigation hierarchy such as prevention/reduction and re-use. It is hoped that at least this will get companies exploring circularity concepts.

Question:  Should IRMA go further to integrate concepts of circularity into this chapter? For example, rewarding (i.e., give higher ratings to) entities that demonstrate a higher proportion of waste products that are being recycled/re-used/remined than those who clearly are not prioritizing those circularity-type strategies? We’d be interested in your input on this suggestion, or other suggestions for how IRMA might integrate circularly concepts into this chapter or others in the Standard (see also Chapter 2.1, where we are proposing additional circularity requirements – Note for 2.1.3.3, and CONSULTATION QUESTION 2.1-4).

For each chemical or material with hazardous properties or characteristics (hereafter referred to as “hazardous material”) the entity:
  1. Investigates and implements measures to eliminate the use of the hazardous material;
  2. Investigates and implements measures to substitute with a material that poses lower physical, health and/or environmental risks, if elimination is not possible; and
  3. If elimination or substitution are not possible, carries out a risk assessment to determine the level of risk that the material poses to human health or safety, the environment or communities (see 4.1.3.1).

NOTE ON 4.1.2.1:  This requirement doesn’t follow the waste mitigation hierarchy, but rather something called the hierarchy of controls, which is applied in the workplace to prevent exposures to hazards. It includes, in order of priority: elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls and personal protective equipment.[1]

[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention web site. “Hierarchy of Controls.” https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/default.html

For each waste with hazardous properties or characteristics (hereafter referred to as “hazardous waste”), the entity:
  1. Investigates and implements measures to mitigate risks in a manner that aligns with the waste mitigation hierarchy, taking into consideration the potential human health, safety and environmental impacts of each option. Options are evaluated in the following order of priority:
    1. Prevent generation of the hazardous waste;
    2. Reduce the generation of the hazardous waste;
    3. Re-use (or remine) hazardous wastes;
    4. Recycle hazardous wastes;
    5. Recover energy from the wastes; and
    6. Dispose of any remaining hazardous waste;
  2. Documents the rationale for any decisions that do not conform with the waste mitigation hierarchy; and
  3. Carries out risk assessment(s) to determine the level of risk to human health, safety and the environment associated with all selected mitigation strategies for the hazardous waste (see 4.1.3.1).

NOTE ON 4.1.2.2:  As mentioned in the Note for 4.1.2, this requirement uses the waste mitigation hierarchy. The reason we are proposing that a risk assessment still be done after applying the hierarchy is that there will be associated risks with any of the hierarchy steps below prevention. For example, even if the generation of hazardous waste is reduced, there will still be some hazardous waste that will present a risk. Similarly, even the recycling of hazardous wastes will come with risks that need to be managed.

We have added the caveat in 4.1.2.2.a that in evaluating options according to the waste mitigation hierarchy, entities should be “taking into consideration the potential health, safety and environmental impacts of each option.” This is added because it may be the case that a higher-priority option may have greater health, safety or environmental impacts. Therefore, options should be evaluated with all potential impacts in mind.

For each non-hazardous waste, the entity:
  1. Develops and implements measures in a manner that aligns with the waste mitigation hierarchy, taking into consideration the potential health, safety and environmental impacts of each option. Options are evaluated in the following order of priority:
    1. Prevent generation of non-hazardous waste;
    2. Reduce generation of non-hazardous waste;
    3. Re-use the waste products;
    4. Recycle wastes (or compost food or organic wastes);
    5. Recover energy from the waste; and
    6. Dispose of any remaining waste;
  2. Documents the rationale for any decisions that do not conform with the waste mitigation hierarchy; and
  3. If prevention, reduction, re-use and recycling are not possible or do not entirely eliminate the waste, the entity determines if remaining treatment and/or disposal methods may adversely affect human health, safety or the environment. If there are potential risks associated with the selected method the entity assesses the risks as per 4.1.3.1.

NOTE FOR 4.1.2.3:   Because the objective of many IRMA’s chapters, including this one, includes the protection of human health, safety and the environment, our approach has been that materials and wastes with hazardous properties should be the primary focus of this chapter, as they pose the most material risks. However, there can be risks from non-hazardous wastes as well, which is why requirement 4.1.2.3 is being proposed. For example, even if wastes do not contain hazardous elements, per se, the disposal method may create hazards (e.g., improperly managed sewage or garbage can lead to impacts on water, aquatic ecosystems and human health, and the inefficient incineration of garbage or waste materials can lead to impacts on air quality and human health).

It is not clear, however, how much emphasis, if any, should be given to applying the mitigation hierarchy to non-hazardous materials, such reducing the use of office supplies or construction materials, or re-using equipment that could be repaired rather than replaced, substituting certain materials with ones that are produced in a more socially or environmentally responsible manner, etc.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-5:

Currently, while we have some limited requirements for non-hazardous wastes, we have not included requirements related to non-hazardous materials, such as materials used in construction of buildings. Do you agree with this approach, or do you think IRMA should include requirements for non-hazardous materials? If you believe there should be requirements, what would you suggest would be appropriate expectations regarding non-hazardous materials? And are there particular types of non-hazardous materials that warrant a greater focus than others?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-6:

Regarding non-hazardous wastes, would it be reasonable to limit this requirement to the non-hazardous wastes that are most likely to have associated environmental and health risks (e.g., wastes like garbage dumps/landfills and sewage). Or should all non-hazardous wastes be evaluated? Also, are there additional requirements for non-hazardous wastes that should be added? For example, currently we do not require procedures or management plans for non-hazardous waste facilities, based on the assumption that any significant risks and subsequent mitigation measures (e.g., to control seepage or air emissions) would be incorporated into the plans in those chapters (as per 4.1.3.1.c).

4.1.3: Assessment of Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes

The risks posed to human health or safety, the environment, or communities from hazardous materials, hazardous wastes and, if relevant, non-hazardous wastes that are extracted, used or produced by the project/operation, are assessed as follows:
  1. The entity maps the existing or planned locations where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes and, if relevant, non-hazardous wastes are transported to, stored, used, treated and/or disposed on-site, at associated facilities, or off-site; and
  2. Information on the materials and wastes (e.g., known hazards, volumes, storage, usage, treatment and disposal locations, transport routes, etc.) is integrated into existing risk assessments, as relevant:
    1. Environmental and social impact assessment (Chapter 2.1);
    2. Emergency preparedness and response (Chapter 2.5);
    3. Worker occupational health and safety (Chapter 3.2);
    4. Community health and safety (Chapter 3.3);
    5. Water (Chapter 4.2);
    6. Physical stability of facilities (proposed Chapter 4.X);
    7. Air (Chapter 4.3)
    8. Biodiversity and ecosystem services (Chapter 4.6); and
    9. Soil (proposed Chapter 4.XX).

4.1.4: Management of Hazardous Materials

For each identified hazardous material, the entity develops and implements procedures for the safe transportation (to the site and associated facilities), handling and storage, as follows:
  1. Storage container and conveyance materials are appropriate for the specific hazardous contents;
  2. Engineering controls are implemented to prevent the release of the hazardous materials into the work or natural environment, including, but not limited to:
    1. Constructing impermeable secondary containment in areas where hazardous material is unloaded, mixed, processed or stored, and for pipelines containing or solutions that have hazardous properties, including pipelines carrying process water/solutions that have a concentration of 0.5 mg/l weak acid dissociable (WAD) cyanide or greater;
    2. Secondary containment that holds at least 110% of the largest tank within the containment area plus additional capacity for the design storm event; and
    3. Audible alarms, interlock systems, and/or sumps;
  3. Appropriate protective equipment and clothing are provided to relevant workers;
  4. Appropriate hygiene practices are implemented in relevant work areas (e.g., locations and situations where eating, drinking, and/or smoking are prohibited); and
  5. Occupational health and safety training aligns with requirements in Chapter 3.2, and includes instruction on:
    1. Where to find safety data information (e.g., safety data sheets) and other relevant information related to the chemicals/materials of concern; and
    2. Appropriate methods for transporting, handling, storing, using and disposing of hazardous materials.

NOTE FOR 4.1.4.1:  REVISED. In the 2018 Mining Standard, 4.1.2.1.b required entities to “Document and implement procedures for the safe transport, handling, storage and disposal of those materials, substances and wastes [that have the potential to cause impacts on human health, safety, the environment or
communities].”

We have added more detail here, so that there can be consistency in what is evaluated by auditors.

4.1.4.1 does not include disposal, because that is covered in 4.1.4.2, below. Also, note that this requirement does not address the safe use of the hazardous materials, as that should be covered by the occupational health and safety (OHS) requirements in Chapter 3.2.

We recognize that a lot of this material overlaps with other chapters. For example:

  • There are specific occupational health and safety elements included above (e.g., protective equipment and clothing, training to minimize health and safety risks to workers are covered in 4.1.3.1 (c), (d) and (e), while other requirements related to occupation health and safety are more generally covered in Chapter 3.2).
  • The reference to engineering controls in 4.1.3.1 (a) and (b) would be mitigation measures to prevent or minimize risks to water or soil.

Our intention is that these procedures should be integrated into the management plans, training programs, etc., in other chapters. But we are proposing to include them here so that they will get specific attention during audits, and sites will get a performance rating on these elements. If they are not included here, then they will be one of many elements in the OHS, water, or soil chapters that need to be assessed, and as a result, could potentially be overlooked.

We are also aware that we do not want to either reward or penalize entities for the same action twice. To avoid “double-counting” we could add guidance for auditors on the appropriate way to audit this requirement. Or we could try to reorganize this material to integrate it into the relevant other chapters.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-7:

Do you agree with the current approach in 4.1.3.1 (and 4.1.4.1) of including some specific elements, even though they overlap with other chapters? Or should we try to integrate the relevant requirements from this chapter into the chapters on OHS, water, or other relevant chapters?

The entity develops and implements a system to document information on hazardous materials, including at minimum:
  1. The annual quantity of hazardous materials transported to the site and associated facilities, and the quantity produced at the site and associated facilities;
  2. The annual quantity used at the site and associated facilities, and the quantity transferred off-site;
  3. The storage and usage locations on-site and at associated facilities; and
  4. And shipping dates and supplier information for materials coming to the site and associated facilities, and shipping dates and receiver information for any hazardous materials (e.g., ores, concentrates, brines) transported off-site.

4.1.5: Management of Hazardous Wastes

For each identified hazardous waste, the entity develops and implements procedures for their safe handling, storage, re-use, recycling, treatment and disposal at the site and associated facilities, and, if relevant, procedures for safe transport (e.g., to off-site treatment, disposal, recycling or re-use facilities), as follows:
  1. Disposal container or containment materials are appropriate for the specific hazardous contents;
  2. Engineering controls are implemented to prevent the release of the hazardous wastes or their components into the environment including, as relevant:
    1. A leachate/run-off collection system;
    2. Impermeable secondary containment for pipelines containing mine-influenced waters that have hazardous properties; and
    3. Facility designs that incorporate safe freeboard levels;
  3. Protective equipment and clothing are provided to relevant workers to prevent illness or injury from exposure to hazards; and
  4. Occupational health and safety training aligns with requirements in Chapter 3.2, and includes instruction on:
    1. Where to locate safety data sheets and other relevant information related to the chemicals of concern; and
    2. Appropriate transport, handling, storage, re-use, recycling, treatment and disposal methods to employ, including any special precautions and prohibitions.
NOTE FOR 4.1.5.1:

NEW. As with requirement 4.1.5.1, we recognize that a lot of the material in 4.1.4.1 overlaps with other chapters. Please see CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-7 in the note for 4.1.4.1.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-8:
Currently, in engineering controls in 4.1.5.1.b, we are only including leachate/runoff collection system. Can you recommend other controls that should be implemented for on-site hazardous waste facilities?
The entity develops and implements a system for documenting information on the generation, transportation, treatment and disposal (on-site and off-site) of hazardous wastes, including, at minimum:
  1. Waste volumes generated, including solids/liquids contents;
  2. Engineering controls being used to prevent the release of hazardous wastes into the environment;
  3. Waste treatment and disposal locations (on-site and off-site);
  4. Waste transport, treatment, and disposal dates/periods; and
  5. Regulatory authorization for any waste management vendors engaged by the company for transport, and off-site treatment or disposal.

4.1.6: Requirements to Address Specific Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes

If cyanide will be transported to and stored on-site in bags or bulk containers, or used as a chemical in any aspect of mining, beneficiation, or processing:
  1. And the operation is eligible, it obtains certification of compliance with the International Cyanide Management Code (The Cyanide Code) in accordance with the verification requirements of the International Cyanide Management Institute (ICMI). If the operation is not eligible to be certified by the ICMI, the operation’s cyanide management practices shall be:
    1. Assessed against the Cyanide Code’s “Gold Mining Operation Verification Protocol” by auditors meeting ICMI requirements; and
    2. Verified as meeting the Cyanide Code requirements; and
  2. Cyanide producers and transporters supplying the operation are certified as meeting the “Cyanide Production and Transport Practices” of the Cyanide Code.

NOTE FOR 4.1.6.1:  This requirement combines the requirements from criterion 4.7.1 in Chapter 4.7 – ‘Cyanide Management’ of the 2018 Mining Standard. We are proposing to delete that chapter, as much of the content overlaps with other chapters. This requirement is one that is very specific to cyanide, however, and so we are proposing to include it here, given that cyanide is hazardous chemical.

Other requirements from Chapter 4.7 are now largely covered elsewhere (e.g., 4.7.2.1 is now covered in 4.1.4.1.b; 4.7.3.1 is covered in 4.2.4.5; 4.2.4.1 is covered in 4.2.1.1.a and 4.2.5.1; 4.2.4.1 is covered in 4.2.5.1; and 4.7.5.1 is covered in 4.2.7.2)

If mercury is present in ore, concentrates or waste materials:
  1. The entity performs, documents and annual updates a mercury mass balance based on the calculated amount of mercury in the ore and waste materials, and the amount of mercury that is:
    1. Released to air;
    2. Recovered (e.g., from mercury emissions control systems) or produced as a by-product (e.g., from gold and/or silver heap leach processes); and
    3. Resident in tailings impoundments, waste rock dumps, or processing waste facilities (on-site and/or off-site).
  2. Mercury wastes from mercury emission control systems:
    1. Are sent to a regulated repository that accepts mercury wastes; or
    2. Are stored on-site or disposed with tailings or with other materials, such as heap or dump leach materials during or after operations (on- or off-site) only if a risk-based evaluation of the storage or disposal of mercury waste demonstrates that the risk of long-term air or water pollution is low, and disposal occurs in fully lined facilities using synthetic liners that have a permeability of 10-9 cm/sec or less and a leachate collection system.
  3. Mercury recovered from mercury emission control systems or produced as a by-product (e.g., from heap leach processes):
    1. Is only sold for an end use listed in Annex A (Products) or Annex B (Processes) of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, subject to the appropriate phase-out dates; and
    2. Is not sold or given away either directly or indirectly to an entity engaged in artisanal or small-scale mining.
  4. If mercury is stored or disposed of with tailings or with other materials on-site (see 4.1.6.2.c.ii):
    1. Sampling for mercury in groundwater and surface water is integrated into the monitoring program for water in Chapter 4.2; and mercury monitoring is included in the air monitoring program plan in Chapter 4.3; and
    2. The entity carries out environmental impacts monitoring (e.g., fish tissue and stream sediment mercury levels) in locations that are most likely to promote methylation, such as still waters, wetlands, and anaerobic sediment.

NOTE FOR 4.1.6.2:  MOVED. This requirement used to be in Chapter 4.8 – Mercury Management. We are proposing to delete Chapter 4.8 – ‘Mercury Management’ and integrate the requirements into other relevant chapters so that auditors with specialty in water, air, soils, etc., are able to evaluate the requirements alongside other water, air and soil requirements (since the documentation being reviewed in those chapters should also contain mercury-related information, if they are relevant to the project/operation), rather than having a single auditor cross the different areas of expertise.

The characterization of mined material and products occurs in this chapter, and because mercury is a hazardous material that is toxic to people and the environment, we are proposing to include some mercury-specific requirements related to management and disposal in this chapter. Other requirements from Chapter 4.8 (such as monitoring) are now covered elsewhere (e.g., most of 4.8.3.2 and 4.8.3.3 are now covered in Chapter 4.3, and 4.8.3.2.b is now in 4.2.2.1.a.iv). We cross-reference with other chapters where additional mercury-related issues may need to be addressed.

We also REVISED some of the requirements from the 2018 Mining Standard.

  • 1.6.2.a. Changed to require that the following sub-requirements occur any time mercury is present in ore, concentrates or waste materials. Previously it was only if there was a mercury control system, which is a limited circumstance, and so some sources of mercury could be overlooked (e.g., mercury in tailings, etc.).
  • 1.6.2.a.ii.This requirement previously said produced as by-product. At some operations, mercury by-product can be produced through a series of steps. For example, mercury occurs naturally in some gold and silver ore bodies. Because mercury has such a strong affinity for cyanide, mercury can be leached along with the gold and follow it through the gold refining steps (e.g., carbon adsorption and electrowinning or zinc cementation). If mercury retorts and other processes are used to separate mercury from the gold, then a mercury by-product can be produced. We added “recovered,” as some mercury may also be recovered from emissions controls systems.
  • 1.6.2.b.ii.Added that if disposal occurs there not only needs to be a liner, but also a leachate collection system, as it is important that any leachate that contains mercury be collected and managed appropriately.

4.1.6.2.c.  Added “or produced as a by-product.” As explained in the note for 4.1.6.2.a.ii, mercury can be recovered, but also produced as a by-product. Also added “subject to the appropriate phase-out dates,” as some end uses in Annex A of the Minamata Convention have now been phased out.

Entities neither propose to nor actually dispose of mine wastes in natural water bodies (i.e., rivers, lakes or marine environments).
NOTE FOR 4.1.6.3:

This requirement was 4.1.8.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. The wording has changed slightly, but the intent is the same.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 4.1-9

Background:  The intent of this requirement is that responsible entities do not dispose of mine wastes (e.g., tailings, waste rock, mineral processing wastes, etc.) in natural water bodies, and if new projects are proposed that would require this form of disposal, then those projects should not go forward unless alternative disposal practices can be developed.

Question:  Should IRMA consider expanding this requirement to include all hazardous wastes? Or all wastes (even if they are non-hazardous), since dumping of wastes into water bodies is not best practice for any type of waste?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-10

Background:  There may be cases where riverine, lake, or marine disposal of tailings, waste rock, or other mine wastes was used in the past at a site, but the practice is no longer being used. Or where the practice was used but the site changed ownership and the new owner is wanting to do things better, and as a result, is using other disposal practices.

In such situations, it seems like providing some sort of remediation to address the impacts from past water-based-disposal practices, if possible, might lead to better outcomes than simply giving sites a ‘does not meet’ rating on this requirement.

Question:  Should IRMA consider adding a remediation step to enable sites that are no longer using these practices but did so in the past to at least partially, or possibly even substantially, meet this requirement? Remediation for damage that has been done might include, for example, waste removal and ecosystem restoration, and/or some sort of offset to create an equivalent ecosystem or ecosystem services elsewhere, or providing other forms of compensation. This is the approach taken in Chapter 4.6 for historic soil pollution.

4.1.7: Spill Preparedness and Response Planning

NOTE ON 4.1.7:

The requirements in 4.1.7, below, pertain to on-site spills of materials or wastes that may affect workers. If there are scenarios where spills might occur off-site (e.g., due to transportation accidents) and affect communities or natural resources, then those hazard scenarios would be included in Chapter 2.5 – ‘Community Emergency Preparedness and Response.’

The entity develops spill response plans (or equivalent) to manage off-site and on-site spills, leaks, or releases of identified hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, and trains relevant workers, contractors and emergency response providers on the following:
  1. Procedures, methods and materials used for containment, clean-up, decontamination, and remediation;
  2. Instructions for evacuations, if relevant;
  3. Appropriate personal protective equipment and clothing for workers or contractors engaged in spill response;
  4. Any relevant fire-fighting measures, including:
    1. Appropriate extinguishing equipment, and information about equipment that is not appropriate for a particular situation; and
    2. Special protective equipment or precautions related to hazardous combustion products;
  5. Relevant first-aid instructions for exposures that may occur during spill response, including:
    1. Instructions on where to locate safety data sheets and other relevant information related to the chemicals of concerns
    2. Instructions for all relevant routes of exposure for relevant chemicals (inhalation, skin and eye contact, and ingestion);
    3. Description of likely symptoms or effects related to exposure to relevant chemicals, including symptoms that are acute or delayed; and
    4. Instructions on any immediate medical care and treatment(s).

NOTE FOR 4.1.7.1:  NEW.  There were no specific spill response requirements in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Some entities may wish to combine these plans with spill prevention measures (which would be part of 4.1.3.1 or 4.1.4.1) into a Spill Prevention and Response Plan.

Similarly, some may wish to integrate workplace-specific spill-related procedures as part of their Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans prepared in Chapter 3.2, requirement 3.2.3.6.

If spills have the potential to affect off-site communities, these hazards would need to be included in the risk assessment and procedures developed as per Chapter 2.5, which addresses Community Emergency Preparedness and Response Planning.

Any approach is fine, as long as all of the relevant elements are covered in a plan(s) or set of procedures, and the appropriate people are trained in response procedures.

Spill response plans (or equivalent) related to hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are prepared in collaboration with relevant workers, contractors and/or worker health and safety representatives, and, if relevant, local first responders, communities and government agencies.
NOTE FOR 4.1.7.2:

NEW.  There were no specific spill response requirements in the 2018 Mining Standard. This requirement aligns with requirements in Chapters 2.5 and 3.2, where the expectation is that those who will be intimately involved in or affected by emergency response procedures are also engaged in the preparation of those plans.

4.1.8: Inspections

Annually or more frequently the entity inspects:
  1. The condition of areas where hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are handled, mixed, stored or disposed of on-site or at associated facilities;
  2. The condition of storage and conveyance structures, such as tanks, pipes/pipelines, valves flanges;
  3. The integrity of secondary containment systems;
  4. The functioning of alarms and sumps; and
  5. The effectiveness of any other control or mitigation measures (engineered or others) meant to prevent the release of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes in the workplace or to the environment.

NOTE ON 4.1.8.1:  REVISED. In the 2018 Mining Standard, there was a requirement that outlined inspection and monitoring requirements, but the requirement focused only on mine waste facilities (e.g., tailings, waste rock). Specific inspections and surveillance related to physical stability issues at those facilities is now included in proposed Chapter 4.X (criteria 4.X.2 and 4.X.4).

This requirement now focuses on inspection of the facilities where hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are located, and inspection of the systems meant to control movement of those materials and wastes into the workplace or environment where they might cause harm.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-11:

We are proposing annual inspections, but do you think that these types of inspections should occur at a much higher frequency (e.g., weekly, monthly)?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-12:
There will be cases when entities send hazardous wastes to third-party disposal facilities. If those facilities are poorly managed, then it is possible that the entity would be contributing to impacts on human health or safety, or impacts on the environment or communities. Should there be either an up-front due diligence requirement to ensure that any third-party disposal facilities are well managed, adhere to certain standards, etc., and/or should there be any ongoing monitoring of those facilities by the entity?

Where waste or materials management procedures or engineering controls are not being effective, the following occurs:
  1. If there is an imminent risk to human health or the environment, immediate actions are implemented to remedy the situation and, if necessary, to stop work in the area until the situation is remedied;
  2. If risks to human health or the environment are not imminent, remedial actions are implemented as soon as possible, but no later than seven days after the inspection; and
  3. The incidents are documented and feed into reviews and updates to hazardous materials management procedures (see 4.1.4), hazardous waste management procedures (see 4.1.5), and occupational health and safety, emergency response, water, air or soil management plans, as relevant.

NOTE FOR 4.1.8.2:  NEW.  This is similar to expectations in Chapter 3.2 – ‘Occupational Health and Safety,’ where work can be stopped if unsafe conditions are observed and report. See requirement 3.2.6.1.

4.1.9: Reporting and Disclosure

On an annual basis, the entity reports to affected communities on its management of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.
NOTE FOR 4.1.9.1: REVISED. This was 4.1.7.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. That requirement was to report to stakeholders, if requested, on mine waste facility management. This is similar to that expectation, except we are proposing that this reporting occur proactively (not be based on stakeholder request) and that reporting relates to hazardous materials and hazardous wastes more generally. The proposed approach is more aligned with other IRMA chapters, where proactive information on management practices is shared (e.g., Chapter 4.2 on water management).
An access to information (or equivalent) policy that allows stakeholders to access more detailed information on hazardous materials and hazardous wastes upon request is in place and shared with stakeholders.

NOTE FOR 4.1.9.2:  NEW. In the 2018 Mining Standard there was a blanket requirement in Chapter 1.2-Community and Stakeholder Engagement, requirement 1.2.4.1, which states that, “Any information that relates to the mine’s performance against the IRMA Standard shall be made available to relevant stakeholders upon request.”  We are adding this element into each chapter where there was not previously a reporting requirement, to make it clear that information related to the specific topic is included in the blanket requirement.

Note that the requirement for an access to information policy (of equivalent) is being proposed in Chapter 1.2 (see Note for requirement 1.2.4.3)

For all hazardous materials and hazardous wastes that may pose a risk to communities, workers or the environment if there were to be an incident or spill, the entity discloses to local authorities and emergency services relevant information on the hazardous properties and health and environmental effects of those materials and wastes.

NOTE FOR 4.1.9.3:  NEW.  This requirement is being proposed because the information on chemical and waste hazards should be provided to relevant emergency responders, so that they can be prepared for all potential emergency situations.

Chapter 4.2: Water Management

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  A number of changes have been made to more closely align the structure and flow of the chapter with other IRMA environmental chapters.

Proposed additions and changes:

  • A couple of new requirements related to scoping risks/potential impacts on water from mining-related activities (4.2.2.3, 4.2.2.4)
  • Requiring risk assessments to determine which predicted impacts are likely to be significant enough to warrant the development of mitigation measures and to identify contaminants of concern (4.2.2).
  • Adaptive management separated from water monitoring program. Adaptive management plan has more detailed requirements (4.2.4), and monitoring program now includes a sampling and analysis plan (4.2.5).
  • Modifying the requirement that entities make all monitoring data publicly accessible and requiring that the data be made available in a manner that is more comprehensible to stakeholders and be put into context (4.2.7).
  • Moved requirements related to long-term water treatment from Chapter 2.6 into this chapter (4.2.4.3, 4.2.4.4)
  • Now reference cyanide and mercury (due to proposed deletion of those chapters)

Note on IRMA Water Quality Tables:  We are in the process of reviewing updated water quality standards in different jurisdictions. See note on IRMA Water Quality Criteria by End-Use Tables, at the end of the chapter (only available in the full pdf version).

There were two flags in this chapter in the 2018 Mining Standard that have been removed from the proposed updated version. The first flag related to exploring exceptions to IRMA’s water quality criteria. There have not been any requests for exceptions in the past five years. The second flag had to do with the cyanide water quality criterion. Entities will have the opportunity to comment on proposed updates to all water quality criteria later this year. IRMA will consider if any flags are needed based on the results of those consultations.

4.2.1: Baseline/Background Water Quality and Quantity

NOTE FOR 4.2.1:  This criterion title is new, but the requirement is not. The requirement was previously in a criterion called Site Characterization and Prediction of Potential Impacts (was 4.2.2).

Data on baseline or background water quality and quantity are gathered in sufficient detail to reliably determine project/operation-related sources of contamination and changes in water quantity or quality that are unrelated to the project/operation. Data include:
  1. Seasonal and temporal variability in the physical and chemical conditions of surface waters, natural seeps/springs and groundwaters that could be affected by the project/operation, including:
    1. Baseline/background concentrations of the comprehensive suite of parameters in IRMA Water Quality Criteria by End-Use Tables (Tables 4.2.a – 4.2.h) including weak acid dissociable cyanide (if cyanide is used or proposed to be used at the operation); and
    2. Field parameters (i.e., pH, specific conductance, temperature, and potentially dissolved oxygen and turbidity (in surface waters) and redox potential (in groundwater)), measured at the time of baseline/background sampling; and
  2. Seasonal and temporal variability in flows and levels of surface waters, natural seeps/springs and groundwaters that could be affected by the project/operation.

NOTE FOR 4.2.1.1: REVISED. This was 4.2.2.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It has been included here to indicate that a baseline water evaluation should be conducted early in the process of mineral development. Ideally, collection of baseline data begins during exploration, but if it was not gathered at that time, the 2018 Mining Standard and the 2023 Standard still expect that some estimation of water background conditions will be determined. The collection of data would be expected to be collected in a manner that aligns with IRMA Water Monitoring Guidance (see Annex 4.2-A).

We deleted biological conditions from 4.2.1.1.a, as the biodiversity baseline is developed in chapter 4.3, requirement 4.6.1.3.

More specificity has been added in 4.2.1.1.a, to make it clear that the baseline data collection should include the full suite of potential contaminants (i.e., those in the

) to ascertain if any constituents are present even in the absence of mining activity (i.e., either they are naturally occurring, or they are present as a result of third-party activities unrelated to the mineral development project/operation). There is a specific reference to sampling for weak acid dissociable cyanide if cyanide may be or is being used at an operation. That expectation is from requirement 4.7.4.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

4.2.2: Scoping Issues and Risks Related to Water

NOTE FOR 4.2.2:  NEW.  This is a new criterion heading. Scoping is a heading in many other chapters, it has been added here, and relevant requirements have been moved into the section from two other criteria in the 2018 Mining Standard (4.2.1. Water Management Context and Collaboration at the Local and Regional Level and 4.2.2. Site Characterization and Prediction of Potential Impacts). Note that criterion 4.2.1 in the 2018 Standard also contained an additional requirement to take steps to contribute positively to local and regional stewardship outcomes. That requirement has now been moved to the Management of Water section and is requirement 4.2.4.6.

There is no change to the content of requirements 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2, but in the 2018 Mining Standard they were numbered 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2, respectively.

Water users, water rights holders and other stakeholders (“stakeholders”) that may potentially affect or be affected by project water management practices are identified.
The entity conducts its own research and collaborates with relevant stakeholders to identify:
  1. How water resources that may be affected by the project/operation are currently being used and how they may be used in the future (e.g., for drinking water, recreation, irrigation, livestock watering, fishing, aquaculture, industrial, etc.); and
  2. Water-related concerns, challenges, and opportunities that exist at the local and regional levels.
All mining-related activities and facilities that may pose a risk to water quality, including sedimentation risks, from planned discharges or unplanned releases of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) are identified, including but not limited to:
  1. Mine waste facilities (e.g., tailings impoundments, waste rock dumps, slag heaps, heap and dump leach piles, open pits, pit lakes, underground workings, etc.), including catastrophic releases from facility failures;
  2. Other types of waste facilities (e.g., hazardous wastes, solid waste landfills, sewage treatment plants);
  3. Mineral beneficiation and processing facilities and activities (e.g., crushing/grinding, flotation, heap or vat leaching, mineral processing);
  4. Evaporation ponds, sedimentation ponds, industrial stormwater retention/detention ponds, pregnant and barren solution ponds, and brine ponds; and
  5. General mining activities (e.g., blasting, transport of chemicals and materials, etc.).

NOTE FOR 4.2.2.3:  NEW.  This requirement has been added because identification of the activities and facilities that may pose a risk to water quality is necessary in order to scope risks to water, and also to develop a conceptual site model (4.2.2.5).

All mining-related activities and facilities that pose a risk to groundwater levels, surface water flows, natural seep/spring flows, or environmental flows are identified, including but not limited to risks from:
  1. The project’s/operation’s use and discharges of water;
  2. Activities such as groundwater extraction or pumping that may affect water resources; and
  3. The presence of open pits, waste facilities, water and brine impoundments, and processing facilities that modify runoff and infiltration of precipitation.

NOTE FOR 4.2.2.4:  NEW. This requirement has been added because identification of the activities and facilities that may pose a risk to groundwater levels, surface water flows, natural seep/spring flows, or environmental flows is necessary in order to scope risks to water, and also to develop a conceptual site model (4.2.4.5).

A conceptual site model is developed and shared with stakeholders. This model:
  1. Includes a detailed description and depiction of the physiography, geology (including structural geology such as faults), hydrology, hydrogeology, climatology, and geochemistry of the site as a whole;
  2. Includes all potential mine-related sources of contamination (see 4.2.2.3);
  3. Includes all contaminants of potential concern (see Chapter 4.1); and
  4. Describes what is known about sitewide contaminant release, transport, pathways between sources and receptors, and fate of contaminants along pathways and in receptors for the site as a whole.

NOTE FOR 4.2.2.5:  Minor change. The requirement for a conceptual model was previously 4.1.3.2.c in the Waste Management chapter. It has been moved here due to changes in the structure of that chapter, and because a site-wide conceptual model is important for understanding the big picture of potential sources and fate of contaminants that may affect water quality and quantity. We are proposing that it be shared with stakeholders because it is important for them to have access to this information if they are to understand and participate in discussions on risks to water.

As outlined in the footnote for 4.2.2.5, a conceptual site model should have been developed in the ESIA (Chapter 2.1). But if it was not, it should be developed to inform the scoping of risks to water.

4.2.3: Assessment of Short- and Long-Term Risks to Water

NOTE FOR 4.2.3:  NEW.  This is a new criterion heading. While implied in the previous version of the water chapter, there were not specific requirements related to how an entity moved from scoping of potential impacts to determining which impacts were likely to be significant enough to warrant the development of mitigation measures. That missing step is risk assessment. Both short-term risks (e.g., during development or operations) and long-term risks (e.g., during closure/post-closure) must be evaluated.

Where potential sources of risks to water quality or water quantity are identified, a credible methodology is used to assess and document the level of risk posed to health, safety, the environment, and current and future uses of water for each identified risk.

NOTE FOR 4.2.3.1:  NEW.  See note for 4.2.3. This requirement has also been added to be more consistent with the approach in other IRMA chapters, including the ESIA chapter. An assessment of risks/potential impacts on water should have been done as part of the ESIA, but if not done at the appropriate time we are proposing that it needs to be done post-ESIA to ensure that all risks are assessed, to understand the potential consequences related to the risks, and to determine if mitigation measures are required to prevent or mitigate the risks to water quality and quantity.[1]

As mentioned in other chapters, we are proposing to define credible method/methodology as:
A method/methodology that is widely recognized, accepted, and used by experts and practitioners in a particular field of study.

[1] We can add guidance on credible risk assessment methods. For example: https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidance

Risk assessments, management strategies and reclamation and closure planning (see Chapter 2.6) are informed by the use of the following tools:
  1. A conceptual site model (see 4.2.2.5) and conceptual models for facilities;
  2. A numeric water balance model for the site as a whole and for each facility that poses a risk to water (as identified in 4.2.2.3) that:
    1. Predicts expected changes in water inflows and outflows (e.g., dewatering rates, water use amounts and sources, treated water discharges) and water volumes stored on-site in facilities (e.g., in supernatant ponds, water management ponds, water in pits) related to the project/operations;
    2. Takes into account the probable maximum precipitation event; low, average, and high precipitation years; and climate change effects on temperature and precipitation using the most reliable, recent, and relevant climate change projections;
    3. Clearly identifies model assumptions, inputs, and uncertainty; and
    4. Estimates the effects of water management on groundwater levels and stream/spring flows.
  3. Hydrogeochemical and hydrogeological models are used to predict or quantify potential impacts to water resources during all phases of the operation’s life cycle (from construction through to post-closure), including estimating concentrations of COPCs at points of compliance.

NOTE FOR 4.2.3.2:  REVISED. A conceptual site model was required in 4.2.2.3.a, and conceptual facility models were required in 4.1.3.2.c in the 2018 Mining Standard. Both are now included in 4.2.3.2.a.

4.2.3.2.b was previously 4.2.2.3.b in 2018 Mining Standard. More detail was added to ensure that facility inflows and outflows, climate change, model assumptions, and model uncertainty are identified and handled numerically (with the exception of model assumptions) in the water balance model.

4.2.3.2.c was 4.2.2.3.c in the 2018 Mining Standard. We have added that the predictions from these models extend through all phases of the life cycle, from construction through to post-closure.

If, at any time during project development or operations, the concentrations of contaminants in water resource receptors are predicted to exceed both baseline/background water quality and IRMA water quality criteria by end use, or the potential exists for long-term acid rock drainage or contaminant or metal leaching (see Chapter 4.1), the entity:
  1. Evaluates whether water treatment will be required to mitigate impacts on water quality during operations and closure/post-closure, including information on contaminants of potential concern and treatment methods and alternatives; and
  2. Ensures, if long-term treatment will be required:
    1. The results from the water balance and water quality models are used to estimate the needed timing, volume and duration of water treatment; and
    2. The risk assessment includes an evaluation of potential consequences to human health, livelihoods, or ecosystems from a failure in long-term water treatment facilities.

NOTE FOR 4.2.3.3:  REVISED. 4.2.3.3.a was 4.2.2.3.d in the 2018 Mining Standard. We have added more detail on the conditions that would prompt the evaluation of whether or not long-term water treatment might be needed.

Additionally, we are proposing to add 4.2.3.3.b.i, so that the potential timing of long-term treatment is determined; and 4.2.4.3.b.ii (that the risk assessment include an evaluation of the potential consequences if there is a failure in long-term water treatment). Understanding the potential consequences of a water treatment failure is important information to share with stakeholders as they evaluate any project that will include long-term water treatment (see 4.2.4.3).

Conceptual and numeric models are:
  1. Developed using credible methodologies; and
  2. Evaluated annually using operational monitoring data, and are updated as necessary.

NOTE FOR 4.2.3.4:  REVISED. This was 4.2.2.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. There were two elements in that requirement that were found in a single paragraph. Here, they have been separated into two sub-requirements to make it clear that both elements need to be audited.

In sub-requirement 4.2.3.4.a, the previous requirement used the wording “industry best practices” to describe the development of the models. This has been changed to credible methodologies to be more consistent with expectations elsewhere in the Standard. This term has also been defined (See glossary at end of chapter).

We are proposing a definition for credible methodologies as follows:

Credible Method/Methodology
A method/methodology that is widely recognized, accepted, and used by experts and practitioners in a particular field of study.

In sub-requirement 4.2.3.4.b, we have added that the models are evaluated annually, but that they only need to be updated as necessary.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.2-1

Background:  Requirement 4.2.2.5 on a conceptual site model contains the important elements of design for a conceptual facility model. We would also like to create some guidance on credible codes that can be used for water quality/quantity modeling.

The State of Nevada has developed a list that includes most codes commonly used to create numeric hydrogeologic and geochemical models: https://ndep.nv.gov/uploads/land-mining-regs-guidance-docs/20210830_BMRR_CodesListing_Rev01_ADA.pdf. We note that GoldSim is not on the list. Although GoldSim is not technically a computer code and is proprietary, it is frequently used for creating water balance and water balance and load models for mine sites.

Question:

Are there other codes or programs that you would recommend including? And should IRMA’s list only include credible codes that are publicly available, or also include proprietary programs like GoldSim? What guidance can we offer if the codes or software are proprietary that would assist auditors in their evaluations?

Risk assessments are reviewed and, if necessary, updated when there are proposed changes in facilities, activities, extracted materials, and processes, and when there are changes in operational context that have the potential to increase the severity of consequences of any identified risks, or when updates have been made to model predictions.

NOTE FOR 4.2.3.5:  NEW. With the proposed addition of a risk assessment this requirement is also necessary, as risk assessment is an ongoing process.

4.2.4: Water Management Planning and Implementation

NOTE FOR 4.2.4:  NEW.  This is a new criterion heading.  In the 2018 Mining Standard, the development of measures to prevent and mitigate impacts to water were included in criterion 4.2.3 Prevention and Mitigation of Impacts to Water. This new criterion combines the mitigation measures with the development of an adaptive management plan for water (previously found in criterion 4.2.4 Monitoring and Adaptive Management). This approach is consistent with other chapters in the IRMA Standard.

Measures to manage risks to water quality for all significant risks identified in the risk assessment are:
  1. Developed, documented and implemented by competent professionals;
  2. Developed in consultation with potentially affected or affected stakeholders in a manner that aligns with the mitigation hierarchy, as follows:
    1. Priority is given to source control and other measures that prevent or avoid the use or generation of contaminants or the release of contaminants, including increased sediment load, relative to baseline conditions;
    2. Where elimination of contaminants through substitution or source control measures is not practicable or effective, migration control measures are implemented to minimize the movement of contaminants to receptors where they can cause harm to human or ecosystem health; and
    3. If necessary, polluted waters are captured and treated to remove contaminants and restore water quality before water is returned to the environment or used for other purposes; and
    4. If prevention and minimization measures are not feasible or do not eliminate impacts, compensation is used as a last resort to offset any remaining impacts; and
  3. Align with best available/applicable practices described in Annex 4.2-B.

NOTE FOR 4.2.4.1.  REVISED. This requirement, along with 4.2.4.2, replaces requirement 4.2.3.1 in the 2018 version of the IRMA Standard. The previous requirement was very general and therefore difficult to audit consistently. We have elaborated here to provide more detail on what the mitigation hierarchy means for avoidance, minimization/mitigation, restoration, or compensation of impacts to water quality.

Also, we are proposing a new Annex 4.2-B of best-practice measures to minimize risks to water associated with different facilities. The purpose of the annex is to help sites and auditors get a sense of some best practices to safeguard water. Without such guidance, it will be difficult for auditors, who cannot be experts on every type of facility associated with a mining or mineral processing, to confidently or consistently assess whether the mitigation measures being proposed and implemented by sites are consistent with best practices.  The current proposal is that entities could either demonstrate alignment with the best practices or provide auditors with a rationale as to why those practices are not appropriate for their situation or provide evidence that alternative approaches are as effective at protecting water.

The proposed content in Annex 4.2-B is a starting point for a conversation. Any input on the approach or the content in the guidance in the annex would be appreciated.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.2-2: Do you agree with this approach to create guidance to guide auditor’s assessments? If not, how do you suggest auditors determine whether or not the measures at a site are sufficient to safeguard water resources? Would you be interested in being part of a working group to help work on this guidance? If so, please contact IRMA (comments@responsiblemining.net) and we will be in touch as we move forward with this process.
Measures to manage risks to water quantity/water supply for all significant risks identified in the risk assessment are:
  1. Developed, documented and implemented by competent professionals; and
  2. Developed in consultation with potentially affected or affected stakeholders in a manner that aligns with the mitigation hierarchy as follows:
    1. Priority is given to measures that avoid the use or extraction of fresh water, or to measures that avoid activities that adversely affect water resources and the ecosystem services that they support;
    2. If that is not possible, measures are implemented, as relevant, to reduce the volumes of water used or extracted, or to minimize the water quantity/water supply impacts from other project-related activities on water resources and the ecosystem services that they support; and
    3. If necessary, affected water supplies and ecosystem services are restored; and
    4. If other options are not practicable or possible, water supplies are replaced with other sources in a manner that is agreed to by potentially affected or affected stakeholders (see also 4.2.6.2), and any impacts on ecosystems or ecosystem services are offset as per Chapter 4.6.

NOTE FOR 4.2.4.2: REVISED. This requirement, along with 4.2.4.1, replaces requirement 4.2.3.1 in the 2018 version of the IRMA Standard (See Note for 4.2.4.1). We are proposing this language to elaborate on what the mitigation hierarchy means in relation to the mitigation of impacts to water quantity/water supply. Also, 4.2.4.2 will now provide the information needed to audit requirement 4.2.6.2, which requires that if water supplies are affected, there must be stakeholder agreement on any impacts to water supplies.

If the need for long-term water treatment is predicted, a proposed project is not developed unless:
  1. Risk assessment assumptions and findings are discussed with potentially affected communities; and
  2. As relevant:
    1. As per IRMA Chapter 2.3, broad community support is expressed for the project; and/or
    2. As per IRMA Chapter 2.2, if Indigenous Peoples’ rights or interests may be affected by proposed long-term water treatment (including from potential accidents or incidents associated with the treatment facility), the entity obtains the free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous Peoples for the proposed project.

    NOTE FOR 4.2.4.3: REVISED. In the 2018 Mining Standard this was requirement 2.6.6.2 in Chapter 2.6—Planning and Financing Reclamation and Closure (criterion 2.6.6 ‘Post-Closure Water Treatment’), as it related to issues that would need to be addressed during post-closure. It has been moved here to keep all of the water-related requirements together.

    The overall intent of this requirement has always been that new projects (not existing operations) that will require long-term water treatment only be developed if the risks have been thoroughly understood, disclosed, and discussed with those who will bear the potential consequences should a water treatment failure occur, and that all possible steps be taken to minimize the adverse impacts if a decision is made to proceed with the project.

    The 2018 Mining Standard included additional requirements related to an engineering and risk assessment that should take place. Now that a risk assessment requirement exists in the Water Chapter (4.2.3.1), we are proposing to remove those expectations here. However, we have added that the risk assessment must include an evaluation of potential consequences to human health, livelihoods, or ecosystems from a failure in long-water treatment (see 4.2.3.3.b), and have retained that the risk assessment assumptions and findings (and assumptions) be explicitly discussed with affected communities prior to those communities deciding whether to support the project, and that if Indigenous Peoples rights may be affected, risk assessments must be discussed with Indigenous Peoples as part of the free, prior and informed consent process.

    We have also removed the sub-requirement that stated that all practicable efforts to avoid/prevent long-term water treatment be taken, as that is included in 4.2.4.1.

    Reviewers should note, as well, that there are additional requirements in Chapter 2.6—Planning and Financing Reclamation and Closure that stipulate if long-term water treatment is required there are sufficient funds in place to ensure that treatment operations would be able to continue for as long as necessary to protect water quality. See 2.6.1.4.i and 2.6.3.1.c.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.2-3:
Do you have any suggestions on alternative language or approaches, or alternative means for safeguarding water resources and those who rely on them if long-term water treatment is necessary, would be welcome.

If broad community support is obtained from affected communities and/or Indigenous Peoples provide free, prior and informed consent for a proposed project that requires long-term water treatment (see 4.2.4.3), or if long-term water treatment is deemed necessary at any point during operations:
  1. An action plan that contains all the practicable steps that can be taken to minimize the volume of water to be treated is developed and implemented; and
  2. The entity demonstrates that funding is in place to implement the actions in 4.2.4.4.a, and to construct, operate and maintain an effective water treatment plant.

NOTE FOR 4.2.4.4: REVISED. In the 2018 Mining Standard this was requirement 2.6.6.2 in Chapter 2.6—Planning and Financing Reclamation and Closure. That requirement stated that all practicable steps shall be taken to minimize the volume of water to be treated.

We have added in 4.2.4.4.a. that an action plan be developed to outline those steps, and also that such a plan be developed if it is discovered at any point during operations that long-term water treatment is going to be necessary (as sometimes early-phase predictions that water treatment will not be necessary are not correct).

And we have added 4.2.4.4.b, that entities demonstrate that such plans are funded, to ensure that such steps are carried out, and that the treatment plant itself needs to be funded.

If a surface water or groundwater mixing zone is proposed as a mitigation strategy:
  1. A risk assessment is carried out to identify, evaluate and document risks to human health, local economies and aquatic life from use of the proposed mixing zone, including, for surface water mixing zones, an evaluation of whether there are specific contaminants in point source discharges, such as certain metals, that could accumulate in sediment and affect aquatic life (including through bioaccumulation); and
  2. If any significant risks are identified, mitigation measures are developed to protect human health, aquatic life and local economies including, at minimum:
    1. Surface water or groundwater mixing zones are as small as practicable;
    2. Water in a surface water mixing zone is not acutely toxic to aquatic life;
    3. A surface water mixing zone does not interfere with the passage of migratory fish;
    4. Surface water or groundwater mixing zones do not interfere with a pre-project use of water for irrigation, livestock or drinking water, unless that use can be adequately provided for through another source of similar or better quality, volume and accessibility, and that this substitution is agreed to by all potentially affected water users; and
  3. Discharges into a surface water mixing zone match the local hydrograph for surface water flows to the extent practicable.

NOTE FOR 4.2.4.5:  This was 4.2.3.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Options to address shared challenges and contribute positively to local and regional water stewardship outcomes are developed through collaboration with relevant stakeholders, and are included in an action plan or equivalent.

NOTE FOR 4.2.4.6:  This was 4.2.1.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

An adaptive management plan for water (or equivalent) is developed and implemented that:
  1. Identifies potential water quality/quantity effects that could occur at monitoring locations, based on the risk assessment (see 4.2.3);
  2. Identifies key water quality/quantity indicators that will best characterize the potential effects;
  3. Includes trigger levels for water quality and quantity to provide early warning of negative changes in water characteristics;
  4. Includes general responsive (adaptive management) actions to be taken if trigger levels or exceedance of legal or other thresholds are reached, and estimated timelines for completion of actions;
  5. Assigns implementation of adaptive management actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  6. Includes creation of an action plan if exceedance of IRMA Water Quality Criteria (see 4.2.6.1) or another threshold is confirmed. The plan includes:
    1. Determination of the areal extent of the impacts;
    2. Investigation of the cause/source of the exceedance;
    3. Evaluation and selection of adaptive management actions developed as per 4.2.4.7.d and/or development of additional or different actions that are likely to correct the exceedance;
    4. Development of estimated timeline and budget needed to implement the corrective action plan, and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for effective implementation of the corrective actions; and
    5. Creation of a report summarizing the action plan, the outcome of the response measures taken, and needed changes to improve the effectiveness of implemented mitigation measures identified in 4.2.4.1 and 4.2.4.2.

NOTE FOR 4.2.4.7: REVISED. This was 4.2.4.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. The requirement has been revised to reflect that there are two broad categories of actions that need to be included in one or more management plan(s). The first, found in 4.2.4.1 (for water quality) and 4.2.4.2 (for water quantity/supply), are the proactive mitigation measures that will be implemented to prevent or minimize impacts on water, such as engineered controls, operational measures, or others. These measures were included in the original requirement, but sub-elements have been added to be more consistent with the expectations regarding management plans in other IRMA chapters.

The second category of actions are the adaptive management actions that are to be taken in response to a situation that affects water quality or quantity (e.g., water quality reaches a trigger level or exceeds a water quality thresholds). The remaining sub-requirements are elements of the adaptive management plan. Entities may choose to have separate water management plans and adaptive management plans if they so choose. In general, separate adaptive management plans are now the norm.

Sub-requirements 4.2.4.7.c and 4.2.4.7.d were 4.2.4.4.b in the 2018 Standard. They have been separated here to ensure that trigger levels are identified (4.2.4.7.c) and response actions to the triggers (4.2.4.7.d) are included in the adaptive management plan and audited separately.

Sub-requirements 4.2.4.7.f is NEW. It was added to emphasize that if trigger levels or thresholds are exceeded in a single sample, adaptive management actions are not required to be implemented until a more thorough evaluation proves whether an exceedance actually occurred. Although quality assurance/quality control measures are included in the sampling and analysis plan (requirement 4.2.5.1.a), laboratory errors are fairly common and should be checked as part of due diligence. Guidance for 4.2.4.7.f will note that the steps to evaluate an individual exceedance should take place as quickly as possible to avoid longer term water impacts.

Sub-requirements 4.2.4.7.g is NEW. It was added for two reasons. First, if there is an exceedance of a threshold related to water quality or water quantity, entities need to determine the extent of the impact. Second, to be clear that it is not uncommon that the initial adaptive management actions (4.2.4.7.d) and mitigation measures (4.2.4.1 and 4.2.4.2) may need to be modified or new actions and measures developed, and that this is acceptable practice as long as they are documented in an adaptive management action plan.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.2-4:

An adaptive management plan is also required for land and soil management (4.XX.4.3). Should adaptive management plans be required for the management of other resources (e.g., biodiversity, or air)?

Annually or more frequently, if necessary, the entity reviews monitoring data and evaluates the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures and adaptive management plan actions, and, as necessary, develops new mitigation measures and/or revises the adaptive management plan to improve water management outcomes.

NOTE FOR 4.2.4.8:  This was 4.2.4.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Minor clarification has been added that an evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation measures and review of the monitoring results are part of the review of the adaptive management plan.

Stakeholders in affected communities are provided with the opportunity to review adaptive management plans and provide feedback on revisions to the plans.
NOTE FOR 4.2.4.9: This was 4.2.4.6 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

4.2.5: Water Monitoring Program

NOTE FOR 4.2.5:  Monitoring was previously combined with Adaptive Management in the 2018 Mining Standard (criterion 4.2.4).  Ideally a water monitoring program should be designed and implemented before mining-related activities begin, and then expanded during operations. Monitoring results inform scoping and assessment of risks to water (Criteria 4.2.2 and 4.2.3) and adaptive management. Although a monitoring program is needed as early as possible in a project, positioning it here and before the comparison of monitoring results to water quality/quantity criteria is consistent with its placement in other chapters.

A program to monitor effects on water quantity and quality is developed and implemented that:
  1. Includes a sampling and analysis plan (or equivalent) that is consistent with best practices (see Annex 4.2-B Annex 4.2-B) and includes:
    1. Sample collection, handling and transportation protocols, sample hold times, analysis, quality assurance/quality control methods (e.g., collecting replicate, trip blank, and equipment blank samples), and reporting requirements;
    2. A sufficient number of monitoring locations at sites unaffected by the project (baseline locations) and sites potentially affected by the project to provide reliable data on changes to water quantity, including environmental flows, and the physical and chemical conditions of surface waters, natural seeps/springs and groundwater (hereafter referred to as water characteristics);
    3. Collection of water quality and quantity samples on a frequent enough basis to account for seasonal fluctuations, storm events and extreme events that may cause changes in water characteristics;
    4. Analysis of water quality samples for field parameters and all other parameters that have a reasonable potential to adversely affect identified current and future water uses, including, if relevant, cyanide and mercury; and
    5. Analysis of water quality samples in laboratories using equipment capable of detecting contaminants at levels below the values in the relevant IRMA Water Quality Criteria by End-Use Tables.
  2. Includes sampling and analysis of the comprehensive suite of parameters in relevant IRMA Water Quality Criteria by End-Use Tables at points of compliance every five years, at a time of year when concentrations are expected to be the highest, to determine if unanticipated contaminants may be present (e.g., due to changes in ore, waste, or brine characteristics as operations progress); and
  3. Includes sampling of water quality and documentation of the quantity of mine-influenced waters destined for re-use by external third-party entities.

NOTE FOR 4.2.5.1:  REVISED. This requirement includes elements from 4.2.4.1 and 4.2.4.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard because both contained elements of the water monitoring program. The numbering has changed (4.2.5.1.a.ii was 4.2.4.1.a; 4.2.5.1.a.iii was 4.2.4.1.b; 4.2.5.1.a.iv was 4.2.4.2; 4.2.5.1.a.v was 4.2.4.1.e and f.). In the 2018 Mining Standard requirement 4.2.4.1 was a critical requirement, and we have carried over that designation (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

Also, following modifications are noted:

  • Some content in 4.2.5.1.a is REVISED. Reference to a sampling and analysis plan was added because all credible water monitoring programs have sampling and analysis plans to guide collection, handling, transport, analysis, and reporting. This was not clear in the 2018 Standard.
  • Added more detail in 4.2.5.1.a.i, which, in addition to more detailed best practices for water quality and quantity monitoring (included as Annex 4.2-B) will improve the auditability of the requirement. Guidance will also be developed on some of the core elements of monitoring best practices to help sites and auditors know what important elements must be implemented to meet the IRMA requirement.
  • 2.5.1.a.ii was modified to include environmental flows. There may be enough flow in a river to meet the needs for human uses, but leave aquatic ecosystems unsustainable, especially if environmental flows are disrupted for significant periods or during particularly sensitive times. Monitoring flows with this in mind will be important for understanding impacts. We are proposing a definition of environmental flows to align with IUCN definition: “the water provided within a river, wetland or coastal zone to maintain ecosystems and their benefits where there are competing water uses and where flows are regulated.”For more information on the monitoring of environmental flows see, for example: Dyson, M. et al. 2008.[1]
  • 2.5.1.a.iv now includes reference to cyanide and mercury because we are proposing to delete Chapter 4.7 on Cyanide and Chapter 4.8 on Mercury Management and integrate the requirements into other relevant chapters so that auditors with specialty in water, air, soils, etc., are able to evaluate the requirements alongside other water, air and soil requirements, rather than having a single auditor cross the different areas of expertise.
  • In 4.2.5.1.a.v, a reference to accredited laboratories, was removed because in many parts of the world there may not be a national program for laboratory accreditation. However, we retained the requirement that the laboratories used must have the ability to detect parameters at concentrations below IRMA water quality criteria.

4.2.5.1.b is NEW. Previously this was a recommendation in IRMA Guidance for requirement 4.2.4.2. The rationale for sampling for the full suite of relevant potential contaminants is to evaluate whether a contaminant has unexpectedly appeared in water.

[1] Dyson, M., Bergkamp, G. and Scanlon, J., (eds). 2008. Flow – The essentials of environmental flows, 2nd Edition. Gland, Switzerland Available at: https://protosh2o.act.be/VIRTUELE_BIB/Werken_in_het_Water/IWB-Integraal_WaterBeheer/W_IWB_E44_flow_essentials.pdf

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.2-5:

We do not currently have any prescribed frequency for sampling. We are considering requiring that samples be collected and analyzed monthly unless there is a legitimate reason for a different sampling frequency, but would appreciate feedback on this topic.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.2-6: At the present time, IRMA does not have any water quality criteria for rare earth elements (REEs). We would be interested in knowing of any international or national water quality standards for REEs. If none exist, should IRMA still require that rare earth mining and processing operations at least measure certain elements as part of their characterization of ores, wastes, brines, and concentrates (see Chapter 4.1, 4.1.1) to, at minimum, establish a baseline? If so, which elements should be monitored?
The monitoring program is reviewed annually, and updated as needed (e.g., if there are changes in ore, waste, or brine characteristics, available monitoring locations, or water or waste management practices).

NOTE FOR 4.2.5.2:  NEW. The 2018 Mining Standard did not call for an annual review of the monitoring program (only of the adaptive management plan). Both will change as the mine progresses, and so we are proposing to add an annual review to the monitoring program here, as well.

Also, because this proposed updated Standard includes more references to lithium brine extraction and processing, and because the chemical composition of brines can change over time, a reference to brine characteristics is added to this requirement.

Stakeholders from affected communities are actively solicited by the entity to participate in water monitoring and to review and provide feedback on the water monitoring program:
  1. Participation may involve the use of independent experts selected by the community; and
  2. If requested by community stakeholders, costs related to participation in monitoring and review of the monitoring program are covered in full or in part by the entity, and a mutually acceptable agreement for covering costs is developed.

NOTE FOR 4.2.5.3:  This was 4.2.4.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

4.2.6: Comparison of Monitoring Results to Water Quality/Quantity Criteria

NOTE FOR 4.2.6.  This is a NEW criterion heading. It was previously in a criterion called Prevention and Mitigation of Impacts to Water (4.2.3). That criterion name no longer exists due to restructuring of this chapter.

Water quality monitoring results demonstrate that parameters/contaminants measured at points of compliance are:
  1. Being maintained at baseline or background levels, which in some cases could exceed IRMA Water Quality Criteria; or
  2. Being maintained at levels that are protective of the identified uses of those waters (see IRMA Water Quality Criteria by End Use-Tables 4.2.a to 4.2.h, which correspond to particular end uses); or
  3. Being maintained at levels or conditions according to host country regulatory requirements that are lower (more protective) than IRMA Water Quality Criteria for identified uses, or that fill gaps where no IRMA Water Quality Criteria exist.

NOTE FOR 4.2.6.1:  This was 4.2.3.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Language has been slightly amended, but the intent is still the same.

Water quantity monitoring results demonstrate that surface waters, groundwater levels, natural seeps/springs flows and environmental flows are being maintained in a manner that supports continued current and potential future uses of the water resources and the ecosystem services that they support, unless affected stakeholders have agreed that some decline in flows or water levels is acceptable.

NOTE FOR 4.2.6.2: This requirement was 4.2.3.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard and has been revised to include environmental flows. (See note for 4.2.5.1.a.ii for more background on environmental flows.)

4.2.7: Reporting and Disclosure of Water Management Performance

The results of the baseline or background water quantity and quality evaluation for surface water, natural seeps/springs, and groundwater are publicly available.

NOTE FOR 4.2.7.1:  This requirement used to be combined with the following requirement in criterion 4.2.5 of the 2018 Mining Standard. We are proposing to separate the requirements, because baseline/background values are established either before mining or during mining and those values hold steady, although the monitoring sites originally identified as baseline or background locations could become influenced by mining activity over time.

Summaries of water data are published and shared with stakeholders from affected communities on a monthly basis. The summaries:
  1. Present information in a culturally appropriate format, and in a manner that is understandable to affected communities;
  2. For water quality:
    1. Present data using graphical or other suitable representations that clearly show whether parameters measured at monitoring locations are the same as, higher than, or lower than IRMA water quality criteria; and
    2. Put any deviations from criteria into context, taking into consideration likely stakeholder concerns regarding risks to human health and impacts on the environment.
  3. For water quantity:
    1. Present data on flows and levels for surface waters and natural seeps/springs, groundwater level/elevation, and the volume of water discharged and extracted for use by the project/operation using graphical or other suitable representations that clearly show whether the flows, levels, and volumes are the same as, higher than, or lower than baseline/background and agreed-upon values;
    2. Put any deviations from baseline/background and agreed-upon values into context, taking into consideration likely effects on aquatic life habitat and conditions (environmental flows) and water quantity amounts needed to maintain domestic, community, and local commercial water supplies.

NOTE FOR 4.2.7.2:  This requirement is NEW. In discussions with the Water Expert Working Group in 2022, there was general agreement that rather than requiring sites to create systems to make all data accessible, it would be more useful if data were regularly made available in a manner that is comprehensible to stakeholders, and that data need to be put into context so that the information does not create concern where none may be warranted, but also daylights issues of non-compliance with regulatory and IRMA standards when they occur.

We have prepared some examples of how data could be presented. They are available here: https://responsiblemining.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/4.2.7.2WaterGraphExamples.pdf

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.2-7:  Do you know of best practice examples of how water data are shared with affected communities? We would be interested in seeing those examples so that we can provide ample guidance to entities seeking to meet this requirement.

An access to information (or equivalent) policy that allows stakeholders to access the following data upon request is in place and shared with stakeholders:
  1. Water quality monitoring data for surface water and groundwater points of compliance; and
  2. Monitoring data for water quantity (i.e., flows and levels of surface waters, natural seeps/springs and groundwater, and the volume of water discharged and extracted for use by the project/operation).

NOTE FOR 4.2.7.3:  REVISED. This requirement was 4.2.5.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

It has been revised. The previous requirement said that all monitoring data in 4.2.5.1.a and b needed to be published annually. The revised requirement still expects that these data are provided to stakeholders if requested, but we are proposing to remove the obligation that the raw data be published annually. It is not reasonable to expect that auditors will be able to adequately review the voluminous raw data for a site, and graphs or other visual displays required in 4.2.7.2, above, will be easier for auditors to evaluate, especially if relevant IRMA water quality criteria are included on the displays. Also, the information in 4.2.7.2 will be more comprehensible to stakeholders.

However, there may still be some stakeholders that want the detailed information, and so we have retained the requirement that they be able to access the information. Note that the requirement for an access to information policy (or equivalent) is being proposed in Chapter 1.2. See that chapter for more information.

Effective procedures for rapidly communicating with relevant stakeholders in the event that changes in water quantity or quality occur that pose an imminent threat to human health or safety, or commercial or natural resources, are developed and tested in collaboration with stakeholders from affected communities.

NOTE FOR 4.2.7.4:  Added that the procedures are developed and tested with stakeholders. This is consistent with the requirements in IRMA Chapter 2.5 – ‘Emergency Preparedness and Response.’

Water quality management strategies and performance and adaptive management issues are discussed with relevant stakeholders on an annual basis or more frequently, if requested by stakeholders.

NOTE FOR 4.2.7.5:  This was 4.2.5.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Chapter 4.X: Management of Physical Stability

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:   This is a new chapter being proposed to clearly delineate requirements to manage physical stability risks associated with some facilities that are present at mines and mineral procession operations. In the 2018 Mining Standard, the chapter on Waste and Materials Management included the management of both physical and chemical stability risks.

A review of the 2018 Mining Standard requirements that were in place to manage physical stability risks revealed some gaps including: 1) how to determine which facilities may have a potential for catastrophic failure; 2) no explicit requirement outlining the process for determining a “failure consequence classification” (i.e., a rating of the severity of the human, environmental and economic consequences if a facility were to experience a catastrophic failure).

Additionally, in 2020 the Global Industry Standard for Tailings Management (GISTM) was released.[1] The standard was the culmination of a two-year-long multi-stakeholder effort, which included discussions with IRMA. There is considerable overlap between the GISTM and the IRMA Standard, although because the GISTM focuses only on the management of tailings it is by nature much narrower in scope than the 26-chapter IRMA Standard.

IRMA held discussions with an Expert Working Group to receive input on whether or not IRMA should try to fully align its own waste-related requirements with the GISTM requirements, or possibly even remove its tailings-management-related requirements and simply require that entities be audited against GISTM. There was unanimity that IRMA not attempt to fully align with or adopt GISTM at this point in time, as GISTM is still new in its implementation, and has yet to develop a consistently applied assurance process. There will, no doubt, be a lot to learn from the first companies that are in the process of trying to implement the GISTM Standard. As more information and learning is shared from those companies, IRMA will continue to consider how to move forward.

IRMA’s working group did, however, recognized that there were some new best practice elements that should be considered for integration in the IRMA Standard, and so some of the changes proposed below reflect their suggestions.

The intent of this proposed chapter is not to duplicate the efforts of GISTM or other industry standards such as the Mining Association of Canada’s Toward Sustainable Mining tailings protocol, but rather to align on important requirements and apply them in a manner that encompasses the needs of, and provides transparency to, all stakeholders. The intent is also to recognize that many mining and mineral processing facilities, not just tailings facilities, have inherent risks related to physical stability that can result in both catastrophic failures and less severe but still damaging stability failures, and that those inherent risks need to be recognized and addressed.  Finally, it is also the intent of this chapter to provide more prescriptive standards and specificity, with provisions for exceptions, in order to provide more consistent expectations for all facilities.

[1] Global Tailings Review. 2020. Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management. https://globaltailingsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/global-industry-standard_EN.pdf

4.X.1: Scoping of Facilities with Potential Physical Stability Risks

NOTE FOR 4.X.1:  This is a new criterion. This section requires identification of all proposed and existing site facilities subject to potential physical instability. It also requires evaluation of the credible failure modes and consequences for each site facility in terms of impacts to human rights, health, safety, environment and communities (for existing facilities, robust supporting information is required in terms of geology, hydrology, and climate together with geotechnical and impacts assessments to ensure rigorous analysis of credible failure modes). This section also requires identification of facilities with low or significant potential consequences but no potential loss of life and also requires identification of “critical facilities” with significant or higher potential consequences including potential loss of life.

The requirements in 4.X.1 do not apply to all facilities on a mine site or mineral processing site. The facilities of potential concern are those that are created during mining (e.g., roads, open pits and underground mines) or used to store or dispose of relatively large volumes of fluids and/or solid materials or wastes such that, if there were to be a stability failure, could lead to the presence of unstable conditions that create safety issues and could result in the release of the contents in a manner that could affect workers, communities or the environment.

We are using the term scoping because it aligns with terminology in other chapters. The objective of scoping in this case is to determine of the highest failure consequence classification for each facility (considering all credible failure modes, defined below), and based on that, determine “non-critical facilities” and “critical facilities” in terms of physical stability risks (discussed below).

That classification must be completed for proposed facilities, and we are proposing that it also be revisited after each facility is constructed, and during operations, when real-world data (e.g., geotechnical characteristics at the final location, the actual materials used in construction, data on tailings properties that could affect runout estimates, etc.) will enable more accurate determination of the level of risk for each facility.

The entity identifies each proposed and existing facility that may have physical stability risks that could impact the health, safety or human rights of workers and communities, or the environment, including, but not limited to:
  1. Access roads;
  2. Surface mines including pit highwalls and other associated features;
  3. Underground mines;
  4. Fluid extraction areas or facilities (e.g., for brine or groundwater pumping/dewatering);
  5. Storage or disposal facilities for wastes from underground and surface mines (e.g., waste rock, overburden, rejects material, soil, and other stockpiles);
  6. Storage or disposal facilities for wastes from mineral processing, chemical processing (e.g., tailings, sludges and residues, and above-ground-level process water);
  7. Hazardous and remediated waste storage facilities
  8. Storage facilities for extracted fluids (e.g., brine) or ore; and
  9. Water reservoirs.
Each proposed and existing facility is characterized to inform an analysis of physical stability risks as follows:
  1. The proposed dimensions, proposed location, preliminary design, operational lifespan, and closure objectives are documented for each facility, and if relevant, the storage or disposal capacity, existing and planned future contents and their chemical characteristics (as identified in Chapter 4.1);
  2. The following environmental factors that may influence the physical stability of proposed facilities are documented by competent professionals, including documentation of any uncertainties due to climate change:
    1. Soil characteristics: soil type, particle sizes, pore water pressure, hydraulic conductivity soils at the site;
    2. Geology: seismicity, geologic and lithic subsurface conditions beneath the site and within 2 km of the site, including the thickness of each geologic unit and identification of which geologic units are water bearing;
    3. Hydrology: subsurface conditions for all water bearing zones beneath the site including maximum and minimum depths to ground water, direction of groundwater flow, hydrologic gradients, transmissivity and storativity; and surface waters including average and seasonal levels and flow rates, gradients, and storage features within 2 km of the site; and
    4. Climate: mean annual temperature, precipitation, evaporation, maximum precipitation events, predicted probable maximum precipitation events (e.g., 24-hour, annual, 10-year, 100-year, 500-year), trends in past events and predicted trends in future events; and
  3. The location of all facilities with physical stability risks are mapped in relation to:
    1. Topographical contours;
    2. Geological data;
    3. Watercourses and other surface water features;
    4. The most recent 100-yr and 500-yr flood zones; and
    5. Residential populations, individual households, and public and private infrastructure (including bridges, irrigation systems, and water supplies) within a 5 km radius and 100 km downstream of the site.

NOTE FOR 4.X.1.2:  This requirement outlines the minimum information that should be gathered to inform the credible failure modes assessment, tailings breach analysis (if necessary), and ultimately the failure consequence classification.

Additionally, for each existing facility the following characterizations further inform physical stability risks:
  1. A detailed description of the facility location that includes site-specific data on geomorphology, geology, seismicity, including potential or actual faults, hydrogeology and hydrology, and climate, including documentation of any uncertainties due to climate change;
  2. As relevant, a characterization of physical properties of the facility foundation materials, stored materials and wastes, and borrow or other materials used in construction of embankments or other features intended to provide physical stability of internally stored materials and wastes;
  3. If relevant, actual volumes and updated estimates of future volumes of materials or wastes (solids and liquids), and the placement and/or fill plans and schedules (short and long-term) for the facility life cycle; and
  4. More detailed geotechnical investigations, as applicable, including:
    1. Geohazard assessment;
    2. Seepage analysis;
    3. Stability assessment;
    4. Seismic assessment;
    5. Sensitivity analysis;
    6. Water balance; and
    7. Flooding assessment.

NOTE FOR 4.X.1.3:  At existing operations where facilities already exist, a more detailed characterization of the facility is possible, and will provide a more reliable basis to inform the credible failure modes assessment in 4.X.1.4. If new credible failure modes are found once a facility is constructed and operational, then the failure consequence classification would need to be updated.

A multi-disciplinary team of competent professionals identifies all credible failure modes for each proposed and existing facility, taking into consideration the information in 4.X.1.1, 4.X.1.2 and, if relevant, 4.X.1.3. Depending on the facility, credible failure modes may include, but are not limited to:
  1. Shallow and deep failures within the facility;
  2. Foundation failures;
  3. Internal erosion failure (e.g., piping);
  4. Ground-subsidence-related failures;
  5. Slope failures;
  6. Pit highwall or slope failures;
  7. Failures due to storm events;
  8. Construction- and operations-related failures;
  9. Upstream/upgradient off-site failures that may affect a facility (e.g., upstream dam or landslide); and
  10. Cascading failures (e.g., if there are upstream and/or downstream facilities or structures).

NOTE FOR 4.X.1.4:  NEW.  In the 2018 Mining Standard, there was no explicit mention of credible failure modes, although IRMA guidance for Chapter 4.1 did mention the need to develop critical controls for credible failure modes.

This requirement assumes that the determination of credible failure modes will occur for proposed facilities, but also again, after a facility is constructed and more information is available about the actual materials used in construction of foundations, more geotechnical investigations have taken place, characterizations of actual wastes and slurries can take place, etc., so there is more empirical data to inform a more accurate assessment of credible failure modes.

We are proposing to adopt the GISTM definition of credible failure modes:

Refers to technically feasible failure mechanisms given the materials present in the structure and its foundation, the properties of these materials, the configuration of the structure, drainage conditions and surface water control at the facility, throughout its life cycle. Credible failure modes can and do typically vary during the life cycle of the facility as the conditions vary. A facility that is appropriately designed and operated considers all of these credible failure modes and includes sufficient resilience against each. Different failure modes will result in different failure scenarios. Credible catastrophic failure modes do not exist for all tailings facilities. The term ‘credible failure mode’ is not associated with a probability of this event occurring and having credible failure modes is not a reflection of facility safety.

For tailings facilities, water dams and any other facilities with the potential for runout of the facility contents, competent professionals complete a facility breach analyses and runout or inundation analyses for the loss of all tailings and/or fluids. Analyses are conducted for the worst-case “sunny day” and worst-case storm-event scenarios, and for the worst-case credible failure mode scenarios in terms of rate and volume of discharge from the facility. For each case, the analysis determines:
  1. The estimated physical area that may be impacted;
  2. Flow arrival times, velocities, and depth of material deposition;
  3. Estimated potential and likely consequences in terms of loss of human life, impacts to public and private infrastructure and vital services, environmental impacts, and economic cost.

NOTE FOR 4.X.1.5:  REVISED. Both IRMA’s 2018 Mining Standard (requirement 4.1.3.3.j) and GISTM require tailings breach analyses. These analyses inform failure consequence classification in 4.X.1.5. This requirement adds more detail than what was in the 2018 Mining Standard.

We are proposing to adopt the GISTM definition of breach analysis:

A study that assumes a failure of the tailings facility and estimates its impact. Breach analyses must be based on credible failure modes. The results should determine the physical area impacted by a potential failure, flow arrival times, depth and velocities, duration of flooding, and depth of material deposition. The breach analysis is based on scenarios which are not connected to probability of occurrence. It is primarily used to inform emergency preparedness and response planning and the consequence of failure classification. The classification is then used to inform the external loading component of the design criteria.

The entity shares information with affected communities and other relevant stakeholders on the factors that may affect the physical stability of proposed and existing facilities, including credible failure modes and, if relevant, the facility breach analysis, and consults with them to establish and document:
  1. The local social, economic, environmental context of areas, including any uncertainties due to climate change; and
  2. The social (e.g., human rights, ecosystem services, commercial and residential property, businesses, etc.) cultural heritage, and environmental resources that may be negatively impacted by a physical stability failure at any of the identified facilities.

NOTE FOR 4.X.1.6:  NEW. The concepts in this requirement are aligned with GISTM [2.1 and 1.3], which require identifying the local social, economic, and environmental context, and that project-affected people are meaningfully engaged in building the knowledge base.

For each facility determined to have credible failure modes, a multi-disciplinary team of competent professionals carries out an evaluation of the consequences of a facility failure (hereafter referred to as “failure consequence classification”) that includes:
  1. Estimation of incremental impacts/losses related to each credible failure mode, including:
    1. Potential population at risk;
    2. Potential loss of life;
    3. Potential impacts on the environment;
    4. Potential impacts on health, social and cultural resources; and
    5. Potential impacts on infrastructure and economics;
  2. The estimation of impacts includes consideration the chemical characterization of the contents that would be released upon facility failure (as identified in Chapter 4.1), and potential for short- and long-term contamination or pollution of water, soils, and ecosystems, and effects on human health and livelihoods;
  3. Determination of the facility’s failure consequence classification (e.g., low, significant, high, very high or extreme) based on the matrix provided in Table 4.X-1. All categories of incremental impact/loss (e.g., population at risk, environment, economics, etc.) are considered equally important, and the failure consequence classification aligns with category with the worst potential consequences.

NOTE ON 4.X.1.7:  REVISED. Requirement 4.1.3.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard included a requirement for facility classification based on risk level or consequence of failure. This proposed requirement adds more detail on the method used to determine the failure consequence classification (and does not base it on risk, which incorporates the probability a failure). The probability of failure is not taken into account in the failure consequence classification.

We are proposing a definition of a failure consequence classification as:

A rating or ranking (e.g., low, significant, high, very high, extreme) based on losses, damages or impacts on downstream populations, the environment, the economy, cultural values, property and infrastructure if there were to be a loss of stability or integrity in a facility or its appurtenances that leads to an uncontrolled release of all or part of its contents. Failure consequence classifications are carried out for all credible failure modes.
Each facility’s failure consequence classification is reviewed and, if necessary, updated. Reviews take place every five years or sooner, for example, when:
  1. There are proposed changes to the facility, including changes in the operational parameters of the facility;
  2. New or more accurate data relating to risks to the stability of the facility (e.g., geological, hydrological, climate change, newly identified credible failure modes) become available;
  3. Changes in the social or environmental context have the potential to change the nature or scale of potential impacts associated with a facility.

NOTE ON 4.X.1.8:  This requirement aligns with 4.1.3.4 and 4.1.4.1.c in the 2018 Mining Standard.  The five-year (or sooner) review also aligns with GISTM [4.2.C].

4.X.2: Management of Physical Stability at Non-Critical Facilities

NOTE FOR 4.X.2:  In the 2018 Mining Standard, all mine waste facilities needed to undergo risk assessment to determine the risks to human health, safety or environment, and the risks needed to be managed. This section generally deals with the management of risks related to physical stability of facilities that are not considered to be ‘critical facilities.’ As with other IRMA chapters, it includes a management plan and monitoring requirements.

We are proposing the following definition of non-critical facility:
A facility that, if a physical stability failure of the facility were to occur, would not lead to the loss of life, and would have only low or significant impacts that could be mitigated within a short period of time (e.g., 1 – 5 years) at a reasonable cost (e.g., <10 Million $US).

And a proposed definition of critical facility:
A facility that has a high, very high or extreme failure consequence classification, or a significant consequence classification that includes potential loss of life.

Note that Chapter 4.1 addresses the risks related to potential contamination from all facilities.

Any proposed or existing facility that has a failure consequence classification of low or significant with no potential loss of life (as identified in 4.X.1.7) is considered a “non-critical facility.” For each non-critical facility that has one or more credible failure modes:
  1. The use of best available/applicable practices and best available technology (see Annex 4.X-A) are incorporated in the design and operation of each facility; and
  2. For proposed facilities that have one or more credible failure modes:
    1. At least one qualified independent reviewer reviews the proposed design report to identify deficiencies, and any deficiencies are corrected prior to design finalization; and
    2. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and independent oversight occurs during the construction phase to ensure proper incorporation of planned engineering measures.

NOTE ON 4.X.2.1:  REVISED. The requirement to use best practices and technologies aligns with requirements 4.1.5.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We have started to develop some guidance (see Annex 4.X-A) for entities, auditors and stakeholders on current best practices and technologies to ensure that non-critical facilities with a credible failure mode are designed, constructed, operated and closed in a manner that protect short-term and long-term physical stability.

Note that the best practices in Annex 4.X-A are meant to be applicable for critical facilities also (see 4.X.4.2.a.ii).

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.X-1:  Do you agree with the proposal to create guidance to better inform auditor’s assessments? If not, how do you suggest auditors determine whether or not the measures at a site are sufficient to prevent or mitigate physical instability?

If you agree with the approach, please indicate if you agree with any of the proposed best practices and technologies in Annex 4.X-A, and/or suggest alternative practices and technologies, including for facilities not identified in the draft Annex.

Would you be interested in being part of a working group to help work on this guidance? If so, please contact IRMA (comments@responsiblemining.net) and we will be in touch as we move forward with this process.

A management plan (or equivalent) is developed and implemented by competent professionals that includes:
  1. Key operational actions to be taken to mitigate risks to physical stability;
  2. Key parameters to monitor to detect potential physical stability issues; and
  3. Maintenance measures to protect the integrity of engineering and other mitigation measures;
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.
At least once a year monitoring data are reviewed to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures. If deviations in expected performance are observed:
  1. The deviations are documented; and
  2. Remedial measures are developed and incorporated into an updated management plan.

4.X.3: Initial Assessment, Siting and Design of Critical Facilities

NOTE FOR 4.X.3:  This section provides comprehensive requirements for all existing and/or proposed “critical facilities” with significant or higher potential consequences including potential loss of life. The section requires that a multi-criteria alternatives analysis and a risk assessment be conducted to inform the siting and design of critical facilities and the selection of facility management practices. Prescriptive design criteria are also required for new and existing critical facilities, including the use of conservative geotechnical factors of safety, and seismic and storm event criteria. Existing critical facilities that don’t current meet best practice design must have a remedial plan in place to immediately address and within a reasonable period upgrade to best practice criteria.

For facilities where the failure consequence classification significant and there is potential loss of life, or the classification is high, very high or extreme (as identified in 4.X.1.4), hereafter referred to as “critical facilities,” a multi-criteria alternatives analysis (MCAA) or similar process is conducted and documented as follows:
  1. For proposed critical facilities, MCAA is used to inform the siting, design, and the selection of management practices, while for existing critical facilities, MCAA is used to inform management practices, at minimum, when there are proposed major changes to facilities such as expansions, that may require a change in design or management practices; and
  2. All MCAA:
    1. Are carried out by a multi-disciplinary team of competent professionals;
    2. Have the objective of selecting an alternative that minimizes risks to people and the environment throughout the facility life cycle, and minimizes the volume of fluids and/or wastes placed in critical facilities.
    3. Identify minimum specifications and performance objectives for each facility throughout the facility life cycle (including closure objectives and post-closure land and water uses);
    4. Identify possible alternatives for initial siting, design and management of critical facilities to prevent, and if that is not possible, minimize risks from all credible failure modes and for all phases of each facility’s life cycle, avoiding a priori judgements about the alternatives;
    5. Include a screening or “fatal flaw” analysis to eliminate alternatives that fail to meet minimum specifications;
    6. Assess remaining alternatives using a rigorous, transparent decision-making tool, such as Multiple Accounts Analysis or its equivalent, that takes into account environmental, technical, socio-economic and project economics considerations, inclusive of risk levels and hazard evaluations, associated with each alternative; and
    7. Include a sensitivity analysis to reduce potential that biases will influence the selection of final site locations, design specifications and facility management practices.

    NOTE FOR 4.X.3.1:  REVISED. This was 4.1.4.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It has been restructured to make it clear that MCAA are required for proposed facilities, but for existing facilities they only need to be done if there is a major change that would result in a change in the design or management practices.

    Previously, we referred to these assessments as “alternatives assessment,” but we are proposing to use the term “multi-criteria alternatives analysis” to align with the language used in GISTM [3.2].

For each critical facility, a risk assessment is carried out to evaluate the risks to human rights and the health and safety of communities and the environment from all credible failure modes identified in 4.X.1.4. Risk assessments:
  1. Are carried out and documented by a multi-disciplinary team using a credible methodology;
  2. Identify credible failure modes for which design elements and critical controls must be prioritized, and a rationale is documented; and
  3. Are updated every three years or sooner (e.g., if there proposed changes in the design or operation of facilities, or changes in operational, social, environmental, or local context that have the potential to increase the probability or severity of consequences of any identified risk).

NOTE FOR 4.X.3.2:  REVISED. Requirement 4.1.4.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard included a risk assessment to evaluate risks to health, safety and the environment related to physical and chemical risks at facilities, and it was a critical requirement (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

GISTM [10.1] includes a requirement for risk assessment. This proposed revised requirement combines elements of the two requirements, and some additional detail.

A summary of risks assessment findings for critical facilities is made public, and stakeholders are provided with the opportunity to provide input on the findings.

NOTE FOR 4.X.3.3:  NEW. We have added this based on GISTM [15.1], which includes a requirement to make the risk assessment summary public. We are proposing that stakeholders also have the opportunity to provide input to the entity on the risk assessment findings to promote continued dialogue.

Initial facility designs and the refinement of the designs of critical facilities:
  1. Are informed by the outcome of the multi-criteria alternatives analysis and the risk assessment;
    1. Use design criteria that are appropriate to minimize risk to as low as reasonably practicable for:
    2. All credible failure modes; and
  2. All phases of construction over the facility life cycle (e.g., start-up, partial raises, interim configurations, final raise, and all closures stages);
  3. Proposed and existing facilities use the flood, seismic and slope stability design criteria (see Tables 4.X-2 through 4.X-5) that are consistent with the facility’s failure consequence classification, or, if not originally applied at existing facilities entities demonstrate that a plan to meet the applicable criteria has been developed, has undergone independent review and is being implemented; and
  4. The designs and design criteria are publicly available.

NOTE FOR 4.X.3.4:  NEW. Sub-requirements 4.X.3.2.a, b and e align with GISTM [5.1, 5.4 and 15.1].

We are proposing to use the GISTM’s definition of As Low As Reasonably Practicable:

All reasonable measures are taken with respect to ‘tolerable’ or acceptable risks to reduce them even further until the cost and other impacts of additional risk reduction are grossly disproportionate to the benefit.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 4.X-2

Background:  In 4.X.3.2.c, we are proposing design criteria (our Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5) that are not fully in alignment with GISTM. The criteria in our proposed tables are from the Canadian Dam Association (2014). It is not clear where GISTM values (in Tables 2 and 3 in that standard) were drawn from, and there are no slope stability factors of safety included in GISTM.

Question: 

Do you agree that IRMA’s best practice design criteria follow the well-established Canada Dam Association criteria? If not, why not? Or are there other design criteria that have emerged as best practice criteria? Do you agree with the inclusion of slope stability criteria? If not, why not?

CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 4.X-3

Background:  We are proposing that design specifications related to flood, seismic and slope stability need to be met at all proposed and existing critical facilities because of the potential loss of life if these facilities were to fail. However, for existing facilities that did not originally use the design criteria, we are allowing time for an upgrade plan to be developed, undergo independent review, and time for implementation.

This is a slightly different approach than GISTM, which allows that new facilities can, over time, upgrade to meet criteria for higher consequence classifications [4.2.C]. Existing facilities are expected to apply appropriate design criteria except for aspects where “the Engineer of Record (EOR), with review by the ITRB or a senior independent technical reviewer, determines that the upgrade of an existing tailings facility is not viable or cannot be retroactively applied. In this case, the Accountable Executive shall approve and document the implementation of measures to reduce both the probability and the consequences of a tailings facility failure in order to reduce the risk to a level as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).” [GISTM 4.7]

Question:  As with GISTM, should IRMA make additional allowances for existing facilities if they can demonstrate that upgrade to the best practice design criteria is not viable or cannot be retroactively applied? If so, then like GISTM, should IRMA require demonstration that upgrades still take place to minimize risk to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) at those sites?

Perhaps if sites do not meet all of the design criteria but can demonstrate that risks have been reduced to ALARP, IRMA could cap a site’s rating for this requirement at substantially meets (i.e., they would never be able to fully meet the requirement), so that the sites that have implemented best design practices are able to distinguish themselves. Is that an approach that you would support?

4.X.4: Management of Physical Stability Risks at Critical Facilities

NOTE FOR 4.X.4:  This section requires governance and management accountability structures that ensures responsibility begins at the site level for decisions with regard to existing and/or proposed critical facilities but it ultimately lies with the highest levels of the company. It also requires that for each existing and/or proposed critical facility, the entity develop and implement an Operation, Maintenance and Surveillance (OMS) manual (or its equivalent) to ensure best practices are maintained during the operational phase of critical facilities.

For sites that have one or more critical facilities, a system of accountability, responsibility and personnel management is in place that:
  1. Clearly defines and documents the entity personnel, executives, and members of the entity’s Board of Directors that are accountable for decisions and actions related to the management and safety of critical facilities, and clearly defines and documents the roles, responsibilities, and lines of communication between those involved in the management of those facilities. This information is shared with all personnel who have a role in the facility’s management, and if requested, shared publicly;
  2. Identifies one or more accountable executive(s) to be accountable for implementation of system to manage critical facilities in a manner that minimizes risks to human rights and the health and safety of the environment and communities;
  3. Identifies appropriate qualifications and experience requirements for all personnel with safety-critical roles in the design, operation, and management of critical facilities, and ensures that incumbents of these roles have the identified qualifications and experience;
  4. Has succession plans in place for key personnel such as the Engineer of Record (EOR) and the Responsible Critical Facility Engineer (RCFE) or equivalent;
  5. Provides mechanisms to receive and incorporate workers’ experience-based knowledge into planning, design, and operations for all phases of the critical facility life cycle;
  6. Recognizes, rewards, and protects from retaliation, workers, employees, and contractors who report problems or identify opportunities for improving critical facility safety or management, provides a timely response to whistleblower complaints, and communicates actions taken and their outcomes to the accountable executive; and
  7. Includes mechanisms such that incentive payments or performance reviews for personnel with some level of responsibility for the safety or management of the critical facility, that are based, at least in part, on public safety and the integrity of the facility.

NOTE FOR 4.X.4.1:  NEW. IRMA’s Expert Working Group on waste management recommended that we add more requirements relating to accountability, so we are proposing these, which have been adapted from GISTM [various requirements].

The definition for Responsible Critical Facility Engineer (RCFE) in 4.X.4.1 has been adapted from GISTM’s definition of ‘Responsible Tailings Facility Engineer’ to make it applicable to the engineer responsible for any critical facility.

The proposed RCFE definition is:

An engineer appointed by the entity to be responsible for the critical facility. The RCFE must be available at all times during construction, operations and closure. The RCFE has clearly defined, delegated responsibility for management of the critical facility and has appropriate qualifications and experience compatible with the level of complexity of the critical facility. The RCFE is responsible for the scope of work and budget requirements for the critical facility, including risk management. The RCFE may delegate specific tasks and responsibilities for aspects of critical facility management to qualified personnel but not accountability.

For each critical facility, an operations, maintenance, and surveillance (OMS) manual (or equivalent) is developed, documented and implemented by competent professionals that includes:
  1. A risk management plan (or its equivalent) that:
    1. Outlines critical controls to minimize the probability and potential consequences of a facility failure to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP);
    2. Includes other risk controls and actions necessary for safe operation of facilities, including use of best available/applicable practices and best available technologies (see Annex 4.X-A);
    3. Documents specific and measurable performance objectives, indicators, criteria, and performance parameters for critical controls and risk controls;
    4. Includes a trigger action response plan (TARP), or its equivalent, that describes pre-defined trigger levels for performance criteria, and actions to be taken if trigger levels are exceeded, i.e., if performance is outside of expected range;
    5. Assigns implementation of controls and actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
    6. Includes an implementation schedule; and
    7. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan;
  2. A maintenance program that includes routine, predictive and event-driven maintenance to ensure that all relevant parameters (e.g., all civil, mechanical, electrical and instrumentation components of critical facilities) are maintained in accordance with performance criteria, host country law and sound operating practices;
  3. A comprehensive and integrated performance surveillance/monitoring program that:
    1. Includes a procedure for regular inspections of facilities that includes monitoring of performance objectives, indicators, criteria, and performance parameters (see 4.X.4.1.a.iii), and recording and evaluating the data at appropriate frequencies to confirm that existing controls and strategies remain effective to manage risk throughout the facility life cycle;
    2. Includes a procedure for a comprehensive and integrated engineering monitoring system that is appropriate for verifying design assumptions and for monitoring potential failure modes, including full implementation of the observational method for non-brittle failure modes;
    3. Includes a procedure for analysis of technical monitoring data at the frequency recommended by the EOR, and assessment of the performance of the facility, clearly identifying evidence on any deviations from the expected performance and any deterioration of the performance over time. The procedure shall also include promptly submitting evidence on deviations to the EOR for review, promptly addressing performance outside the expected ranges through TARPs or critical controls, and updating the risk assessment and design, if required; and
    4. Includes a procedure for review and approval of technical monitoring reports by the EOR and responsible critical facility engineer, and reporting of the surveillance program results to the entity annually.

NOTE FOR 4.X.4.2:  REVISED. An operations, maintenance, and surveillance manual was required in 4.1.5.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Although a specific requirement for risk management plan was not explicit in the 2018 Mining Standard, requirement 4.1.5.5 did require risk management strategies, critical controls and risk controls, and TARP-like expectations. The additional risk management plan expectations in 4.X.4.2.a are consistent with other IRMA chapters that have management plans

More detail has been added to the surveillance/monitoring expectations in 4.X.4.2.c based on similar expectation in GISTM [7.2, 7.4, 7.5]

Personnel involved in the operations of each critical facility:
  1. Have access to the OMS manual; and
  2. Receive training on the OMS manual.

NOTE FOR 4.X.4.3:  NEW. This requirement aligns with GISTM [6.4], although we have not specified who trains the personnel (in GISTM it is the Responsible Tailings Facility Engineer).

The OMS manual is reviewed annually, and critical controls, risk controls and OMS programs are updated as necessary, e.g., if monitoring/surveillance (see 4.X.4.2.c) reveals that performance criteria are not being met, or other information reveals that critical facilities are not being effectively operated or maintained in a manner that protects human health and safety and prevents or otherwise minimizes harm to the environment and communities.

NOTE FOR 4.X.4.4:  REVISED. This was requirement 4.1.5 7 in the 2018 Mining Standard but referred only to the OMS. We have added that the risk management plan also be reviewed and updated if management measures are not being effective. This aligns with expectations in many other IRMA chapters.

The entity implements a change management process that includes:
  1. A system to track and document changes in the design, construction, operation or monitoring of critical facilities over their life cycles;
  2. Periodic review and assessment by the EOR of the cumulative impact of changes on the risk level of as-constructed critical facilities, and, if necessary, recommended measures to reduce the level of risk to ALARP and updates to the design, OMS manual and technical monitoring program; and
  3. Review of the EOR’s assessment and recommendations by the accountable executive, and documentation of a rationale for why any EOR recommendations will not be implemented.

NOTE FOR 4.X.4.5:  NEW. This change management requirement is based on GISTM [6.5]. We are proposing to add it to highlight the importance of documenting, evaluating and responding appropriately to changes and deviations from planned designs and actions.

4.X.5: Critical Facility Oversight and Review Processes

NOTE FOR 4.X.5:  This is a new criterion, specifically developed to consolidate all oversight, quality control, and review requirements in one place (other than those contained in the surveillance requirements in 4.1.5.1.d).

It includes oversight by the Engineer of Record and through the use of competent independent reviewers throughout the facility life-cycle. There are also internal review and reporting requirements.

The entity implements a program to oversee the quality of engineering work for all critical facilities, including:
  1. Review and sign-off on construction records reports by the EOR and the RCFE; and
  2. Quality control, quality assurance and construction versus design intent verification, to ensure that the design intent has been implemented and is still being met if the site conditions vary from the design assumptions.

NOTE FOR 4.X.5.1:  NEW. Requirement 4.X.5.1, and has been included to highlight the importance of oversight of engineering and construction as a means of improving the safety of critical facilities. It aligns with GISTM [6.2 and 6.3].

Independent reviews take place for all critical facilities as follows:
  1. For critical facilities with a failure consequence classification of very high or extreme, the entity appoints an independent review board (IRB) consisting of three or more members, and for all other critical facilities an IRB or a senior independent technical reviewer carries out the reviews;
  2. Independent reviews occur throughout the project/operation life cycle (e.g., during planning, siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, management and monitoring, closure, and post-closure), and include review of:
    1. Credible failure mode assessments, breach analyses, evaluations to determine failure consequence classifications, and geotechnical assessments;
    2. Risk assessments and identification of risks requiring critical controls (see 4.X.3.2);
    3. Performance reviews of facility construction, annually, or more frequently, if required;
    4. Proposed facility sites and designs to ensure that the proposed sites and designs incorporate the outcomes of the multi-criteria alternatives analysis (see 4.X.3.1);
    5. Design basis reports and construction record reports;
    6. Proposed updates to facility designs;
    7. Facility water balances and mass balances;
    8. Surveillance/monitoring reports; and
    9. Documentation related to facility performance and risk management.
  3. IRBs and/or the senior independent technical reviewers report to the operation’s general manager and an accountable executive; and
  4. The entity reviews commentary, advice and/or recommendations from all independent reviews and:
    1. Develops an action plan with a schedule to implement improvements based on the advice and recommendations;
    2. Documents a rationale for any advice or recommendations that will not be implemented;
    3. Tracks progress of the action plan’s implementation; and
    4. Shares this information with the accountable executive.

NOTE FOR 4.X.5.2:  Requirement 4.X.5.2.a was 4.1.6.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard; 4.X.5.2.b aligns with 4.1.6.1, 4.X.5.2.c aligns with 4.1.6.4, and 4.X.5.2.d aligns with 4.1.6.5.

An independent dam safety review (DSR) or equivalent safety review of technical, operational and governance aspects of critical facilities is conducted as follows:
  1. Reviews take place at least every five years for critical facilities with very high or extreme failure consequence classifications, more frequently if recommended by the IRB, and at least every 10 years for all other critical facilities;
  2. Reviews draw attention to any deficiencies or non-conformities in information (e.g., identification of hazards, failure modes, geotechnical and hydrotechnical assessments, or the inputs or outcomes of failure consequence classifications), in facility construction, operation, maintenance, surveillance, emergency preparedness and response plans, responses to incidents, and governance (e.g., roles, responsibilities, authorities and activities are clearly assigned, peresonnel are competent and trained);
  3. Every review of a particular facility is carried out by a different independent contractor; and
  4. Commentary, advice, and recommendations from the DSR review are shared with the accountable executive.

NOTE FOR 4.X.5.3:  REVISED. 4.1.3.3.h in the 2018 Mining Standard required an annual dam safety inspection report. This requirement adds more detail based on GISTM [10.5], and the elements in 4.X.5.2.b are drawn from a review of dam safety checklists.[1]

We are proposing to define independent dam safety review as:

Independent review of the safety of a critical facility covering technical, operational and governance aspects, conducted by an independent technical specialist according to established best practices. It is conducted at intervals based on the failure consequence classification and the complexity of its condition or performance. It is regulatory requirement in many jurisdictions. (Adapted from GISTM)

[1] For example, see: Government of British Columbia. 2015. “Dam Safety Review Check Sheet.”  https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/dam-safety/dsr_check_sheet_-_september_2015.pdf

Banque Ouest Africaine de Développement. 2014. Dam Safety Reviews manual. https://www.boad.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/boad_dam_safety_reviews_manual.pdf

All IRB members, senior independent technical reviewers, and DSR contractors:
  1. Are objective, third-party, competent professionals with at least 15 years of experience in the specific area of review (e.g., facility design, operations, closure, environmental or social aspects or other specific topic of concern); and
  2. Have attested in writing that they follow best practices to avoid conflicts of interest.

NOTE FOR 4.X.5.4:  REVISED. Requirement 4.X.5.4.a is aligned with 4.1.6.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard, but we have added that competent professionals must have at least 15 years of experience in the topics of concern, which aligns with GISTM; and 4.X.5.4.b aligns with GISTM [8.7 and 10.5].

The entity implements and documents an annual management review process to facilitate continual improvement in the management of critical facilities. The process includes:
  1. Review of:
    1. The status of continual improvement actions identified in the previous review, if any;
    2. The current effectiveness of critical control and risk control measures in 4.X.4.2.a;
    3. Maintenance and surveillance/monitoring data, and the current effectiveness of OMS manual and surveillance/monitoring procedures in 4.X.4.2);
    4. Any regulatory non-compliance issues, unwanted events, root cause analyses, and corrective actions since the previous review;
    5. Any commentary, advice, and recommendations from the EOR, IRB, senior independent technical reviewer or DSR contractor since the previous management review, and responses taken by the entity;
    6. Whether or not critical facilities continue to meet their design intent, including any deviations from the design or expected conditions since the previous management review;
    7. Any changes in facility operating conditions (e.g., production rates), social, environmental, or local economic context, legal requirements, industry best practice or emerging technologies, that may have a bearing on the critical facilities;
  2. A documented summary of significant issues related to the overall performance of the critical facilities based on the information reviewed and discussed, and recommended actions for improvement;
  3. Reporting of results to an accountable executive.

NOTE FOR 4.X.5.5:  REVISED. This was 4.1.5.8. in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Previously, this requirement referred to aligning “with the steps outlined in the Mining Association of Canada’s Tailings Management Protocol or a similar framework.” We have revised it to include more detail, so that it can be audited in a consistent manner.

4.X.6: Reporting and Disclosure

NOTE FOR 4.X.6:  This section addresses reporting to stakeholders on the management of physical stability, and disclosure requirements.

The entity publishes and updates plain language summaries for the following information on critical facilities, and any exclusion of information is documented and approved by the accountable executive:
  1. An up-to-date description of all critical facilities, their failure consequence classifications and the entity’s rationale for the classification;
  2. The rationale for the basis of the facility design and site selection;
  3. Risk assessments;
  4. Planned and implemented mitigation measures; and
  5. Results of surveillance/monitoring program.

NOTE FOR 4.X.6.1:  NEW. This requirement partially aligns with GISTM [15.1].

At least once a year, the entity meets with relevant stakeholders to:
  1. Report on critical facility management, surveillance/monitoring and findings from independent reviews; and
  2. Seek feedback on the entity’s management approach to critical facilities.

NOTE FOR 4.X.6.2:   REVISED. Some of this content (i.e., feedback on management approaches) was included in requirement 4.1.7.1 and 4.1.7.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It has been revised to include ongoing engagement throughout the facility life cycle as per GISTM [1.3].

To facilitate effective stakeholder engagement, the entity offers to provide assistance to stakeholders from affected communities to select and hire independent experts to advise them on physical stability risks and the management of critical facilities.

NOTE FOR 4.X.6.3:  NEW. This proposed requirement came out of discussions in IRMA’s expert working group on mine waste management. The management of physical stability risks related to wastes and materials such as tailings, waste rock or brines involve many technical issues and jargon that most community members cannot immediately understand. Communities often lack funds to hire independent experts to advise them on issues such as risks related to tailings dams and other complex technical topics, which prevents their meaningful engagement on tailings and waste issues, which are often the primary mine-related concern for these communities.

The IRMA Standard has similar requirements in other chapters where legal or technical advice are critical for ensuring that communities’ rights and interests can be upheld (e.g., see Chapter 2.4 on resettlement, or Chapter 2.2 on FPIC, Chapter 4.2 on water), and aligns with requirement 1.2.3.1 in Chapter 1.2 related to strengthening stakeholders’ capacity to engage. We are proposing that access to independent experts is the most reasonable means of ensuring meaningful and effective stakeholder engagement on the physical stability issues (rather than, for example, trainings or other types of capacity building).

This requirement also aligns with GISTM requirement [1.3] to “Demonstrate that project-affected people are meaningfully engaged throughout the tailings facility life cycle in building the knowledge base and in decisions that may have a bearing on public safety and the integrity of the tailings facility.”

GISTM’s definition of meaningful engagement includes that, “Meaningful engagement involves measures to overcome structural and practical barriers to the participation of diverse and vulnerable groups of people. Strategies for addressing barriers must be appropriate to the context and the stakeholders involved, and may include, for example, logistics and other support to enable participation.”

Chapter 4.3: Air Quality

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:   We are proposing to remove the flag from this chapter. There were three requirements that were being tested in the first audits, and there was no indication from those first audits that the flagged requirements were problematic. As a result, we are proposing that the requirements be incorporated into this chapter (See criterion 4.3.6).

Proposed additions and changes:

  • The two most significant proposed changes in this chapter are to require the characterization of air emission sources, which was not required in the 2018 Mining Standard, and also add requirements for the operation of air emissions control equipment, and actions to take in the event of an emergency situation that causes an unintended release of air emissions.
  • Moved some air-related requirements from Chapter 4.8 – ‘Mercury Management,’ as the elements from that chapter are being incorporated into other relevant chapters (see note for requirement 4.3.5.3).
  • Reporting requirements have been updated to be more consistent with other IRMA chapters (see criterion 4.3.7).
  • A correction to the Air Quality Table (Table 4.3).

4.3.1: Scoping and Characterizing Sources of Air Emissions

NOTE FOR 4.3.1:  REVISED. The name of this criterion has changed from “Air Quality Screening and Impact Assessment” to its current proposed wording.  Assessment is now covered in 4.3.3.

We are proposing to use the word scoping instead of screening throughout the IRMA Standard. These terms mean slightly different things in different jurisdictions. For IRMA’s purposes, we are proposing the following definition of scoping, however, if this term is confusing, we are open to reverting to screening, or adopting another term altogether:

Scoping: A process of determining potential issues and impacts and producing information necessary to inform decision-making regarding whether additional evaluation and actions are necessary.

Three NEW requirements, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.1.3, have been added to fill a gap in the 2018 Mining Standard, and to be more consistent with other IRMA chapters.

The identification of all project/operation-related sources of air emissions is key to understanding what contaminants may be released to the environment. Without credible information on sources and potential contaminants, it is not possible to have confidence that all potential emissions and contaminants are being monitored and adequately controlled.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.3-1:  Do you agree with the two requirements proposed below? Would you add any potential sources or categories of contaminants of potential concern?

The entity identifies all potential sources of air emissions (including fugitive emissions) from the project/operation and associated facilities, including, as relevant:
  1. Mining, ore handling and transportation, grinding, crushing;
  2. Beneficiation and mineral processing, including thermal treatments;
  3. Mobile equipment;
  4. Stationary equipment;
  5. Power plants, and, if relevant, fuel (e.g., coal, diesel, etc.) handling and transportation;
  6. Water treatment plans;
  7. Waste handling, treatment, and disposal; and
  8. Roads.
For each air emission source, the entity identifies the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs), including:
  1. Particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5)
  2. Sulfur dioxide (e.g., from sulfur in fuels and feed materials or from thermal treatment of sulfide ores);
  3. Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2)
  4. Carbon monoxide;
  5. Ozone;
  6. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH);
  7. Volatile organic compounds (including benzene);
  8. Acids;
  9. Persistent organic pollutants; and
  10. Metals and metalloids.

NOTE FOR 4.3.1.2:  NEW. The list of categories to be identified include the parameters in Table 4.3, which is IRMA’s air quality standards table (i.e., particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone, benzene, and PAHs, as well as the metals/metalloids lead, nickel, cadmium, and arsenic).

Table 4.3 is based on EU standards developed to protect human health. However, we have added a general category of metals and metalloids, as well as volatile organic compounds and persistent organic pollutants, with the assumption that air emissions of metals other than lead, nickel, cadmium and arsenic, and the organic contaminants are also important to identify, as these may have toxic effects on other living organisms (plants, animals, fungi). For example, elements such as boron, copper, iron, molybdenum and zinc, while essential for plant growth become toxic when certain thresholds are exceeded.

Air emissions can affect plant, animals and fungi both by existing in high concentrations in ambient air, but also through deposition of contaminants into or on to water, soil or vegetation, where they can affect the growth of plants or aquatic organisms and also accumulate in plants and animals, and thus be introduced into the food chain of humans and other animal species, resulting in adverse impacts on health.[1] Contaminants may also be deposited in areas used by people for recreation, or growing or harvesting food, and pollutants may be carried into living and working spaces.[2]

The characterization of COPCs should have happened during the identification of chemicals and materials with potentially hazardous properties in Chapter 4.1. It is unclear, however, whether mineral processing operations typically carry out a comprehensive evaluation of all of the metals/metalloids or other potential air contaminants in the feed materials. Please see CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.1-3 in Chapter 4.1 if you have expertise on that subject.

[1] Edelstein, M. and Ben-Hur, M. 2018. “Heavy metals and metalloids: Sources, risks and strategies to reduce their accumulation in horticultural crops,” Scientia Horticulturae. Vol 234, pp. 431-444. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304423817307628

[2] For example, see “Health and Environment” information on the Colorado Smelter, Pueblo, Colorado Superfund Site. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Healthenv&id=0802700

The entity identifies potential receptors and potential values that may be affected by air contaminants, including but not limited to:
  1. Individuals, communities, soils, water bodies, or cultural heritage that may be affected by emissions, deposition or dispersion of the identified COPCs;
  2. Vulnerable groups within nearby affected communities or vulnerable individuals in nearby residences who may be particularly sensitive receptors of the identified COPCs;
  3. Plants, animals, or fungi with known sensitivity to the identified COPCs;
  4. Areas with scenic values that may be affected by haze; and
  5. Receptors that may be affected by dust or odors.

NOTE FOR 4.3.1.3:  NEW. The list of categories to be identified include the parameters in IRMA’s air quality standards table (i.e., particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone, benzene, and PAHs, as well as the metals/metalloids lead, nickel, cadmium and arsenic).

Competent professionals carry out a scoping or similar process to identify significant sources of air emissions, including:
  1. Documenting the particular contaminants and using credible methods to estimate emissions from each source (e.g., facilities, activities, processes), based on proposed or actual operational characteristics; and
  2. Documenting the rationale for why certain facilities, activities or processes are considered to be minor or insignificant sources of emissions of air contaminants.

NOTE FOR 4.3.1.4:  MINOR CHANGE. This was 4.3.1.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It provides greater clarity on the scoping process (in the 2018 standard this was called ‘screening,’ but as in the note for 4.3.1, above, we are proposing to use more consistent language throughout the IRMA Standard), including the need to estimate emissions and to provide a rationale for why certain sources are deemed ‘insignificant.’ IRMA guidance includes more information on methods that can be used to estimate emissions.[1]

[1] IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining 1.0, Guidance Document (v.1.2). p. 550. Available at: https://responsiblemining.net/resources/#full-documentation-and-guidance

4.3.2: Baseline Air Quality

NOTE FOR 4.3.2:  NEW.  This is a new criterion heading. It has been added to be more consistent with other IRMA chapters. The requirement in this criterion is not new.

Competent professionals establish the baseline air quality in project/operation area using credible methods to determine the ambient concentrations of all contaminants of potential concern (COPCs).

NOTE FOR 4.3.2.1:  MINOR CHANGE. This was 4.3.1.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard.  We added that competent professionals be responsible for establishing the baseline, using credible methods. This is consistent with other IRMA chapters.

This requirement also applies to existing operations. As in IRMA Guidance, if baseline data were not collected early in the development process the entity will be expected to carry out a study to estimate baseline.[1]

[1] IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining 1.0, Guidance Document (v.1.2). p. 551. Available at: https://responsiblemining.net/resources/#full-documentation-and-guidance

See also: DiGiovanni, F. and Coutinho, M. 2017. Guiding Principles for Air Quality Assessment Components of Environmental Impact Assessments. pp. 8 and 9. https://www.iaia.org/downloads/Guiding%20Principles%20for%20Air%20Quality_2_1.pdf

4.3.3: Assessment of Risks to Air Quality

NOTE FOR 4.3.3:  NEW.  This is a new criterion heading. Previously, this impact assessment requirements were included in criterion 4.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard (4.3.1 ‘Screening and Impact Assessment’). See note for 4.3.1, also.

If scoping or other credible information indicates that air emissions from mining-related activities may adversely impact human health, quality of life or the environment, a credible methodology is used to assess and document air quality risks associated with the project/operation. The assessment includes:
  1. The use of air quality modeling and monitoring consistent with widely accepted and documented methodologies to estimate the concentrations, transport, and dispersion of air contaminants, including:
    1. Estimation of potential emissions on a contaminant-by-contaminant basis, and under various operational scenarios including maximum emissions during maximum production levels; and
    2. Estimation of potential emissions at potentially sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, water bodies, ecosystems) under the worst-case dispersion conditions.
  2. Conducting an assessment to predict and evaluate the significance of the potential impacts.

NOTE FOR 4.3.3.1:  REVISED. This combines 4.3.1.3 (assessment) and 4.3.1.4 (modeling) in the 2018 Mining Standard, as modeling will inevitably be used to inform the risk/impact assessment.

Sub-requirements 4.3.1.3.a.i and 4.3.1.3.a.ii are NEW. They come from guidance developed by the International Association of Impact Assessment.[1]

[1] DiGiovanni, F. and Coutinho, M. 2017. Guiding Principles for Air Quality Assessment Components of Environmental Impact Assessments. pp. 8 and 9. https://www.iaia.org/downloads/Guiding%20Principles%20for%20Air%20Quality_2_1.pdf

The assessment is updated if there are proposed changes to mining-related activities that will result in new sources or changes in the volume of emissions, or if there are changes in in the operational or social context that may change the probability or severity of impacts of (e.g., a new school is constructed downwind of the site).

NOTE FOR 4.3.3.2:  NEW.  This is similar to expectations in other chapters where risk assessments need to be updated.

Any models used to inform risk assessments are:
  1. Consistent with credible methodologies; and
  2. Evaluated annually and updated, as necessary, through an iterative process using operational monitoring data, as they become available.

NOTE FOR 4.3.3.3:  This aligns with 4.2.4.4 in the Water Management chapter.

4.3.4: Air Quality Management

NOTE FOR 4.3.4.  This has been changed from ‘Air Quality Management Plan’ to Air Quality Management, as some of the elements contained below are management actions that are not directly related to the plan itself.

If significant potential impacts on air quality are identified, an air quality management plan is in place and implemented that:
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Outlines the mitigation measures to avoid and, where that is not possible, minimize adverse impacts on human health and the environment (including impacts to land, soil, water, and vegetation). The measures in the plan are specific, measurable, linked to clearly defined outcomes, relevant, and time-bound;
  3. Identifies key indicators, linked to adequate baseline data, to enable measurement of the effectiveness of mitigation activities over time;
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 4.3.4.1:  REVISED. This was 4.3.2.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It has been revised to include the elements of a management plan that are outlined in other IRMA chapters, so that there is consistency in these plans across all chapters.

In the event of an unwanted event that causes a loss of normal operation in air pollution control equipment:
  1. All reasonable and safe corrective actions are taken to minimize air emissions, and the actions are documented;
  2. Ambient air quality and dust sampling is carried out if there are uncontrolled emissions, and any exceedance of a pollution limit in Table 4.3 or host country air quality regulations is recorded;
  3. A documented root cause analysis is carried out to determine the cause (e.g., improperly designed equipment, lack of preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, operator error, etc.) of the unwanted event; and
  4. The air quality management plan is updated with actions to prevent a similar occurrence.

NOTE FOR 4.3.4.2:  NEW.  This proposed requirement will be applicable to all operations that utilize a process that has air emissions control equipment. Some of proposed material in this requirement was drawn from the U.S. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories.[1]

[1] US Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40. Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 63, “Primary Copper Smelting Area Sources.” https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-63/subpart-EEEEEE

If mercury is detected in ore, concentrate, or mining facilities (e.g., tailings, heap leaches, waste rock), as determined in 4.3.1.2.i, then mercury emissions are managed as follows:
  1. Best available techniques (BAT) and best environmental practices (BEP) are implemented at mineral processing or smelting facilities that use thermal processes, unless the entity demonstrates that air emissions (gaseous and dust) from the facility are unlikely to pose a significant risk to human health or the environment; and
  2. Fugitive gaseous and dust emissions associated with crushing, grinding, handling, and transporting of ore, concentrate and/or disposal of waste materials containing mercury are controlled using BAT and BEP unless the entity demonstrates that fugitive emissions (gaseous and dust) from certain sources are unlikely to pose a significant risk to human health or the environment.

NOTE FOR 4.3.4.3:  MOVED from Chapter 4.8. This was requirement 4.8.2.1 in Chapter 4.8 – ‘Mercury Management’ in the 2018 Mining Standard.  We are proposing to delete chapter 4.8 and integrate the requirements into other relevant chapters so that auditors with specialty in water, air, soils, etc., are able to evaluate the requirements alongside other water, air and soil requirements (since the documentation being reviewed in those chapters should also contain mercury-related information, if they are relevant to the project/operation), rather than having a single auditor cross the different areas of expertise.

4.3.4.3.b is NEW. These potential sources of mercury-related air emissions are increasingly being addressed in impact assessments and should be managed if they represent significant air emissions.[1]

[1] For example, see:  Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. 2021. Draft Report: Donlin Gold Mine Supplemental Mercury Modeling and Mass Balance Analysis. Available at: https://dec.alaska.gov/water/wastewater/donlin-gold-mine-certification-remand-decsion/

Barr. 2012. Mercury Emission Control Technology Review for NorthMet Project Processing Plant. https://www.leg.mn.gov/docs/2015/other/150681/PFEISref_1/Barr%202012k.pdf

Annually or more frequently, if necessary (e.g., due to proposed or actual changes in operational or environmental factors):
  1. The entity reviews air quality monitoring data and evaluates the effectiveness of measures to minimize air quality impacts; and
  2. If actions are not being effective, develops new mitigation measures and revises the air quality management plan.
NOTE FOR 4.3.4.4: REVISED. This was 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It has been revised to require annual review of monitoring data and updating of plans if necessary. This is consistent with other IRMA chapters.

4.3.5: Air Quality Monitoring and Inspections

Competent professionals monitor and document ambient air quality and dust from the project/operation.

NOTE FOR 4.3.5.1:  REVISED. This was 4.3.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We are proposing to change the language from “personnel trained in air quality monitoring” to “competent professionals,” which is a defined term, and is more consistent with other IRMA chapters.

Ambient air quality and dust monitoring locations are:
  1. Situated around the site, associated facilities (if there are any emissions sources), transportation routes and the surrounding environment such that they provide a representative sampling of air quality sufficient to detect air quality and dust impacts on affected communities and the environment; and
  2. Informed by the air quality modeling results (see 4.3.3.1).

NOTE FOR 4.3.5.2:  This was 4.3.3.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We separated the information into two sub-requirements to make it clear that both elements should be evaluated during audits.

If mercury will be or is released to air (as gaseous emissions or dust), the entity:
  1. Includes mercury in the ambient air monitoring (as per 4.3.5.3);
  2. Monitors and documents:
    1. Direct releases of mercury to the atmosphere from ore treatment and/or mineral processing or smelting facilities that use thermal processes;
    2. Fugitive emissions (to the extent technologically and economically feasible with air monitoring equipment), or provides best estimates for these emissions; and
    3. The amount of mercury recovered or captured as by-product in mercury emission control systems;
  3. Monitors and documents the concentration of mercury in soils, water, sediment, and biota downwind of the emissions sources (as part of the soil quality monitoring program in proposed Chapter 4.XX, and water monitoring program in Chapter 4.2); and
  4. Consults with affected communities to develop and implement a plan to monitor mercury levels in community members (e.g., in blood or hair) and in any significant food sources that may be affected by the emissions.

NOTE FOR 4.3.5.3:  MOVED from Chapter 4.8. This requirement incorporates material from 4.8.3.2 and 4.8.3.3 in Chapter 4.8 – ‘Mercury Management’ in the 2018 Mining Standard. As mentioned in the Note for 4.3.4.3, we are proposing to delete chapter 4.8 on Mercury Management and integrate the requirements into other relevant chapters.

4.3.5.5.b.ii includes monitoring of fugitive emissions. When mercury is known to be present in ores and waste rock, mercury-related fugitive air emissions are increasingly being addressed in impact assessments. If these sources represent potentially significant emissions of mercury, they need to be monitored (or estimated).[1]

[1] For example, see:  Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. 2021. Draft Report: Donlin Gold Mine Supplemental Mercury Modeling and Mass Balance Analysis. Available at: https://dec.alaska.gov/water/wastewater/donlin-gold-mine-certification-remand-decsion/

Barr. 2012. Mercury Emission Control Technology Review for NorthMet Project Processing Plant. https://www.leg.mn.gov/docs/2015/other/150681/PFEISref_1/Barr%202012k.pdf

Air pollution control equipment is inspected on a regular basis by competent professionals to verify that the equipment was installed and is being maintained in accordance with vendor instructions and is operating as expected. Inspection dates and observations are recorded and maintained by the entity.

NOTE FOR 4.3.5.4:  NEW. This proposed new requirement will be applicable to all operations that utilize a process that has air emissions control equipment. It is being proposed to fill a gap regarding equipment inspection.

4.3.6: Comparison of Monitoring Results to Air Quality Standards

NOTE FOR 4.3.6:  NEW.  This is a new criterion heading, but the requirements are not new. Previously, this criterion was called Protection of Air Quality. It has been revised to be more consistent with a similar criterion heading in the Water Management chapter (see 4.2.6).

In the 2018 Mining Standard, the requirements in this criterion were flagged. They were audited, to gain information, but not scored. There was no indication from the audits that the flagged requirements were problematic. As a result, we are proposing that the two requirements be incorporated into this chapter. See additional notes below.

Ambient air quality monitoring results demonstrate that the site is in compliance with the European Union’s Air Quality Standards (EU Standards) as amended to their latest form (see Table 4.3, below) at the boundaries of the project/operation site and on transportation routes. If emissions from mining-related activities cause an exceedance beyond what is allowed in Table 4.3:
  1. And an operation is located in an airshed where baseline air quality conditions meet EU Standards, the entity:
    1. Develops mitigation measures to reduce its emissions;
    2. Demonstrates that it is making incremental reductions in the non-compliant emissions, and within five years demonstrates compliance with the EU Standards; and
    3. Incorporates mitigation measures into the air quality management plan;
  2. And an operation is located in an airshed where baseline air quality was already degraded beyond EU Standards, the entity:
    1. Demonstrates that emissions from mining-related activities, alone, do not exceed EU Standards,
    2. Develops and implements mitigation measures to make incremental improvements to the air quality in the airshed that are at least equivalent to the operation’s emissions; and
    3. Incorporates mitigation measures into the air quality management plan.
  3. As an alternative to 4.3.6.1.a or b, the entity undertakes a risk-based approach to protecting air quality as follows:
    1. Operations demonstrate compliance with host country air quality standards, if they exist, or more stringent international best practice standards;
    2. A risk assessment is undertaken to determine residual risks from the operation’s air emissions;
    3. Where residual risks remain, the operation sets more stringent self-designed limits, develops, and implements a multi-year phased set of mitigation measures with defined timelines to make incremental reductions in emissions, and incorporates this information into the air quality management plan.

NOTE FOR 4.3.6.1:  REVISED. This combines 4.3.4.1 and 4.3.4.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard.  It also now requires that mitigation measures be incorporated into the air quality management plan.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.3-2:

We are proposing that all entities measure their air quality emissions against the standards in Table 4.3, so that there is comparability between sites, but then offer a menu of how they might mitigate any exceedances of the air quality limits. The options align with the options that were proposed in the 2018 Mining Standard. Do you agree with this approach?

Dust deposition from mining-related activities is below exceed 350 mg/m2/day, measured as an annual average. An exception to 4.3.4.3 may be made if demonstrating compliance is not reasonably possible through ordinary monitoring methods. In such cases, the entity documents its rationale, implements best available/applicable practices (BAP) to minimize dust contamination, and incorporates the BAP measures into its air quality management plan.

NOTE FOR 4.3.6.2:  REVISED. This was 4.3.4.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Note that the German Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control (TA Luft) regulation, which was used as the basis for the 350 mg/m2/day deposition value, was updated in 2021. The TA Luft dust deposition value to protect against significant nuisance or significant disadvantages due to dustfall (Section 4.3.1, Table 2 of the 2002 regulation) remained unchanged,[1] and so we are maintaining this prescriptive expectation.

We added that the entity must document its rationale for why the dust emission levels cannot be met, and that the dust mitigation measures be added into the management plan.

[1] The TA Luft regulation 2002 (in English) is available here: https://www.bmuv.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Luft/taluft_engl.pdf The 2021 updated version (in German) is available here: https://www.verwaltungsvorschriften-im-internet.de/bsvwvbund_18082021_IGI25025005.htm

4.3.7: Disclosure of Information

Information on air quality management, including the air quality management plan and compliance and monitoring information is:
  1. Publicly available; or
  2. A publicly available access to information (or equivalent) policy that commits the entity to providing stakeholders with this information upon request is in place and shared with stakeholders.

NOTE FOR 4.3.7.1: REVISED. This was 4.3.4.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. In the 2018 Mining Standard there was a blanket requirement in Chapter 1.2 – ‘Community and Stakeholder Engagement,’ requirement 1.2.4.1, that “Any information that relates to the mine’s performance against the IRMA Standard shall be made available to relevant stakeholders upon request.” We are adding this element into each chapter where there was not previously a reporting requirement, to make it clear that information related to the specific topic is included in the blanket requirement. Note that the requirement for an access to information policy (of equivalent) is being proposed in Chapter 1.2 (see Note for requirement 1.2.4.3).

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.3-3:  In addition to disclosure requirements, some IRMA chapters require annual reporting to stakeholders on the entity’s management of the issues. In some cases, the reporting is to stakeholders generally (e.g., reporting on human rights due diligence), and in other cases, it involves more active discussion with relevant stakeholders, which tend to be the affected communities, on the issues (e.g., annual discussions on water management). Should IRMA require that entities report to stakeholders, or that they meet with and discuss air quality issues with affected communities? Or should IRMA not require this (and assume that if it is an important issue to stakeholders, that they will request such meetings with the entity)?

Chapter 4.4: Noise and Vibration

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:   As with other chapters, there are proposed structural changes, and a number of related requirements have been combined.

Proposed additions and changes:

  • In the 2018 Mining Standard, this chapter focused on the impacts of noise and vibrations on human noise receptors. We are proposing to carry over changes to this chapter proposed in the draft the IRMA-Ready Standard that incorporated scoping, and if necessary, mitigation of noise impacts on wildlife. Exploration often occurs in more remote areas where wildlife may not have had much previous exposure to human industrial activity and/or may be more sensitive to noise and vibration.[1] Because this standard now applies to all phases of mineral development from exploration through mineral processing and the decommissioning and closure of operations, potential impacts of noise on wildlife are proposed for inclusion.
  • All projects/operations are required to scope potential impacts related to noise and vibration (see 4.4.1.1)
  • A requirement for a management plan to document and guide mitigation actions (see 4.4.2.1)

[1] SLR Consulting. 2017. Expert Environmental Guidance on Exploration Methodologies: Part Four: Drilling.  p. 121.  https://assets.gov.ie/76753/9a4ac3d4-6f71-412d-a013-1ac32a2128e3.pdf

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.4-1:  Currently, we do not have a requirement for noise monitoring. Do entities typically carry out regular or even periodic monitoring of noise levels, e.g., at site boundaries, or is monitoring more typically only done in response to complaints or other indications that there may be noise-related issues?

4.4.1: Noise and Vibration Scoping

NOTE ON 4.4.1:  REVISED. We are proposing to use the word scoping instead of screening throughout the IRMA Standard. These terms mean slightly different things in different jurisdictions.

For IRMA’s purposes, we are proposing the following definition:

Scoping: The process of determining potential issues and impacts and producing information necessary to inform decision-making regarding whether additional evaluation and actions are necessary.

If this term is confusing, we are open to reverting to screening, or adopting another term altogether.

The entity implements a scoping process (or equivalent) to determine if there may be significant noise and/or vibration impacts on human or wildlife receptors from mining-related activities. The scoping process:
  1. Includes consultations with representatives from potentially affected communities, as well as other relevant stakeholders; and
  2. Scoping is updated if there are proposed changes in the project/operation that may result in a new source of noise or vibration or an increase in existing noise or vibration levels.

NOTE FOR 4.4.1.1:  REVISED. This was 4.4.1.1 in the Mining Standard.  We are proposing to incorporate material from the draft IRMA-Ready Standard,[1] in particular, the addition of scoping of impacts on wildlife. It is important for companies to understand the potential impacts of noise/vibration on wildlife because those impacts can, in turn, affect the livelihood and sustenance activities of local communities.[2]

Also, 4.4.1.1.a is from the IRMA-Ready Standard. Consultations with stakeholder during scoping was added there because local community members and/or government officials or wildlife-focused NGOs can be important sources of information on wildlife (and humans) that may be sensitive to noise or vibrations. They may be able to provide input on appropriate mitigation measures (such as times of year, or times of day, etc., that are better for carrying out activities in a manner that will not create a significant impact on wildlife, or communities, etc.).

[1] The draft IRMA-Ready Standard for Responsible Minera Exploration and Development (2021) is available at: https://responsiblemining.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/IRMA-Ready-Draft-1.0-December2021-All-Stages.pdf

[2] For example, see section called “Why caribou are important” in: Government of the Yukon Territory.2008. Flying in Caribou Country – how to minimize disturbance from aircraft. https://www.miningnorth.com/_rsc/site-content/library/Flying_in_Caribou_Country.pdf

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.4-2

Background: In the 2018 Mining Standard, existing operations were not expected to carry out noise scoping unless there was a change to the operation that could increase noise levels. If there was a noise-related complaint at the existing site, however, the operation would be required to take action as per the requirements in the rest of the chapter. We are proposing here that all sites (proposed projects and existing operations) demonstrate that they have carried out a scoping of potential noise and vibration impacts. The rationale is that without such evidence, it is difficult for entities to know if there may be impacts that are being overlooked.

Also, the 2018 Mining Standard (and this proposed updated version of the Standard) expects that noise-related impacts on human and wildlife receptors would be considered as part of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) process in Chapter 2.1 and if significant impacts are identified then mitigation options are developed as per the ESIA process. Therefore, in many cases, scoping of potential noise/vibration-related impacts will already have been done. However, for projects or operations that either have not/did not go through ESIA or did not do a comprehensive assessment of the range of potential impacts during the ESIA, then it seems reasonable that these issues be scoped as a standalone exercise so that all entities are held to the same expectations.

Question:  Do you agree with this new approach requiring that all sites demonstrate that they have scoped noise issues? Or should a scoping only be triggered at existing operations if there is a complaint or a change in potential noise sources?

If scoping identifies that human or wildlife receptors may be significantly affected by noise from mining-related activities, the entity documents baseline ambient noise levels in potentially affected areas, including at the location(s) of off-site receptors that are closest to the noise/vibration sources, and at locations of other relevant off-site receptors.

NOTE FOR 4.4.1.2:  REVISED. As per 4.4.1.1, we have added wildlife receptors to this requirement.

4.4.2: Management and Mitigation of Impacts

NOTE FOR 4.4.2:  The title of this criterion is different than the 2018 Mining Standard, which referred specifically to impacts on human receptors. As mentioned in the Note for 4.4.1, we have added screening/scoping of potential impacts of noise and vibration on wildlife, and therefore, it follows to add mitigation if potential impacts are identified.

If scoping or other credible information there are human or wildlife noise receptors that may be significantly affected by noise or vibration from mining-related activities, a noise and vibration management plan (or equivalent) is in place and implemented that:
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Outlines measures to avoid and, where that is not possible, minimize adverse impacts related to noise and vibration. The measures in the plan are specific, measurable, linked to clearly defined outcomes, relevant, and time-bound;
  3. Provides key indicators, linked to adequate baseline data, to enable measurement of the effectiveness of avoidance, minimization and/or offsetting activities over time; and
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 4.4.2.1:  NEW. This is being proposed to be more consistent with other IRMA chapters. As in other chapters, when impacts are identified, mitigation measures are developed and incorporated into a management plan.

Note that if scoping indicates that noise of vibration may potentially impact threatened or endangered species of wildlife, or affect those that have important biodiversity value, those impacts should be further evaluated during the biodiversity assessment process (see Chapter 4.6), and mitigation for those species could be incorporated into the Biodiversity Management Plan.

If scoping or other credible information indicates that there are residential, institutional or educational receptors that may be affected by noise from mining-related activities, the entity demonstrates that noise levels measured at the nearest off-site receptors do not exceed a maximum one-hour LAeq (dBA) of 55 dBA during the hours of 07:00 to 22:00 (i.e., day) and 45 dBA at other times (i.e., night), with the following exceptions:
  1. The hours during which elevated noise levels are allowed may be adjusted if the entity can justify that alternative hours are necessary and/or appropriate because of local, cultural, or social norms;
  2. If baseline ambient noise levels exceed 55 dBA (day) and/or 45 dBA (night), then noise do not exceed 3 dB above baseline as measured at relevant off-site noise receptors; and/or
  3. During periods of blasting, the dBA levels may be exceeded, as long as the other requirements in 4.4.2.4 are met.

NOTE FOR 4.4.2.2:  This combines requirements 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard.

If scoping or other credible information indicates that there are only industrial or commercial receptors that may be affected by noise from mining-related activities, the entity demonstrates that noise levels measured at the project/operation boundary, or nearest industrial or commercial receptor do not exceed 70 dBA.
If scoping or other credible information indicates that noise or vibration from blasting activities may have an adverse impact on human noise receptors blasting operations are undertaken as follows:
  1. A maximum level for air blast overpressure of 115 dB (Lin Peak) is exceeded for no more than 5 % of blasts over a 12-month period;
  2. Ground vibration (peak particle velocity) neither exceeds 5 mm/second on 9 out of 10 consecutive blasts, nor exceeds 10 mm/second at any time; and
  3. Blasting only occurs during the hours of 09:00 to 17:00 on traditionally normal working days unless:
    1. Alternative hours are necessary and/or appropriate because of local, cultural, or social norms; and/or
    2. Potentially affected human receptors have given voluntary approval for the expanded blasting hours.
NOTE FOR 4.4.2.4: This requirement consolidates two blasting-related requirements from the 2018 Mining Standard (4.2.2.4 and 4.2.2.5).

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.4-3:  As with the 2018 Mining Standard, the blasting measures are only required if there are human receptors who may be affected by the noise or vibrations from blasting. While wildlife may be affected by blasting, it is not clear if the measures outlined in 4.4.2.4 would even prevent impacts on them.

If there are special mitigation measures that can reduce blasting-related impacts on wildlife (for example, maybe cessation of blasting during particularly sensitive calving times, etc.) then it is our presumption that those specific actions would be incorporated into the management plan (requirement 4.4.2.1).

Do you agree with this approach?

If the entity receives a credible, supported grievance that noise or vibration is adversely impacting human or wildlife noise receptors, the entity:
  1. Consults with the affected stakeholder and other relevant stakeholders and experts to develop mitigation strategies or other proposed actions to resolve the grievance;
  2. Incorporates any mitigation actions in the management plan (see 4.4.2.1); and
  3. Documents the grievance, the outcome and remedy, and all communications with complainant.

NOTE FOR 4.4.2.5:  This combines 4.4.2.5 and 4.4.2.6 from the 2018 Mining Standard. We have added in that any agreed mitigation actions go into the management plan, as this is the logical place for those actions to be recorded. We have changed the term from complaint to grievance to be more consistent with terminology in other chapters. Grievance is a defined term, and as in the definition, it includes complaints.

4.4.3: Disclosure of Information

NOTE FOR 4.4.3:  REVISED. This name of this criterion heading has changed from ‘Reporting’ to ‘Disclosure of Information,’ as the latter better represents what is being required below.

When stakeholders make a noise-related complaint, the entity provides relevant noise data and information to them.

NOTE FOR 4.4.3.1:  This was included in requirement 4.4.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

A publicly available access to information policy (or equivalent) is in place that commits the entity to providing stakeholders with noise data and information upon request.

NOTE FOR 4.4.3.2:  REVISED. This was included in requirement 4.4.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Previously, the language was “noise data and information shall be made available to stakeholders upon request.”

We have separated out this component, and we have changed the wording in 4.4.3.2 to require that the entity have a policy in place to make the information available to stakeholders upon request.

There were numerous places in the IRMA Standard that mentioned provision of information to stakeholders “upon request”.  Those requirements have proven very difficult to audit as written, because if the auditee tells auditors that there were no requests for information then the auditor has two choices – mark it as fully meets (which isn’t accurate, since there is no evidence, other than perhaps a verbal guarantee, that if asked the entity would provide the information) or mark it as not relevant (which is more accurate, since there were not requests, but is problematic because if stakeholders are not aware that they can request information, then there may never be any requests).

In Chapter 1.2, we are proposing that instead of the approach in the 2018 Mining Standard, which was essentially a blanket statement saying “information shall be made available upon request,” that entities have in place a publicly available “access to information” or similar policy that commits the entity to providing information to stakeholders if requests are made, and that this policy be communicated to stakeholders (see Note for requirement 1.2.4.3).

Chapter 4.5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Consumption

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:   There are significant changes between this proposed chapter and the 2018 Mining Standard. The changes listed below are being proposed for two primary reasons. First, many stakeholders have commented that IRMA’s current chapter does not reflect best practices found in other standards. And second, in the five years since IRMA’s 2018 Standard has been in effect, critical actions to limit warming to around 1.5°C and avoid the worst effects of climate change continue to lag behind what is necessary. The mining industry, as with the rest of the world, must make rapid progress during this decade, and IRMA is seeking to promote positive change by adding and strengthening its requirements.

The proposed changes have been informed by IRMA Expert Working Group discussions, a review of requirements in other standards and guidance applicable to the mining and minerals sector, and a survey to mining companies as part of the M3 Standards Partnership, a joint project of IRMA, ResponsibleSteel, the Responsible Jewellery Council and the Mining Association of Canada.

Proposed additions and changes:

  • This chapter (and title) has been expanded and now integrates requirements related to energy consumption and efficiency.
  • Added requirements related to design consideration (embedding energy efficiency, and minimization of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at the design stage) (4.5.1.1).
  • Timebound requirements have been introduced to calculate and potentially establish targets for reducing upstream Scope 3 emissions (4.5.2.1.c), calculate and report downstream Scope 3 emissions (4.5.2.1.d).
  • Inclusion of carbon losses from land use changes in calculation of emissions (4.5.3.1.b).
  • Evaluation against targets is now required, with appropriate corrective actions implemented as necessary (4.5.4.2).
  • Specific requirements related to the use and characteristics of acceptable carbon offsets have been added (4.5.5).
  • Broadened the scope of transparency and public disclosure requirements (4.5.6).
  • See notes on each requirement for more rationale.

4.5.1: Technology Selection

The entity demonstrates that energy efficiency, minimization of energy consumption and minimization of greenhouse gas emissions are material considerations in the selection of energy sources, mining and processing methods, technologies and equipment, and the design of buildings and facilities at proposed projects and when there are opportunities to replace or add technology or change processes at operations, and documents its rationale for the final selections.

NOTE FOR 4.5.1.1:  This is a NEW requirement. It was proposed in the draft IRMA-Ready Standard for Exploration, and is being carried over into this proposed update to the 2018 Mining Standard. One addition from what was proposed in IRMA-Ready is that entities also document their rationale for technology, so that there is something that can be provided as evidence of how decisions were made on technology selection.

We are proposing that proposed projects be required to demonstrate how energy efficiency, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions have been considered in technology selection. Ideally this would be carried out during the pre-feasibility and feasibility phases of project development, as this is time when there are still excellent opportunities for eliminating and minimizing GHG emissions and energy consumption through the selection of technologies and mining/processing techniques, design of buildings, facilities, and processes.[1]

However, while new projects have the best opportunity to utilize the most energy efficient and low emissions technology, options also exist at operations when they are adding or replacing equipment or processes. While not requiring that energy efficient and low emission technologies be used in all cases, we are proposing that, at minimum, sites are required to demonstrate that they have carried out a thorough analysis and are not choosing equipment and processes based on, for example, economics alone.

It may be difficult to assess whether minimization of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions have been given due weight in the final selection of technologies and practices. Perhaps if companies can demonstrate that they have investigated and calculated the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of potential options, and have selected more efficient, less polluting technologies and processes, even though some of these approaches might have had higher upfront costs, then that could be sufficient evidence that they have integrated “clean energy” concerns into their technology choices and design processes.

[1] Igogo, T., Loweder, T., Engel-Cox, J., Newman, A and Awuah-Offei, K. 2020. Integrating Clean Energy in Mining Operations: Opportunities: Challenges and Enabling Approaches. (Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis). p. vii. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/76156.pdf

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.5-1: Do you agree with adding this requirement? Are there other ways a company might demonstrate it has given the minimization of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions due weight in its mine design processes? Should this requirement be limited to proposed projects, or is it reasonable to create a similar requirement that applies to existing operations that are adding or replacing equipment or processes?

4.5.2: Greenhouse Gas and Energy Policy

NOTE FOR 4.5.2:  This criterion used to be Greenhouse Gas Policy. It has been revised to reflect the addition of energy-related requirements in this chapter.

A policy (or equivalent) is in place that includes:
  1. A commitment to manage energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that aligns with the goals of the Paris Agreement;
  2. Quantitative timebound short-term (<5 years), medium-term (5-15 years) and long-term (>15 years) site-based targets, and targets set by corporate owners for reducing Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions in absolute and intensity terms that demonstrably contribute to the goals of the Paris Agreement;
  3. A timebound commitment to calculate and publicly report upstream Scope 3 emissions, and, if upstream Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions represent more than 40% of a site’s total emissions, establishing quantitative, timebound short-term, medium-term and long-term site-based targets (absolute or intensity) for reducing upstream Scope 3 emissions that demonstrably contribute to the goals of the Paris Agreement;
  4. A timebound commitment to calculate and publicly report downstream Scope 3 emissions;
  5. A site-based energy reduction target; and
  6. A site-based target for increasing the proportion of energy consumed that comes from renewable sources.

NOTE FOR 4.5.2.1:  REVISED. This was requirement 4.5.1.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

4.5.2.1.a. is NEW.  While the 2018 Mining Standard expected that targets for Scope 1 and 2 emissions be set, the targets were not tied to any overarching goal. Since that time, there has been a growing expectation that all companies across every sector, and all assets within a company should play a positive part in achieving net-zero carbon emissions according to the timeline defined in the Paris Agreement. Mining, with its central role in providing primary critical minerals and metals, must ensure that meeting growing demand does not undermine the achievement of the Paris Agreement goals. In this context, IRMA now requires sites to commit to managing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in a way that supports the Paris Agreement.

Proposed definition –

Energy consumption: The total use of energy from fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel sources (including renewables), whether delivered in the form of electricity, steam, heat (combustion) or cooling. (See proposed glossary additions at the end of the chapter)

4.5.2.1.b is REVISED – it used to say “setting meaningful and achievable targets,” but the proposed language is now more explicit and refers to targets within defined short-, medium- and long-term timelines that clearly contribute to the goals of the Paris Agreement. IRMA’s definitions of short-term (<5 years), medium-term (5-15 years) and long-term (>15 years) are aligned with those defined in the ResponsibleSteel International Standard Version 2.0 (published 14 September 2022. IRMA has also added a timebound consideration, so that the achievement of a site’s long-term target cannot occur beyond the date set for net-zero by the Paris Agreement (2050). This means that for sites commencing operations after 2035, ‘long-term’ will be the interval to 2050 (rather than >15 years). Also, while there was an option in the 2018 Mining Standard for targets to apply to the site OR corporate level, we are proposing here that site-level and corporate-level targets be set.

4.5.2.1.c is NEW.  There was general agreement in the Expert Working Group on greenhouse gases convened by IRMA about the well-documented challenges of measuring and reporting Scope 3 emissions. At the same time, it is generally agreed that companies need to not only reduce their own direct emissions, but also use their leverage to reduce emissions in their upstream and downstream supply chains. Alongside this, there is recognition of the significance of Scope 3 emissions for many (and possibly, most) mine and mineral processing sites, where Scope 3 emissions can be substantially larger than collective Scope 1 and 2 emissions.

There is a move towards improved accounting and reporting of Scope 3 emissions, for example:

  • ICMM is currently working with its members to identify a common approach and methodology to account for and report Scope 3 emissions (which implies it will move to a reporting requirement in the future).
  • TSM requires some reporting of Scope 3 emissions.
  • The Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) explicitly recommends that organizations disclose Scope 3 emissions associated with their business.

Calculating and reporting of Scope 3 emissions have moved beyond being an aspirational concept and in this context, IRMA believes the time is right to include requirements related to (at least) the calculation of Scope 3 emissions, with an initial focus on the upstream (where sites are likely to have better access to relevant data and greater opportunities to influence or select suppliers to reduce Scope 3 emissions). Where Scope 3 emissions are a significant proportion of overall emissions (set at >40% to align with the threshold established by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), requirements are extended to establishing reduction targets for Scope 3 (in much the same way this is done in 4.5.2.1.b for Scopes 1 and 2).

4.5.2.1.d is NEW. Downstream Scope 3 emissions are more complex, and sites are likely to have only limited access to incomplete sets of relevant data and less leverage to influence how mineral and metals sold by them are manufactured into an enormous range of end products. Therefore, IRMA does not currently expect companies and sites to calculate and publicly report downstream Scope 3 emissions (or to set targets for reducing downstream Scope 3 emissions, irrespective of their size). It does, however, expect companies and sites to establish a timeframe within with such calculation and reporting will commence; the timeframe should give the company or site sufficient time to develop or identify a consistent and transparent calculation methodology (potentially in partnership with commodity- or sector-level partners, or, for example, using the outputs of cross-sectoral initiatives). The timeframe should not be artificially inflated, however, to delay implementation of calculation or reporting unnecessarily.

The energy consumption target (4.5.2.1.e) and renewable energy-use target (4.5.2.1.f) are NEW. Sub-requirement I is being added because other mining standards include energy use targets, so we are filling that gap to align better with others.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.5-2

Background:  There is some debate about whether reduction targets should relate to absolute emissions or emissions intensity.

An intensity-based target means sites can have higher absolute emissions if production is rising. In a world where demand for certain commodities (e.g., lithium, cobalt and copper) is forecast to rise steeply in the near- and medium-term, this could lead to a scenario of falling greenhouse gas emissions intensity in the mining sector, but rising contribution to global emissions by the industry.

If absolute emissions are used as the basis of reduction targets, the contribution to climate change can be more effectively managed, but this may be challenging for existing operations that are ramping up production to meet market demands, particularly in the short-term (when it may not be possible to immediately make technical and operational changes to reduce GHG emissions). There is also concern that absolute targets could potentially reward operations with high historical emissions, as this establishes a higher baseline for which more reduction opportunities exist, so such sites may gain the appearance of very positive progress off the back of poor performance in the past.

Given the uncertainty about whether one measure can always be considered the most appropriate, IRMA proposes to require both absolute and intensity targets as they speak to different aspects of the bigger picture and both are needed to fully understand a site’s performance.

Question:

Do you agree with the proposal to require absolute emissions AND intensity targets?  If this is the chosen approach, what would realistic targets and timeframes be for each measure and how should they be linked?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.5-3

Background:  We are proposing a target related to use of renewable energy (sub-requirement 4.5.2.1.f), in recognition that a deep reduction in the burning of fossil fuels must be part of any company’s strategy if we are to limit the effects of climate change. For large industrial operations like mines and mineral processing facilities, a two pronged-approach of reducing overall energy use, and over time increasing the percentage of energy from renewables will be most effective.

The two new requirements are complementary as reducing energy use remains important even if consumed energy is solely derived from renewable sources (i.e., unnecessarily high consumption of renewable energy from external parties limits the availability for other consumers users, whose reliance on non-renewable sources increase, with knock on emission impacts).

We recognize that in some locations, there may be limited options for buying renewable energy sourced from external parties, but there should always be an opportunity for a site to produce its own energy from solar, wind or water sources, for example. On this basis, IRMA considers at this stage that it is reasonable to require companies to set renewable energy use targets of some sort (and not allow them to say this is ‘not relevant’).

Question:

Do you agree with the addition of a renewable energy target? If not, why not?

The policy is reviewed annually, and revised as needed, with a clear review/revision history.

NOTE FOR 4.5.2.2:  This was 4.5.1.1.d in the 2018 Mining Standard. We are proposing to require a more frequent review cycle partly because a policy review is not particularly onerous, but importantly because the need to review and adapt reduction targets more frequently than every five years (the expectation in the 2018 Standard) is being driven by the need to close the gap between current actions and the actions necessary to meet the Paris Agreement goals.[1]

[1] See, for example, UNEP’s annual Emissions Gap Report (available at https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report), which in 2022 noted “the international community is falling far short of the Paris goals, with no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place”.

4.5.3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Consumption Quantification

NOTE FOR 4.5.3:  This criterion used to be ‘Emissions Quantification.’ It has been revised to reflect the addition of energy-related requirements in this chapter.

For Scope 1 and Scope 2:
  1. Emissions of all relevant greenhouse gases associated with the site are calculated using credible methodologies;
  2. For Scope 1, the calculations account for emissions arising from land use changes and reductions in land carbon stock arising from the site’s direct activities;
  3. All calculations are verified by a credible third-party expert.

NOTE FOR 4.5.3.1:  REVISED. Quantification of greenhouse gas emissions was addressed in requirement 4.5.2.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

4.5.3.1.b is a NEW expectation. It is being proposed so that the contributions from land clearing (and the associated loss of vegetation and potential degradation of soil resources) are not overlooked in the GHG accounting. This will be particularly important for proposed mines (and is included in Annex 2.1-B in Chapter 2.1 as something to be scoped during ESIA), but also for expansions of existing operations that require the clearing, degradation or burial of previously undisturbed land and its associated soils and flora.

In both 4.5.3.1 and 4.5.3.2, we refer to using ‘credible methodologies,’ The 2018 Mining Standard specifically named the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard and the Global Reporting Initiative’s GRI 305 emissions reporting standards as methods that could be followed in calculating emissions. Rather than referring to specific methods, we are now proposing that any credible methodology can be used. We will still provide some examples of credible methodologies in guidance.

We are proposing to define credible method/methodology as:
A method/methodology that is widely recognized, accepted, and used by experts and practitioners in a particular field of study.

Also, in both 4.5.3.1 and 4.5.3.2, we have added a NEW expectation that the emissions calculations be verified by a credible third-party expert. This is similar to an expectation in the Mining Association of Canada’s Toward Sustainable Mining Climate Change protocol. That protocol requires that Scope 1, 2 and 3 data are independently assured for accuracy in order to meet their higher achievement levels of AA and AAA levels (not required for levels C, B, or A).[1]

[1] Mining Association of Canada. Toward Sustainable Mining Climate Change Protocol. p. 10. https://mining.ca/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/04/Climate-Change-Protocol-English.pdf

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.5-4: Do you have any suggestions of other methodologies for calculating Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions that could be added as examples in IRMA Guidance?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.5-5

Background:  A question was raised during the Expert Working Group discussions about prioritizing direct measurement of emissions over calculations, due to lack of confidence in the quality of emissions factors. The GHG Protocol notes “Direct measurement of GHG emissions by monitoring concentration and flow rate is not common. More often, emissions may be calculated based on a mass balance or stoichiometric basis specific to a facility or process. However, the most common approach for calculating GHG emissions is through the application of documented emission factors. These factors are calculated ratios relating GHG emissions to a proxy measure of activity at an emissions source.”

Question:

Are you aware of trends in use of direct measurements for particular greenhouse gas emissions? If so, what are the methods being used to do so, and what are the main limitations in the use of those approaches?

For Scope 3:
  1. A screening exercise is completed to determine relevant upstream and downstream Scope 3 categories using credible methodologies according to the timebound commitments noted for upstream and downstream Scope 3 emissions in 4.5.2.1.c and 4.5.2.1.d respectively;
  2. Scope 3 emissions of all relevant greenhouse gases and relevant categories of emissions associated with the site are calculated using credible methodologies according to the timebound commitments noted for upstream and downstream Scope 3 emissions in 4.5.2.1.c and 4.5.2.1.d respectively. If a site’s upstream Scope 3 emissions represent more than 40% of the site’s total emissions, a Scope 3 target is required (see 4.5.2.1.c); and
  3. All calculations are verified by a credible third-party expert.

NOTE FOR 4.5.3.2:  This is a NEW requirement. We are proposing that Scope 3 emissions be calculated, as this aligns with the target-setting requirement for upstream emissions in the proposed 4.5.2.1.c. However, the timing of the calculation of Scope 3 emissions will be expected to occur according to the timebound plans in 4.5.2.1 c and d for upstream and downstream emissions, respectively. At present, no target is envisaged for downstream Scope 3 emissions.

This new requirement is based on earlier discussions with IRMA’s multi-stakeholder GHG Working Group and a review of the status of Scope 3 emissions in other mineral and metal ESG standards. While there is no single consistent viewpoint on how companies and sites should calculate and report Scope 3 emissions, there is a developing consensus that for the mining industry, Scope 3 is too significant in too many cases for Scope 3 requirements to be deferred any longer. IRMA is seeking to balance urgency and pragmatism, introducing requirements related to Scope 3 while acknowledging that sites will require time to define, develop and implement the necessary systems for data acquisition and management.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.5-6: Has IRMA struck an appropriate balance between driving progress on Scope 3 emissions with creating the necessary breathing space for sites to work towards conformance within a reasonable timeframe?
Energy consumption associated with the site is measured using a credible methodology, and data are disaggregated into:
  1. Energy generated by the site from fossil fuels and consumed by fixed and mobile equipment (collectively, sources of Scope 1 emissions);
  2. Acquired and consumed electricity, steam, heat, or cooling (collectively, sources of Scope 2 emissions);
  3. Energy derived from renewable sources purchased from external suppliers; and
  4. Energy derived from renewable sources generated by the site.

NOTE FOR 4.5.3.3:  NEW.  The 2018 Standard did not include energy quantification. The proposed disaggregated information will be necessary in order to conform with other energy-related requirements in this chapter (and therefore, this disaggregation does not imply additional effort on the part of the site).

GHG emissions intensity and energy intensity are calculated based on the mass of final products from the site.

NOTE FOR 4.5.3.4:  We are proposing that intensity be calculated on an annual basis as follows:

GHG intensity =
[annual tonnage of GHG equivalents (CO2e)] / [total annual mass of product produced in that year (not sold)]

Energy intensity =
[total annual energy consumed (with non-electrical energy converted to MWh equiv.) / [total annual mass of product produced in that year (not sold)]

Sites, of course, would be welcome to perform additional calculations using other input and intermediate materials and output measures, such as the value of the product, but for IRMA’s purposes, comparability between sites is important, and calculation of intensity using the mass of product is the most commonly used approach. For example, emissions and energy intensities may be calculated for the mass of input or intermediate materials, but these calculations would be in in addition to, rather than instead of, intensities based on the mass of final products.

Mass units would be expected to be appropriate to the typical annual product output (e.g., could be measured in tonnes, ounces or other).

See Annex 4.5-A for examples of intensity metrics for different mineral commodities. Comments on the content of this Annex, and also the approach taken in 4.5.2.5 are welcome.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.5-7:  Do you agree with the proposed method(s) of reporting GHG intensity and energy intensity? If not, please suggest what metrics would be more appropriate, and why.

4.5.4: Greenhouse Gas and Energy Management

NOTE FOR 4.5.4:  The name of the criterion has changed. It was ‘Emissions Reduction Strategies’ in the 2018 Mining Standard.

Also, we are proposing to delete requirement 4.5.3.3 from the 2018 Mining Standard, which required that the entity demonstrate that greenhouse gas reductions strategies had been investigated and documented. To get to the point of outlining actions to reduce emissions in the revised 4.5.4.1.a, below, the entity will necessarily have investigated options and IRMA is proposing to place greater emphasis on action (implementation) than the underpinning investigations.

A site-level management plan is in place and implemented that:
  1. Outlines specific measures and actions to achieve:
    1. The site-level Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 greenhouse gas reduction targets set out in the policy;
    2. The site-level energy reduction targets set out in the policy; and
    3. The site-level targets for the proportion of energy consumed at the site that comes from renewable sources;
  2. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  3. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  4. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 4.5.4.1:  REVISED. This was 4.5.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. We have updated this requirement to be more consistent with management plan expectations in other IRMA chapters.

On a yearly basis, the entity:
  1. Evaluates the effectiveness of its actions to reduce greenhouse gas and energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
  2. Determines if the site is on track to meet the targets in its policy; and
  3. If the site is not on track with its targets, the management plan is updated with timebound corrective actions that will enable the site to still meet its policy targets and the goals of Paris Agreement.

NOTE FOR 4.5.4.2:  REVISED. This was requirement 4.5.3.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. That requirement stipulated that progress toward emissions reduction targets be demonstrated. We have added that progress toward the (new) energy and renewables targets also be demonstrated.

Also, we have added a step to evaluate the effectiveness of the actions that are implemented (a similar step in other IRMA chapters), since that will be necessary for determining progress on targets and have added that the entity develop and implement corrective actions if current actions are not enough to meet targets.

4.5.5: Carbon Offsets

NOTE:  This is a NEW criterion. Based on the literature, it appears that carbon offsets can play a valid role in the transition to a low carbon economy but should be an option of ‘last resort’ that is only pursued once all reasonable opportunities to reduce emissions at source have been implemented.

A range of approaches to carbon offsets is apparent in different ESG standards. Some standards are silent on the concept of offsets, others focus on transparency in the reporting of offset design, implementation and credibility, and some exclude offsets from calculations of absolute emissions or emissions intensity.

Rather than stay silent on the use of offsets, IRMA is proposing to add criterion 4.5.5 to clearly articulate expectations related to the use of offsets when developed at the site. See Consultation Question 4.5-9, below, regarding offsets purchased in the form of carbon credits (and similar mechanisms) from third party providers.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.5-8:  Do you agree with the proposed approach to offsets? If not, what would you change and why?

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.5-9

Background:  As well as being directly involved in the design and implementation of a carbon offset (or commissioning the same) at its site or at a remote location, an entity may choose instead to purchase carbon credits to offset its emissions. Credits are certificates representing quantities of greenhouse gas emissions that have been kept out of the air or removed from it by a third party.

Different international bodies and agencies assign a range of strengths and weaknesses to the use of carbon credits and the extent to which these can effectively limit greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance convened by the UNEP’s Financial Initiative considers carbon credits to be complementary to decarbonization efforts and a means of compensating for unabated emissions, but that “asset owners’ immediate efforts must foster the rapid and deep cutting of GHG emissions as a priority.”[1]

IRMA has not yet taken a decision on including requirements related to the use of carbon credits and is seeking guidance from stakeholders on whether and how such credits should be addressed in the revised Mining Standard, if there are appropriate limits to their application (for example, perhaps they are suitable for meeting Scope 3 targets but not Scope 1 and 2), and how credits can be verified to ensure a measurable benefit arises from their use.

Question:  Should IRMA include a requirement addressing the use of carbon credits and if yes, what limits (if any) should be put in place, and what expectations are reasonable with respect to establishing the credibility of the credit issuer?  

[1] UNEP. The Net in Net Zero: The role of negative emissions in achieving climate alignment for asset owners. p. 6. https://www.unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/AOA_Negative-Emissions.pdf

If a carbon offset is used to help the site progress towards or meet its emissions reductions targets, the site demonstrates that the mitigation hierarchy has been followed to avoid or minimize greenhouse gas emissions (prioritizing reduction at source) and thereby minimize the carbon offset required.
The calculation of required offsets:
  1. Follows a credible methodology; and
  2. Does not include carbon captured from site revegetation unless:
    1. Carbon emissions arising from land use changes during site construction and operation are included in the calculation of the carbon offset required; or
    2. The carbon stock of rehabilitated land per unit area exceeds that of the original pre-mining (baseline) land (in which case the excess carbon stock relative to the baseline can be included).

NOTE FOR 4.5.5.2:  Rehabilitation (revegetation) of disturbed areas is good practice and can be accomplished as an ongoing process and/or at closure of the facility. However, the carbon capture associated with such revegetation can only be used to reduce the size of the carbon offset required if the carbon emissions associated with the original (construction related) and ongoing (operational) site disturbance have already been accounted for. Otherwise, the situation arises where emissions from site disturbance (for example, released during soil removal and stripping of vegetation) are not quantified (in other words, assigned a zero value), while revegetation appears to create a net benefit (when in fact it may only be partially balancing the original unquantified disturbance-related carbon emissions).

Similarly, if the habitat on the rehabilitated land contains more carbon than the original habitat, the increment can be included (representing the net gain from baseline to rehabilitated conditions). Revegetation will also only be admissible if its long-term durability has been demonstrated (see 4.5.4.3) as required for other offset designs.

For a carbon offset project undertaken or commissioned by the entity, the offset design, implementation, and monitoring are:
  1. Developed by competent professionals using credible methods;
  2. Developed in consultation with potentially affected communities and Indigenous Peoples, as relevant;
  3. Validated by a credible third-party expert;
  4. Based on an existing nature-based or technical approach that has been proven at an appropriate scale relevant to the offset required;
  5. Implemented with the free, prior and informed consent of affected Indigenous Peoples and the agreement of affected communities, as relevant; and
  6. Able to deliver long-term (>100 years) carbon capture.

NOTE FOR 4.5.5.3:  This is NEW. The requirements are based on good practice and analysis of the potential weaknesses of carbon offset projects (that undermine their capacity to deliver real and sustained carbon capture). We have drawn from, for example, guidance developed by the Carbon Offset Research and Education initiative of the Stockholm Environment Institute and Greenhouse Gas Management Institute,[1] principles developed by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market,[2] analysis by the UN’s High-Level Expert Group on the net zero emissions commitments of non-state entities,[3] and climate change adaptation data collated by the Nature-based Solutions Initiative.[4]

[1] Broekhoff, D. et al. 2019. Securing Climate Benefit: A Guide to Using Carbon Offsets. (Stockholm Environment Institute and GHG Management Institute). https://www.offsetguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Carbon-Offset-Guide_3122020.pdf

[2] The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. “The Core Carbon Principles.” https://icvcm.org/the-core-carbon-principles/

[3] UN’s High-Level Expert Group on the net zero emissions commitments of non-state entities. 2022. Integrity Matters: Net Zero Commitments by Businesses, Financial Institutions, Cities and Regions. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/high-level_expert_group_n7b.pdf

[4] Nature-based Solutions Initiative web site. Explore research projects by climate change adaptation at: https://www.naturebasedsolutionsinitiative.org/research/projects/

4.5.6: Reporting and Disclosure on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Consumption

The greenhouse gas and energy policy (4.5.1.1) and management plan (4.5.4.1) are publicly available.

NOTE FOR 4.5.6.1: REVISED. This was 4.5.1.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard.

We are proposing to add that the greenhouse gas and energy management plan also be made publicly available. Although not required for all management plans in the IRMA chapter, there are certain plans that are required to be public, and several need to be shared with stakeholders to give them an opportunity to provide feedback on the plans (e.g., reclamation and closure plans, adaptive management plan for water, resettlement action plans).

Development and implementation of environmental management plans – including GHG management plans – are a legal requirement for industrial operations in many jurisdictions. Disclosure of GHG management plans is rarely mandatory, but voluntary publication is becoming more common as companies seek to anticipate (and remain ahead of) future requirements. For example, mining companies in Australia are taking a proactive stance, publishing detailed GHG management plans.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.5-10:  Do you support the proposal that GHG management plans be made publicly available? If not, why not?
The methods used to measure energy use and calculate Scope 1, 2 and (if relevant) 3 emissions, and, if relevant, to calculate offsets, are publicly available.

NOTE FOR 4.5.6.2:  This is NEW. We are proposing disclosure of the methodology because there is no agreed best methodology for calculating emissions and energy use. Various other mining standards allow government-developed methodologies, while others point to internationally recognized methods like those in the GHG Protocol or ISO Standards, etc. At this point in time, rather than prescribe a particular method to be used by all IRMA participants, IRMA is asking for transparency in the methods being used so that others can evaluate for themselves the basis for the emissions and energy use calculations.

Either the actual calculations and data behind the annual energy consumption and Scope 1, 2 and, as relevant, Scope 3 emissions and offset values reported in 4.5.6.4, or evidence of third-party verification of the data and calculations are publicly available.

NOTE FOR 4.5.6.3:   This is NEW. We are proposing that in addition to the methods used, the actual calculations leading to the final annual emissions and energy use numbers are made public. Again, this enables stakeholders to review the work, so that they can have confidence in the values being publicly cited in 4.5.6.4. An acceptable alternative to publishing the actual calculations would be the verification of the data by a credible third-party noted in 4.5.6.3.  Evidence of third-party verification could be a statement with the name and credentials of the verifier and date of review, or a certificate or report, etc.

Regarding offsets, this is similar to Mining Association of Canada’s Climate Change Protocol, which requires that entities’ annual public reporting includes: “Where offsets are used to meet targets, a calculation of offsets as a percentage of total emissions generated at the facility . . .” [1]

[1] Mining Association of Canada. Toward Sustainable Mining Climate Change Protocol. p. 10. https://mining.ca/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/04/Climate-Change-Protocol-English.pdf

Data on energy use and Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions from the site are publicly reported on an annual basis. At minimum, this includes:
  1. The site’s total energy consumption;
  2. Disaggregated energy consumption data that details at a minimum delivered energy, energy from energy minerals consumed on-site, renewable energy purchased from external suppliers and renewable energy generated at the site;
  3. The site’s total energy intensity, and basis for the site’s calculation of energy intensity;
  4. The site’s Scope 1 GHG emissions as CO2e or as the seven greenhouse gases defined in the Kyoto Protocol (CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PCFs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3);
  5. The site’s Scope 2 GHG emissions as CO2e or as the seven greenhouse gases defined in the Kyoto Protocol (CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PCFs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3);
  6. The site’s GHG emissions intensity, and basis for the site’s calculation of GHG emissions intensity;
  7. The site’s estimate of Scope 3 emissions according to the greenhouse gases and relevant categories of emissions noted in 4.5.3.2.b (according to the timebound commitments noted for upstream and downstream Scope 3 emissions in 4.5.2.1.c and 4.5.2.1.d respectively).
  8. Quantified progress towards meeting targets for Scope 1, 2 and (if relevant) 3 emissions, energy reduction and the proportion of energy consumed at the site that comes from renewable sources;
  9. A description of the corrective actions required to address targets that are not on track and quantified progress toward full implementation of these actions; and
  10. The percentage of greenhouse gas emissions reductions (Scope 1, 2 and/or 3) that has been achieved through carbon offsetting (rather than source reduction).

NOTE FOR 4.5.6.4:  REVISED. The 2018 Mining Standard required disclosure of site or corporate-level greenhouse gas emissions (equivalent to sub-requirements d and e, above), progress toward greenhouse gas reduction targets (similar to h, above), and efforts taken to reduce emissions (similar to i, above).

Sub-requirements 4.5.6.4 (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), and (j) are NEW.

Many standards now require site or asset level public reporting of Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions and energy use data (integrated into sub-requirements 4.5.6.4 (a), (b), (c)), and some are beginning to refer to Scope 3 emissions (as per sub-requirement (g)).

Re: 4.5.6.4.h on reporting of progress towards targets, SBTi Net Zero criteria includes requirements that progress against targets be reported on an annual basis including emissions and removals related to Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3.[1]

And regarding offsets, 4.6.5.4.j is similar to an expectation in MAC TSM that requires public reporting of “Where offsets are used to meet targets, a calculation of offsets as a percentage of total emissions generated at the facility…”[2]

We are proposing an approach of increased data transparency, both so that stakeholders in the mineral supply chain can understand and make use of the data in their own reporting efforts, and to address ‘greenwashing’ concerns raised by multiple stakeholders around reporting of GHG emission targets and progress in achieving these. We do not believe that increasing transparency implies additional effort on the part of sites, as we are not requiring disclosure of information and data beyond what is necessary to calculate energy consumption and GHG emissions.

IRMA can add guidance that it expects full and transparent disclosure of energy, greenhouse gas and offset related methods and data except where redaction and/or aggregation of data are justified by reason of commercial sensitivity, competitive advantage, protection of intellectual property or related constraints.

[1] SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard Criteria. Version 1.1. 2023. p. 12. https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/Net-Zero-Standard-Criteria.pdf

[2] Mining Association of Canada. Toward Sustainable Mining Climate Change Protocol. p. 10. https://mining.ca/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/04/Climate-Change-Protocol-English.pdf

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.5-11: Do you support the proposed approach for greater transparency in greenhouse gas and energy data? If not, what would you change and why?
Carbon offset design, implementation, and monitoring activities, including third-party-verified carbon capture data, are publicly available.

NOTE FOR 4.5.6.5:  NEW.  We are proposing this because others are also beginning to expect greater transparency on carbon offsets. For example, the European Parliament and Council are currently considering adoption of the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) Regulation Proposal,[1] which contains rules to monitor, report and verify the authenticity of carbon removals taking place inside the European Union/European Economic Area and appears likely to require disclosure of information and data to demonstrate the credibility of offsets (and carbon credits). Similarly, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) confirmed that its proposed Climate-Related Disclosures[2] would require a company to disclose the number of carbon offsets necessary to achieve the company’s net zero goals, including certain factors required for users to understand the credibility and integrity of the offsets.

[1] European Parliament and Council. 2022. Proposal for a Regulation on an EU certification for carbon removals. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/document/fad4a049-ff98-476f-b626-b46c6afdded3_en

[2] International Sustainability Standards Board web site: “Climate-related Disclosures.” https://www.ifrs.org/projects/work-plan/climate-related-disclosures/

Chapter 4.6: Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Protected Areas

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:   The proposed changes in this chapter have been informed by experiences auditing the 2018 Mining Standard, as well as necessary changes to make this chapter applicable to all stages of mineral development (from exploration through to mineral processing and mine closure).

Proposed additions and changes:

  • There are numerous structural changes to this chapter. The previous criterion 4.6.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard, which included ‘General Stipulations’ related to use of competent professionals, stakeholder engagement, and access to information, has been deleted and the contents integrated into relevant requirements throughout the chapter.
  • Also, in criteria 4.6.1 ‘Scoping’ and 4 6.4 ‘Management Plans’ we have separated out the biodiversity, the ecosystem services requirements and the protected area requirements. Previously, the requirements contained all three elements. During audits it was difficult to know how to rate performance if an entity did well on one element (e.g., did a thorough scoping of biodiversity issues), but did not do an assessment of ecosystem services, etc. Also, a few more expectations are being proposed as scoping elements for biodiversity and ecosystem services, including taking into consideration the risks identified in other chapters (e.g., risks from waste management, risks to water, air, soils) that could, in turn, impact protected areas, biodiversity and ecosystem services.
  • We have added specific references to fungi as an aspect of biodiversity that needs to be considered (see 4.6.1.3).
  • We have combined some requirements related to protected areas management (see 4.6.5) and tried to increase consistency across requirements in that section regarding protected area management plans.
  • Other changes have been made to add consistency in expectations between chapters in this proposed update to the 2018 Mining Standard. For example, other chapters require that risk assessments be updated if there are changes in operations or the operating environment that may create new or increased impacts. This was a gap in Chapter 4.6 that we’re proposing to fill.

4.6.1: Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Protected Areas Scoping

NOTE FOR 4.6.1: REVISED. In the 2018 Mining Standard, criterion 4.6.1.was called General Stipulations. It contained three requirements relating to use of competent professionals, consultations with stakeholders and public availability of information produced by the entity on actions taken on biodiversity, ecosystem services and protected areas. We are proposing to delete that criterion and the three requirements within, and instead add the expectations into the relevant sections in the rest of the chapter, to make it clear what the expectations are for each step in the process – when to engage stakeholders, whether the information at that stage needs to be publicly available, etc.

The new 4.6.1 was previously 4.6.2 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Previously it was called ‘Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Protected Areas Screening’. We are changing the term screening to scoping to be more consistent with the other IRMA chapters.

We are proposing the following definition of scoping, however, if this term is confusing, we are open to reverting to screening, or adopting another term altogether –

Scoping: The interactive process of determining potential issues and impacts and producing information necessary to inform decision-making regarding whether additional evaluation and actions are necessary.

Also, there were two screening requirements in which biodiversity, ecosystem services and protected areas were all included. We are proposing to create three separate requirements so that the scoping of protected areas (4.6.2.1), the scoping of biodiversity (4.6.2.2) and the scoping of ecosystem services (4.6.2.3) are all assessed on their own merits, so that the strengths and gaps with each are more clearly reflected.

Finally, In the 2018 Mining Standard, the collection of baseline data was mentioned in the same requirement as impact assessment. We are proposing that it be included with scoping, instead, because ideally, the collection of baseline data starts early in the project development phase and feeds into the scoping of risks/impacts. The scoping process may also identify additional baseline data to be collected to inform impact assessment, and so combining the two helps to reflect that this may be an iterative process.[1]

[1] Gullison. T, Hardner, J., Anstee, S. and Meyer, M. 2015. Good Practices for the Collection of Biodiversity Baseline Data. P. 13. https://publications.iadb.org/en/good-practices-collection-biodiversity-baseline-data

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.6-1

Background:  According to the United Nations Environment Program, “Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) are a globally significant type of managed area governed by local or indigenous communities for conservation and cultural purposes.”[1]Since 2008, ICCAs have been recognized by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)as key governance actors in nature conservation.[2]

ICCAs are defined by three characteristics:

1) There is a close and deep connection between a territory or area and an indigenous people or local community. This relationship is generally embedded in history, social and cultural identity, spirituality and/or people’s reliance on the territory for their material and non-material wellbeing.

2) The custodian people or community makes and enforces decisions and rules (e.g., access and use) about the territory, area or species’ habitat through a functioning governance institution.

3) The governance decisions and management efforts of the concerned people or community contribute to the conservation of nature (ecosystems, habitats, species, natural resources), as well as to community wellbeing.

ICCAs may include lands, inland waters, coast and marine territories that overlap with protected areas, but also may encompass territories that are not recognized as “protected” by either national governments or IUCN, as the conservation of nature may not always be the primary objective of an ICCA.[3]

Question:  Should mining entities be required to identify ICCAs as part of their scoping? If so, and if they are identified in the area of influence, would the next steps be: consultation with ICCA custodians to determine what values are being conserved and identify potential impacts on the ICCA, free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous Peoples for proposed activities that would affect their rights or interests, collaboration with affected local stakeholders to determine mitigation strategies as per the mitigation hierarchy, implementation, monitoring and reporting on effectiveness of mitigation (in other words, steps outlined in this chapter)?

[1] United Nations Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). 2017. A handbook for the Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas Registry p. 26. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8448/-A%20handbook%20for%20the%20indigenous%20and%20community%20conserved%20areas%20registry-2010ICCA_Handbook.pdf?sequence=3&amp%3BisAllowed=

[2] IUCN web site: “ICCAs for biological and cultural diversity.” https://www.iucn.org/news/protected-areas/201905/iccas-biological-and-cultural-diversity

[3] Borrini-Feyerabend, G. et al. 2014. A Primer on Governance for Protected and Conserved Areas. (IUCN). See pages 10-15.  https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2014-033.pdf

The entity identifies and maps the proposed or actual area of influence of the project/operation, including areas that may be or are affected by associated activities.

NOTE FOR 4.6.1.1:  NEW. This has been added so that the boundaries of proposed (or actual) development are clear, and the potential area for baseline study is defined.

The entity implements a protected areas scoping process (or equivalent) that:
  1. Is carried out and documented by competent professionals;
  2. Includes consultations with stakeholders, including, where relevant, affected communities and external experts; and
  3. Includes the identification of the boundaries of the following areas that are located in the vicinity of the project/operation:
    1. Protected areas with international recognition, including: World Heritage Sites, and areas on a state party’s official Tentative List for World Heritage Site Inscription; IUCN protected area management categories I-VI; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) biosphere reserves; and Ramsar sites;
    2. Regional, national, sub-national and local legally protected areas;
  4. Includes a description of the values (e.g., ecological, biological, geological, geomorphological, cultural, spiritual, historical, scenic, etc.) being protected in the identified protected areas;
  5. Takes into consideration how risks related to waste management (Chapter 4.1), water management (Chapter 4.2), physical stability of facilities (proposed Chapter 4.X), air quality management (Chapter 4.3) and soil management (proposed Chapter 4.XX) may result in impacts on the values in protect areas; and
  6. Results in the identification of whether or not any protected areas, or the values for which the area was designated:
    1. May be affected by a proposed project; and/or
    2. Have been affected by past mining-related activities (including exploration); and/or
    3. Are being affected by current operations.

NOTE FOR 4.6.1.2:  REVISED. This proposed requirement combines elements from the following requirements from the 2018 Mining Standard: 4.6.1.1 (competent professionals), 4.6.1.2 (Stakeholder engagement), 4.6.2.1 (general requirement for screening), and 4.6.2.2 (identification of boundaries of legally protected areas and the values being protected). See the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above.

There is NEW content in 4.6.1.2.b. We are proposing that this requirement includes collection of information that will be necessary to provide evidence later in the chapter. In particular, there are several requirements that mention particular types of protected areas. If no such areas are identified during scoping, then that can be used as evidence to mark those later requirements as “not relevant”.

4.6.1.2.e is NEW. It has been added so that it is clear that information related to waste, water, air and soil management be incorporated into the scoping of potential impacts on protected areas. These are all elements that if not managed well can impact the values in protected areas, and therefore, the risks identified in those chapters must feed into this scoping process.

The entity establishes a biodiversity baseline for the project’s/operation’s area of influence, and implements a scoping process (or equivalent) that:
  1. Is carried out and documented by competent professionals;
  2. Includes consultations with stakeholders, including, where relevant, affected communities and external experts;
  3. Includes the identification of:
    1. Boundaries of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) and the important biodiversity values and ecological processes and habitats supporting those values; and
    2. Areas of modified habitat, natural habitat, and critical habitat within the mine’s proposed or actual area of influence;
  4. Identifies and describes the natural habitats and species of flora, fauna, and fungi within the baseline study area, including quantitative measures of abundance, distribution and other measures of viability and/or function for each species (terrestrial and aquatic);
  5. Identifies the important biodiversity values present in the areas of modified habitat, natural habitat, and critical habitat, and provides information on the importance of the habitats and species relative to their global distribution;
  6. Takes into consideration how risks related to waste management (Chapter 4.1), water management (Chapter 4.2), the physical stability of facilities (proposed Chapter 4.X), air quality management (Chapter 4.3) and soil management (proposed Chapter 4.XX) may result in impacts on biodiversity;
  7. Results in the identification of whether or not there are any areas of potentially important global, national or local biodiversity that:
    1. May be affected by a proposed project; and/or
    2. Have been affected by past mining-related activities (including exploration); and/or
    3. Are being affected by current operations.

NOTE FOR 4.6.1.3:  REVISED. This proposed requirement combines elements from the following requirements from the 2018 Mining Standard: 4.6.1.1 (competent professionals), 4.6.1.2 (Stakeholder engagement), 4.6.2.1 (screening of biodiversity), and 4.6.2.2 (identification KBAs, modified habitat, natural habitat and critical habitat, and biodiversity values contained therein). See the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above.

4.6.1.3.d and e add NEW content. This content adds more detail on the baseline data that should be collected. These sub-requirements are aligned with good practice guidance prepared for the Multilateral Financing Institutions Biodiversity Working Group and Cross Sector Biodiversity Initiative, which included both finance institutions and extractive industries representatives.[1]

We have specified that species of flora, fauna and fungi be identified. Increasingly, fungi are being recognized for their critical role in maintaining life on earth. According to IUCN: “There would be no life on Earth without fungi: the yeasts, molds and mushrooms that are critical to decomposition and forest regeneration, mammalian digestion, carbon sequestration, the global nutrient cycle, antibiotic medication, and the bread, beer and chocolate we consume. Trees would not be able to live on land without fungi.”[2]

The extent of the role that fungi plays as a global carbon sink, and potential to increase their storage capacity, is gaining increased attention. A recent peer reviewed study estimates that mycorrhizal fungi currently store more than 13 gigatons of carbon, which is more than a third of annual global fossil fuel emissions.[3]

4.6.1.3.f is NEW. It has been added so that it is clear that information related to waste, water, air and soil management be incorporated into the scoping of potential impacts on biodiversity. These are all elements that if not managed well can impact ecosystem health and biodiversity, and therefore, the risks identified in those chapters must feed into this scoping process.

[1] Gullison. T, Hardner, J., Anstee, S. and Meyer, M. 2015. Good Practices for the Collection of Biodiversity Baseline Data. p. 47. https://publications.iadb.org/en/good-practices-collection-biodiversity-baseline-data

[2] International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 3 August 2021. “Re:wild and IUCN SSC become first global organizations to call for the recognition of fungi as one of the three kingdoms of life critical to protecting and restoring Earth.” https://www.iucn.org/news/species-survival-commission/202108/rewild-and-iucn-ssc-become-first-global-organizations-call-recognition-fungi-one-three-kingdoms-life-critical-protecting-and-restoring-earth

[3] University of Sheffield. 5 June 2023. “Fungi stores a third of carbon from fossil fuel emissions and could be essential to reaching net zero, new study reveals.” News Release. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/991288

The entity establishes an ecosystem services baseline for the project’s/operation’s area of influence, and implements a scoping process (or equivalent) that:
  1. Is carried out and documented by competent professionals;
  2. Includes consultations with stakeholders, including, where relevant, affected communities and external experts;
  3. Includes the identification of ecosystems or processes within the proposed or actual area of influence that may provide or do provide provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting ecosystem services;
  4. Identifies the beneficiaries of the ecosystem services;
  5. Takes into consideration how risks related to waste management (Chapter 4.1), water management (Chapter 4.2), the physical stability of facilities (proposed Chapter 4.X), air quality management (Chapter 4.3) and soil management (proposed Chapter 4.XX) may result in impacts on ecosystem services;
  6. Results in the identification of whether or not any ecosystem services:
    1. May be affected by a proposed project; and/or
    2. Have been affected by past mining-related activities (including exploration); and/or
    3. Are being affected by current operations.

    NOTE FOR 4.6.1.4:  This proposed requirement combines elements from the following requirements from the 2018 Mining Standard: 4.6.1.1 (competent professionals), 4.6.1.2 (Stakeholder engagement), 4.6.2.1 (screening of ecosystem services), and 4.6.2.2 (identification of ecosystem services). See the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above.

    4.6.1.4.d adds NEW content based on good practices.[1] Identification of beneficiaries will also aid in the identification of rights holders and stakeholders who may be affected by the project/operation.

    4.6.1.4.e is NEW. It has been added so that it is clear that information related to waste, water, air and soil management be incorporated into the scoping of potential impacts on ecosystem services. These are all elements that if not managed well can impact ecosystem health and the services that these ecosystems provide to affected communities, and therefore, the risks identified in those chapters must feed into this scoping process.

    [1] Gullison. T, Hardner, J., Anstee, S. and Meyer, M. 2015. Good Practices for the Collection of Biodiversity Baseline Data. p. 9. https://publications.iadb.org/en/good-practices-collection-biodiversity-baseline-data

4.6.2: Risk/Impact Assessment

NOTE FOR 4.6.2:  REVISED. This was 4.6.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. The title has changed to risk/impact assessment, as both risks and impacts should be assessed.

When scoping identifies protected areas, or potentially important global, national, or local biodiversity or ecosystems services that have been or may be affected by a project/operation, an impact (and/or risk) assessment:
  1. Is carried out and documented by competent professionals;
  2. Includes consultations with stakeholders, including, where relevant, affected communities and external experts;
  3. Determines the potentially significant direct impacts, indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts of past and proposed mining-related activities, facilities, associated facilities, and infrastructure, on, as relevant:
    1. Biodiversity;
    2. Ecosystem services; and
    3. The conservation values of protected areas.
  4. Evaluates options to mitigate potentially significant impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services and the conservation values in protected areas in a manner that aligns with the mitigation hierarchy as follows:
    1. Prioritizing the avoidance of impacts on important biodiversity values, priority ecosystem services, and conservation values in protected areas;
    2. Minimizing impacts to the extent possible;
    3. Restoring biodiversity, ecosystem services and the ecological processes and habitats that support them; and
    4. As a last resort, offsetting the residual impacts.
  5. Identifies and evaluates opportunities for partnerships and additional conservation actions to enhance the long-term sustainable management of protected areas and/or biodiversity and ecosystem services.

NOTE FOR 4.6.2.1:  REVISED. This was 4.6.3.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. This proposed requirement combines elements from the following requirements from the 2018 Mining Standard: 4.6.1.1 (competent professionals), 4.6.1.2 (stakeholder engagement), 4.6.3.1 (impact assessment).

4.5.2.1.c (was 4.6.3.1.b) adds impacts related to facilities and infrastructure in addition to impacts from mining-related activities, because the footprint of facilities and infrastructure can also impact biodiversity, ecosystem services and protected areas.

In 4.5.2.1.d (was 4.6.3.1.c), we moved the information on the mitigation hierarchy from requirement 4.6.4.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. This is the first place where we mention mitigation hierarchy, and so it makes sense to elaborate on it here.

4.6.2.1.e was 4.6.3.1.d, but is otherwise unchanged.

Assessments are updated throughout the project/operation’s life cycle when there are proposed changes to mining-related activities or changes in the operational, environmental, or social context that may create new risks to biodiversity, ecosystem services or protected areas or change the nature or degree of an existing impact.

NOTE FOR 4.6.2.2: NEW. This has been added to reflect that impact assessments are not a one-time thing. For example, issues such as climate change may affect the types of ecosystem services affected by the operation, or increased hunting pressures due to in-migration may warrant a re-evaluation of measures to best mitigation the impacts to important species, etc.

This requirement is aligned with other IRMA chapters, which require an updating of risk assessments when there are changes in the operation or operational context.

4.6.3: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Mitigation and Management

NOTE FOR 4.6.3: REVISED. This was 4.6.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. The title has changed slightly (removed the word impact, as some of the mitigation may be related to risks).

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.6-2

Background:  Currently, this chapter focuses on the conservation and management of the most important or critical areas of biodiversity (in some cases these have been designated as protected areas or Key Biodiversity Areas, in other cases they will not have been officially designated but still contain important biodiversity values) and priority ecosystem services. This is based on an assumption is that halting biodiversity loss (on the global, regional or local scale), and preserving ecosystem services that are important to affected communities deserve the priority attention.

Important Biodiversity Values are defined as:
The particular biodiversity elements or features, such as individual species, assemblages of species, particular ecological processes, etc., that trigger an area’s designation as having significant biodiversity value (e.g., designation as critical habitat, a Key Biodiversity Area, a Protected Area), as well as the ecological context needed to support the maintenance of the trigger elements.

Critical Habitat is defined as:
Areas with high biodiversity value, including but not necessarily limited to: (i) habitat of significant importance to critically endangered, endangered species; (ii) habitat of significant importance to endemic and/or restricted-range species; (iii) habitat supporting globally significant concentrations of migratory and/or congregatory species; (iv) highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems; and/or (v) areas associated with key evolutionary processes. Other recognized high biodiversity values might also support a critical habitat designation, based on case-by-case evaluation.

Priority Ecosystem Services are defined as:  “Ecosystem services are considered priority under the following circumstances: (i) Project operations are likely to result in a significant impact on the ecosystem service; the impact will result in a direct adverse impact on affected communities’ livelihood, health, safety and/or cultural heritage; and the project has direct management control or significant influence over the service; or (ii) The project directly depends on the service for its primary operations; and the project has direct management control or significant influence over the service.

Question:  Should IRMA also include specific requirements to manage and minimize impacts on plant or animal populations or species even if those plants/animals do not provide a priority ecosystem service or if impacts on them will not lead to an overall loss of biodiversity? Or should IRMA keep this chapter focused on the most critical/materials impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services?

Mitigation measures to address potential impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services:
  1. Are designed and implemented by competent professionals;
  2. Are developed in consultation with affected stakeholders;
  3. Prioritize avoidance of impacts on important biodiversity values and priority ecosystem services, and, where that is not possible, prioritize minimization of impacts before restoring biodiversity and ecosystem services;
  4. Offsetting is used as a last resort, and, if required, is aligned with international best practice; and
  5. Include documentation of the entity’s rationale when measures do not conform to the mitigation hierarchy.

NOTE FOR 4.6.3.1:  REVISED. This combines three requirements from the 2018 Mining Standard:  4.6.1.1 (mitigation developed by competent professionals), 4.6.2.1 (stakeholder engagement in development of mitigation) and 4.6.4.1.b which referred to prioritizing the avoidance of impacts on important biodiversity and ecosystem services. In the 2018 Mining Standard requirement 4.6.4.1 was a critical requirement, so it is also designated as critical in this version (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

There is one NEW sub-requirement being proposed. In 4.6.3.1.d, we are proposing also that entities be required provide a rationale for why they are implementing measures that are lower on the mitigation hierarchy. Without this documentation, it is difficult to audit whether or not due consideration was given to options such as avoidance, or minimization of impacts, which area higher up the hierarchy.

Mitigation measures are designed and implemented:
  1. To deliver at least no net loss, and preferably a net gain, in important biodiversity values, and priority ecosystem services;
  2. On an appropriate geographic scale; and
  3. To be self-sustaining after closure.

NOTE FOR 4.6.3.2:  This was 4.6.4.1.c in the 2018 Mining Standard.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.6-3: 

Background: Previously, this requirement applied to new mines, but we have removed the distinction between new and existing mines in this revised standard. As a result, we are proposing that in all cases (for proposed projects or existing operations) that entities be required to demonstrate that their management of biodiversity and ecosystem services will lead to no net loss and preferably a net gain, at least in the important biodiversity values, and in priority ecosystem services.

Question:  Do you agree that all projects and operations should be required to demonstrate no net loss and preferably a net gain in important biodiversity values, and in priority ecosystem services?

A biodiversity management plan (or equivalent) is developed and implemented. The management plan:
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Outlines specific objectives (e.g., no net loss/net gain, no additional loss) with measurable conservation outcomes, timelines, locations, and activities that will be implemented to mitigate impacts on biodiversity (see 4.6.3.1);
  3. Identifies key indicators, and ensures that there is an adequate baseline for the indicators to enable measurement of the effectiveness of mitigation activities over time;
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 4.6.3.3:  REVISED. This was 4.6.4.4 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Added 4.6.3.3.c and d, as we are trying to increase consistency in expectations for all management plans across the IRMA Standard.

An ecosystem services management plan (or equivalent) is developed and implemented. The management plan:
  1. Is developed by competent professionals;
  2. Outlines specific objectives (e.g., no net loss/net gain, no additional loss) with measurable conservation outcomes, timelines, locations, and activities that will be implemented mitigate impacts on ecosystem services (see 4.6.3.1);
  3. Identifies key indicators, and ensures that there is an adequate baseline for the indicators to enable measurement of the effectiveness of mitigation activities over time;
  4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
  5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
  6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.

NOTE FOR 4.6.3.4: NEW. We have created a requirement for an ecosystem services management plan to ensure that due attention is paid and weight given to the management of ecosystem services. In reality, these elements are likely to be integrated into a single management plan with biodiversity, but the entity’s performance on management of ecosystem services will be scored separately.

Biodiversity and ecosystem services management plans are reviewed and updated as necessary, for example, if new information on increased or additional risks to biodiversity or ecosystem services becomes available during the mineral development life cycle (see 4.6.2.2), or monitoring indicates that mitigation measures are not being effective (see 4.6.5.3).

NOTE FOR 4.6.3.5: REVISED. This was 4.6.4.5 in the 2018 Mining Standard. It has been revised slightly to add that updates to risk/impact assessments and monitoring results also feed into the review and update of management plans.

4.6.4: Protected Areas Mitigation and Management

Mining-related activities do not occur in legally protected areas unless the entity:
  1. Demonstrates that the proposed activities are legally permitted in those areas;
  2. Consults with protected area sponsors, managers, and relevant stakeholders on the proposed activities;
  3. Develops and implements a protected area management plan that:
    1. Outlines how mining-related activities will be carried out in a manner consistent with the protected area management plans developed by relevant management authorities for such areas;
    2. If relevant (i.e., if there is the potential that they project will impact important conservation values of the protected area), the plan includes activities/actions to mitigate those impacts, identifies key indicators, and ensures that there is an adequate baseline for the indicators to enable measurement of the effectiveness of mitigation activities over time;
    3. Includes additional conservation actions or programs to promote and enhance the conservation aims and/or effective management of the area;
    4. Assigns implementation of actions, or oversight of implementation, to responsible staff;
    5. Includes an implementation schedule; and
    6. Includes estimates of human resources and budget required and a financing plan to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.
  4. Meets other applicable requirements in this this chapter.

NOTE FOR 4.6.4.1:  REVISED. This was 4.6.5.1 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Previously, this requirement said it applied to new exploration or new mines, but we have removed that distinction in this revised standard. Instead, we refer to mining-related activities generally, which in our proposed definition includes exploration, mining and mineral processing activities.

The content in 4.6.4.1.c is NEW except for c.iii. The requirement for a management plan was added because there would need to be a plan in place to demonstrate how impacts will be mitigated and additional conservation actions implemented. The elements in the management plan are consistent with other management plans in the IRMA Standard.

Mining-related activities:
  1. Do not take place in or adversely affect the following protected areas:
    1. World Heritage Sites;
    2. Areas on a state party’s official Tentative List for World Heritage Site Inscription;
    3. Areas classified as IUCN protected area management categories I-III; and
    4. Core areas of UNESCO biosphere reserves.
  2. Unless it can be demonstrated that:
    1. The operation was in place prior to the area’s official designation;
    2. The entity collaborates with protected area sponsors, managers, and relevant stakeholders to develop acceptable mitigation actions to protect, and if necessary, restore the integrity of the special values for which the area was designated or recognized;
    3. The entity develops and implements a protected area management plan that aligns with 4.6.4.1.c and integrates mitigation measures agreed in 4.6.4.2.b.ii; and
    4. The entity collaborates with relevant management authorities to integrate the operation’s management strategies into the protected area’s management plan.

NOTE FOR 4.6.4.2:  REVISED. This requirement combines two requirements from the 2018 Mining Standard (4.6.5.3 and 4.6.5.4) because 4.6.5.4 was an exception to 4.6.5.3, and it makes sense to combine them and only audit a single requirement. In the 2018 Mining Standard requirement these were critical requirements, so 4.6.4.2 in this version is also designated as critical (for more on critical requirements see the note that accompanies ‘Critical Requirements In This Chapter,’ above).

Previously, those requirements referred to new and existing mines, but we have removed that distinction in this revised standard. Instead, we refer to mining-related activities generally, which in our proposed definition includes exploration, mining and mineral processing activities. 4.6.4.2, which previously referred to existing mines now refers to operations, which maintains the original intent.

In 4.6.4.2.b, we are proposing to REVISE the previous requirement 4.6.5.4.b, which referred to a management plan, and replace it with sub-requirements 4.6.4.2.b.ii and 4.6.4.2.b.iii. The notable changes being proposed are that the entity’s management plan align with 4.6.4.1 c (so there are more consistent expectations for management plans for all types of protected areas ), and rather than saying the management plans “ensure that activities during the remaining mine life cycle will not permanently and materially damage the integrity of the special values for which the area was designated or recognized,” which is difficult to audit, we are proposing to require instead that entities collaborate with relevant stakeholders to develop the mitigation measures to protect or restore the integrity of the special values for which the area was designated or recognized.

Mining-related activities:
  1. Do not take place in or adversely affect the following protected areas:
    1. IUCN protected areas designated as protected area management category IV;
    2. Ramsar sites that are not in areas classified as IUCN protected area management categories I-III; and
    3. Buffer zones of UNESCO biosphere reserves.
  2. Unless it can be demonstrated that:
    1. Mining-related activities are legally permitted in those areas;
    2. An operation was in place prior to the area’s official designation;
    3. For proposed mining-related activities, an assessment, carried out or peer-reviewed by a reputable conservation organization and/or academic institution, concludes that mining-related activities will not damage the integrity of the special values for which the area was designated or recognized;
    4. The entity collaborates with protected area sponsors, managers, and relevant stakeholders to develop acceptable mitigation actions to protect the integrity of the special values for which the area was designated or recognized;
    5. The entity develops and implements a protected area management plan that aligns with 4.6.4.1.c and integrates mitigation measures agreed in 4.6.4.3.b.iii; and
    6. The entity collaborates with relevant management authorities to integrate the operation’s management strategies into the protected area’s management plan.

NOTE FOR 4.6.4.3:  REVISED. This requirement has been restructured.

Previously, this requirement referred to new mining activities. We have removed the distinction between new and existing mines in this revised standard.

We are proposing instead that the majority of these requirements apply to any mining-related activities, regardless of whether they are in the proposal stage or are already in place. The exceptions are that: 1) proposed mining activities need to carry out the study in 4.6.4.3.b (which was required in the 2018 Standard); and 2) if an operation was in place before the area received its designation, then like 4.6.4.2, then mitigation is required to be developed in collaboration with relevant stakeholders to protect, or if necessary, restore the integrity of the special values for which the areas was designated.

4.6.5: Monitoring

A program is in place to monitor the implementation of its protected areas and/or biodiversity and ecosystem services management plan(s) throughout the project/operation life cycle. Monitoring of key indicators occurs with sufficient frequency to enable evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and progress toward the objectives of at least no net loss or net gain in biodiversity and ecosystem services over time.

NOTE FOR 4.6.5.1:  This combines 4.6.6.1 and 4.6.6.2 from the 2018 Mining Standard.

Monitoring is carried out by credible professionals who are independent third parties, or by in-house credible professionals. If in-house staff perform the work, then the findings of monitoring program are reviewed by an independent third party.

NOTE FOR 4.6.5.2:  REVISED. This requirement combines two requirements from the 2018 Mining Standard: 4.6.1.1 (monitoring is carried out by competent professionals), and 4.6.6.4 (findings of the monitoring program are subject to independent review).

We are proposing that this requirement be changed to also allow that the monitoring be carried out by independent third parties, and if that is done, then independent review would not be necessary.

If monitoring reveals that the entity’s protected areas and/or biodiversity and ecosystem services management objectives are not being achieved as expected or mitigation strategies are not being effective, timely and effective corrective actions are developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders. and these changes are implemented and integrated into the relevant management plans.

NOTE FOR 4.6.5.3:  REVISED. Added that if corrective actions are necessary, that they be integrated into the management plan.

4.6.6: Reporting and Disclosure

NOTE FOR 4.6.6:  NEW. This criterion has been added to provide more consistency with the structure of other IRMA Standards, but the content is not new.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.6-4

Background:  Currently, there are no reporting requirements in this chapter. In other chapters there are expectations that entities annually report on water management, waste management, human rights due diligence, etc. Sometimes the reporting can be in the form of a published report, and in other cases it is expected that there be a meeting with stakeholders where information on management actions or progress toward various targets be verbally shared.

There is no similar requirement in this chapter.

Question:  Do you think that a reporting requirement should be added to this chapter? If so, what would be some of the information that should be shared on an annual basis? And would a written report suffice, or should entities be engaging directly with stakeholders?

Biodiversity, ecosystem services and protected areas impact assessments, management plans and monitoring data are:
  1. Publicly available; or
  2. A publicly available access to information (or equivalent) policy that commits the entity to providing stakeholders with this information upon request is in place and shared with stakeholders.

NOTE FOR 4.6.6.1:  REVISED. This was 4.6.1.3 in the 2018 Mining Standard. Previously, the requirement included both elements – i.e., that either the information was publicly available, or it would be made available to stakeholders upon request.

There were numerous places in the IRMA Standard that mentioned provision of information to stakeholders “upon request”.  Those requirements have proven very difficult to audit as written, because if the auditee tells auditors that there were no requests for information then the auditor has two choices – mark it as fully meets (which isn’t accurate, since there is no evidence, other than perhaps a verbal guarantee, that if asked the entity would provide the information) or mark it as not relevant (which is more accurate, since there were not requests, but is problematic because if stakeholders are not aware that they can request information, then there may never be any requests).

In Chapter 1.2, we are proposing that instead of the approach in the 2018 Mining Standard, which was essentially a blanket statement saying “information shall be made available upon request,” that entities have in place a publicly available “access to information” or similar policy that commits the entity to providing information to stakeholders if requests are made, and that this policy be communicated to stakeholders (see Note for requirement 1.2.4.3).

Chapter 4.XX: Land and Soil Management

Name(Required)
Are you commenting on behalf of this organization?(Required)
Keep your comment confidential

NOTES ON THIS CHAPTER:  This is a new chapter that was proposed in the 2021 draft IRMA Mineral Processing Standard.[1] There are structural changes being proposed compared to the version of the chapter in that draft standard, and minor changes to content.

In IRMA’s 2018 Mining Standard, land and soil management issues are dealt with directly and indirectly in several chapters (such as 2.1 – ‘Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and Management,’ Chapter 2.6 – ‘Planning and Financing Reclamation and Closure,’ Chapter 4.1 – ‘Waste and Material Management,’ and Chapter 4.3 – ‘Air Quality’).

This reflects the relatively limited scope for impacts on land and soil beyond the immediate footprint of a mine/processing facility. However, some mining-related activities, in particular mineral processing facilities, have air emissions that can have a significant and sustained impact in downwind areas. Also, unplanned releases of chemicals, or solid or liquid waste products (e.g., tailings) from exploration or mining operations may be dispersed downgradient and affect soils and land use capabilities.

Increasingly, attention is being paid to the potential contributions of mining to regional or global soil loss. For example, in Mongolia, the combined annual cost of land degradation is estimated at around 2.1 billion USD or 43% of the country’s GDP. Soil degradation in Mongolia is known to be driven by the combined effects of climate change and anthropogenic activities including mining, (over-)grazing, agriculture, urbanization and offroad transportation, and studies are now being carried out to better understand the extent of mining-related soil losses and related air contaminant transport in that country, with the expectation that this will lead to better strategies for prevention of soil loss and remediation of land and soil quality.[2]

Disturbed or converted lands within a mine/processing facility footprint (e.g., open pits, waste disposal areas, land covered by facilities) are expected to be reclaimed, and soil pollution remediated and, to the extent possible this should happen during operations to help prevent additional soil loss and restore ecosystems.

Although not covered extensively in any other mining and mineral processing or related standards, several standards at least make a cursory mention of soils or land. For example, the RMI ESG standard has a section on soil erosion management,[3] IFC requires entities to address potential adverse project impacts on existing ambient conditions (such as air, surface and groundwater, and soils),[4] and the Aluminum Stewardship Initiative requires that entities assess the potential for spills and leakages to contaminate soils.[5]

Chapter 4.XX has been partly modeled after IRMA’s Water Management chapter (4.2). It addresses protection of soil from mining-related contamination, minimization of soil loss (e.g., from erosion), and opportunities to minimize impacts and restore converted lands to create beneficial or productive land uses.

Other physical changes to land (e.g., subsidence, loss of land use capability due to catastrophic failure of waste or other facilities) are covered in the proposed Chapter 4.X – ‘Management of Physical Stability.’

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.XX-1:  Do you agree with the proposal to add a new chapter on ‘Land and Soil Management’? If not, why not?

[1] Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance. 2021. Standard for Responsible Mineral Processing. Draft version 1.0. https://responsiblemining.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IRMA-Mineral-Processing-Standard-DRAFT-14June2021.pdf

[2] Sodnomdarjaa, E. et al. 2023. “Assessment of soil loss using RUSLE around Mongolian mining sites: a case study on soil erosion at the Baganuur lignite and Erdenet copper–molybdenum mines” Environmental Earth Sciences. 82:230, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-023-10897-0

[3] Responsible Business Alliance/Responsible Minerals Initiative. 2021. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Standard for Mineral Supply Chains. Requirement VI-16. https://www.responsiblemineralsinitiative.org/media/docs/standards/RMI_RMAP%20ESG%20Standard%20for%20Mineral%20Supply%20Chains_June32021_FINAL.pdf

[4] International Finance Corporation. 2012. Performance Standard 3 – Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention. Requirement 11. Available at: https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2012/ifc-performance-standards

[5] Aluminum Stewardship Initiative. 2023. Performance Standard. V.3.1. Requirement 6.3. https://aluminium-stewardship.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ASI-Performance-Standard-V3.1-April-2023.pdf

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.XX-2 

Background: This chapter focuses primarily on two elements of soil and land management: 1) prevention/remediation of soils pollution, and 2) loss of soil (and land) due to erosion or conversion of potentially usable land into unusable land (e.g., via creation of open pits or covering surfaces with waste materials).

There are other aspects of soil quality that could be included, such as biological and physical soil properties; however, at this time we are not proposing that entities fully characterize, monitor, maintain or restore the biological and physical quality of soils. While maintaining soil properties may be of critical importance for agricultural systems, maintaining or restoring the exact soil properties that existed prior to mining (e.g., the same organic matter content, diversity of soil organisms, crumb structure, etc.) does not seem realistic for highly disturbed industrial sites.

Instead, in alignment with IRMA’s chapter on reclamation and closure, we are expecting that sites be maintained or restored to a stable landscape, which would mean stabilizing soils (to minimize future erosion or mass movement), that soil conditions allow for the re-establishment of vegetation and ecological processes that align with post-closure land use objectives determined by regulations and input from affected communities. To reach post-closure land use objectives, soils may need to be remediated or amendments added, but it is unlikely that the only way to achieve the objectives would be by maintaining the original biological and physical quality of soils.

Question:  Do you agree that soil does not need to be maintained or restored to original (pre-mining) biological and physical quality? If you do not agree, please explain.

If you believe the chapter should have additional best practice requirements, please feel free to make suggestions, and if possible, provide examples of where your best practice suggestions are being implemented at mining or mineral processing sites.

4.XX.1: Site Selection and Baseline Characterization

For proposed mineral processing projects:
  1. The avoidance of impacts on soils and lands is given due consideration in the selection of the project location, and the potential to locate the project on an existing brownfield site is evaluated; and
  2. If projects are developed on greenfield sites, a rationale is documented.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.1.1:  This requirement is akin to the Technology Selection requirement in Chapter 4.5 – ‘Greenhouse Gas, Energy Consumption.’ As the mitigation hierarchy suggests, avoidance of impacts should always be the top priority, and when it comes land and soil, this is best achieved by locating projects on already degraded or converted land, rather than land that is being used for beneficial purposes such as agriculture, livestock grazing or that provides non-use benefits such as habitat or corridors for wildlife, etc.

As mentioned in the background section, however, if brownfield sites are selected there could be soil pollution issues that remain from historical operations. If the choice is made to develop on a brownfield site where there is existing historical pollution, we are proposing that action must be taken to assess the extent of the impacts and make progress toward remediating the soils (see requirement 4.XX.4.1, below) to restore a site’s ability to be used for beneficial purposes.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.XX-3:  Is this a reasonable requirement and would many/most new mineral processing operations be able to demonstrate that brownfield sites were considered (or explain why they were not)?

Land and soil baseline (or background data ) in the project/operation’s area of influence:
  1. Is collected by competent professionals; and
  2. Includes measurement of:
    1. The chemical characteristics of soils;
    2. Existing areas of soil contamination and pollution that are unrelated to the project/operation, including contamination and pollution that pre-date construction of an existing operation;
    3. Land uses; and
    4. Land capability classification.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.1.2:  The structure of 4.XX.1.2 is similar to requirement 4.2.1.1 in Chapter 4.2 – ‘Water Management.’ As with other chapters, we have integrated the expectation that data be collected by competent professionals.

As in the water chapter, we have made an allowance for collecting background data at sites that did not collect baseline data prior to commencement of the operation. While not ideal, background soil chemical characteristics can be estimated based on sampling soils collected from an area outside of the mining-related operation’s influence (but preferably from nearby locations with similar climate, topography, and soil types to what is in the operation’s area of influence). If there are facilities with air emissions, the background soil samples should be collected from upwind areas.

Re: 4.XX.1.2.b.iv, the Land Capability Classification (LCC) is a global land evaluation ranking that groups soils based on their potential for agricultural and other uses. LCC can help determine if land is suitable for certain uses and whether there are risks for degradation.[1]

[1] Land Potential Knowledge System (LandPKS). https://landpotential.org/knowledge/what-is-land-capability-classification/

4.XX.2: Scoping of Risks to Land and Soil

NOTE FOR 4.XX.2:   This criterion, and the requirements within are generally aligned with the requirements in the Water chapter.

The entity identifies land users, land rights holders, and other stakeholders with an interest in land use or soil conservation (hereafter referred to collectively as “relevant stakeholders”) who may be affected by proposed mining or mineral processing activities or who have been affected by current or past mining-related activities.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.2.1:   This is similar to 4.2.3.1 in the Water Management chapter. As with other chapters, identifying the potentially affected people is important for planning stakeholder engagement on the issue/topic of concern, as those directly affected should be prioritized during engagement.

Note that the definition of mining-related activities encompasses exploration, mining, mineral processing, and all of the activities necessary to support those endeavors through post-closure.

The entity conducts its own research and collaborates with relevant stakeholders to identify current and potential future uses of land that may be affected by proposed mining or mineral processing activities, or that have been affected by current or past mining-related activities.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.2.2:  This is similar to 4.2.3.2 in the ‘Water Management’ chapter.

The entity carries out a scoping process that includes collaboration with relevant stakeholders, to identify potential or actual impacts that the project may have and/or any actual impacts that the operation has had on land or soil (including soil quality, the physical stability of soil or land), and current and potential future land uses). The scoping process includes consideration of the following potential sources of impacts, as relevant:
  1. Construction of mine facilities (e.g., open pits, ore heap and dump leach and waste storage facilities) and mineral processing facilities, land clearing, earthmoving, mine roads and other excavation and soil-disturbing activities;
  2. Emergencies and major accidents, including catastrophic failure of facilities;
  3. Waste management activities, including potential dispersion of contaminants from waste handling, storage, treatment, or disposal locations;
  4. Erosion of waste storage and disposal facilities and waste dumps;
  5. The planned discharge and unplanned release of contaminants (e.g., in effluent, or from storage or waste facilities that hold fluids), that may have subsequent downstream/downgradient contact with soil resources; and
  6. The emission, deposition and dispersion of airborne contaminants, dusts, and gases from mining-related activities.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.2.3:  This is similar to 4.2.3.3 in the Water Management chapter.

A conceptual site model (CSM) to determine potential impacts on soil quality is developed and shared with stakeholders. This model:
  1. Includes a detailed description and depiction of the physiography, soil types and characteristics, hydrology, and climatology for the site as a whole;
  2. Describes all potential sources of contamination and soil erosion or loss associated with the project/operation; and
  3. Describes what is known about site-wide release and transport of contaminants to soil, contaminant transport due to the movement of soils, the pathways between sources and receptors, and the fate of contaminants/soils along pathways and to on-site and off-site receptors.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.2.4:  The Water Management chapter also has a requirement to develop a CSM (requirement 4.2.3.5) and share it with stakeholders as part of scoping. A site-wide CSM is important for understanding the big picture of potential sources and fate of contaminants from mining-related activities, and to better understand the risks to human health and the environment from contaminants. Soil is both a potential receptor of contaminants (e.g., from airborne emissions or water-borne effluents), but can also be a source (if the soils contain contaminants and are transported to other receptors through erosion, wind dispersion, leaching and infiltration, etc.).[1] If soils are not identified as sources and receptors, then the CSM would need to be revised to include this information.

This requirement includes that the CSM be shared with stakeholders as part of scoping because it is important for them to have access to this information if they are to understand and participate in discussions on risks to soil and land.

[1] See, for example, Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC): Soil Background and Risk Assessment. “Conceptual Site Model and Data Quality Objectives.”https://sbr-1.itrcweb.org/conceptual-site-model-and-data-quality-objectives/#8_1; and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA – Interim Final. Section 2.2.2.2. Develop a Conceptual Site Model. p. 2 – 7. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/100001529.pdf

4.XX.3: Assessment of Risks to Land and Soil

Where risks to or impacts on land and soil are identified, a credible methodology is used to assess and document the level of risk and/or the actual impacts on health, safety, the environment, and current and future land uses.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.3.1:  This aligns with 4.2.4.1 in the ‘Water Management’ chapter.

As mentioned in other chapters, we are proposing to define

Credible method/methodology: A method/methodology that is widely recognized, accepted, and used by experts and practitioners in a particular field of study.
The entity carries out the following additional analyses, as relevant, to further predict and quantify potential soil contamination and the potential for soil and land loss, and to inform the risk assessment:
  1. Modelling of the emissions, deposition, and dispersion of airborne contaminants (e.g., metals, dusts, gases, vapors, fumes) from point and non-point sources onto soil and land;
  2. Modelling of predicted soil loss/soil erosion from natural processes and mining-related activities; and
  3. Modelling of predicted loss of land (e.g., due to the increasing footprint of infrastructure and facilities, including permanent waste facilities, open pits, etc.) over the life of the operation (from construction through post-closure).

NOTE FOR 4.XX.3.2:  This aligns with 4.2.4.2 in the ‘Water Management’ chapter. For more information see note for 4.2.4.2 in Chapter 4.2.

Not all of the models will be relevant at all sites. For example, if there are no processes that have air emissions, then modelling of the dispersion of air emissions will not be necessary.

Any models used to inform risk or impact assessments, land and soil management strategies and reclamation and closure planning (see Chapter 2.6) are:
  1. Consistent with best industry practices/credible methodologies; and
  2. Evaluated annually and updated, as necessary, through an iterative process using operational monitoring data, as they become available.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.3.3:  This aligns with 4.2.4.4 in the Water Management chapter.  For more information see Note for 4.2.4.4 in Chapter 4.2.

Risk or impact assessments are reviewed and, if necessary, updated when there are proposed changes in facilities, activities, extracted materials, processes, or when there are changes in the operational context that have the potential to change the severity or consequences of any identified risks to land and soil, or when updates have been made to model predictions.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.3.4:  This aligns with 4.2.4.5 in the Water Management chapter. 

4.XX.4: Management of Risks to and Impacts on Land and Soil

Where mineral processing facilities have been developed on brownfield sites, and scoping, assessment or soil quality monitoring identifies pre-existing impacts on soil quality that were not caused by the entity’s previous activities, the entity:
  1. Carries out due diligence to determine its legal liability for remediation of pre-existing pollution;
  2. Quantifies the extent of soil pollution (see 4.XX.5.1);
  3. Where legally liable:
    1. Develops a soil remediation plan according to the process set out in host country laws and regulations, or where such laws and regulations do not exist, in accordance with international good practice;
    2. Demonstrate progress in implementation of soil remediation activities according to the plan timetable; and
    3. Report according to the requirements of the competent authorities or in the absence of a national reporting requirement, publicly report on the remediation of soil pollution at least annually.
  4. Where not legally liable:
    1. Develops a soil remediation plan and associated targets for land and soil chemical quality in consultation with affected stakeholders;
    2. Demonstrates progress in implementation of soil remediation activities according to the plan timetable; and
    3. Publicly reports progress on the remediation of soil chemical quality at least annually.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.4.1:  This requirement was proposed in the draft IRMA Mineral Processing Standard. The rationale was that mineral processing facilities such as smelters and refining sites with air emissions can emit considerable volumes of metals and metalloids over time that then get deposited on land. Some metals are more volatile and can be transported extremely long distances, but often the deposition occurs locally and downwind of the processing sites. These contaminants may then become bioavailable, affecting ecosystem and/or human health.[1]

We are proposing that this requirement only applies to mineral processing operations located on brownfield sites, which is promoted by requirement 4.XX.1.1.a. We can add guidance on international good practice for soil remediation.

All soil contamination risks or actual impacts associated with exploration, mining or mineral processing on greenfield sites would be managed according to 4.XX.4.2, 4.XX.4.3, 4.XX.4.4, and the remaining requirements in the chapter.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.XX-4:  Can you recommend examples of international good practice related to soil remediation as it relates to mining and/or mineral processing?

[1] Ettler, V. 2015. “Soil contamination near non-ferrous metal smelters: A review,” Applied Geochemistry. 64:56-74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088329271530055X?via%3Dihub

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.XX-5:  Are these requirements too onerous in cases where there is no legal liability? In such cases, does the scope of the requirements need to be narrowed? For example, should remediation only be required within the site boundary (as long as on-site contaminated areas are not contributing to off-site contamination or impacts)?

For all other significant risks or actual impacts on soil or land identified in the assessment, mitigation measures to manage risks and impacts are:
  1. Developed and implemented by competent professionals;
  2. Developed in consultation with potentially affected or affected stakeholders, taking into consideration the preferred post-closure land uses identified by affected communities (see Chapter 2.1);
  3. Are evaluated in a manner that aligns with the mitigation hierarchy as follows:
    1. Priority is given to source control and other measures that prevent soil contamination, and prevent erosion and loss of land and soil;
    2. Where prevention is not practicable or effective, controls are developed to minimize the movement of contaminants to soil or lands where they can cause pollution (i.e., harm to human or ecosystem health), and minimize the amount of erosion and loss of land and soil;
    3. If necessary, soils are treated in-situ or ex-situ to remove contaminants such that soil chemical quality is sufficient for beneficial use at the site; and
    4. If prevention, minimization and treatment measures are not feasible or do not eliminate impacts, contaminated soils are excavated and disposed in a manner that protects human and ecosystem health, and compensatory actions are taken to offset impacts or losses;
  4. Are documented, including the entity’s rationale for selection of mitigation options.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.4.2:  This aligns, generally, with 4.2.5.1 in the ‘Water Management’ chapter.  As with other chapters, the mitigation hierarchy is the framework for prioritizing mitigation strategies.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.XX-6:

Are there other strategies that you can suggest to protect soil chemical quality and minimize erosion and loss of soil and land? If so, where would your suggestions fit in the hierarchy above?

The entity develops and implements an adaptive management plan for land and soil (or equivalent) that:
  1. Outlines mitigation and other measures to be implemented concurrent with operations to prevent and minimize adverse impacts and/or remediate and restore land and soil as follows:
    1. Measures include topsoil salvage to the maximum extent practicable, and topsoil storage in a manner that preserves its capability to support ecological restoration;
    2. Mitigation measures are specific, measurable, linked to clearly defined outcomes, relevant, and time-bound;
    3. Key indicators are identified and linked to adequate baseline data, to enable measurement of the effectiveness of mitigation measures over time;
    4. Actions, or oversight of implementation, are assigned to responsible staff;
    5. An implementation schedule is included; and
    6. Estimates of human resources and budget are made, and a financing plan is included to ensure that funding is available for the effective implementation of the plan.
  2. Outlines known measures to be taken during and final reclamation and closure to remediate and restore land and soil;
  3. Includes trigger levels to provide early warning of soil contamination, and trigger indicators to provide early warning of erosion or loss of soil;
  4. Includes responsive (adaptive management) actions to be taken if trigger levels/indicators or exceedance of legal or other thresholds are reached, and estimated timelines for completion of actions; and
  5. Includes the following actions to be taken if an exceedance of an IRMA Soil Chemical Quality Criteria (see 4.XX.6) or a soil erosion threshold is confirmed:
    1. Investigation of the cause/source of the exceedance;
    2. Determination of the areal extent and depth of the soil profile affected by the impacts;
    3. Implementation of the original adaptive management actions developed as per 4.XX.4.3.d and/or development of additional or different actions to correct an exceedance or minimize impacts, and documentation in a corrective action plan;
    4. Development of estimated timeline and budget needed to implement the corrective action plan, and demonstration that funds are in place for effective implementation of the corrective actions; and
    5. Creation of a report summarizing the corrective action plan, the outcome of the response measures taken, and needed changes to improve the effectiveness of mitigation measures identified in 4.XX.4.2.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.4.3:  We are not proposing in this requirement that entities must immediately address all contamination or soil or land losses, because if operations are continuing then some earthwork to restore landforms and some remediation of soils may only be possible after operations cease and facilities are demolished and removed. However, the entity still needs to identify which measures will be addressed concurrent with operations, and which measures will be carried out as part of final reclamation and closure activities (see 4.XX.4.3.a, b and e.iii).

Any measures that will be carried out during final reclamation and closure must be included in the reclamation closure plan in Chapter 2.6, so that the costs of these activities are included in the calculation of the reclamation and closure costs that inform the amount of financial assurance that is required by the site.

The concurrent remediation and restoration mitigation measures may be incorporated into the concurrent reclamation plan (see Chapter 2.6, requirement 2.6.1.2), but if they are incorporated in that plan the it must also meet all sub-elements 4.XX.4.3.a.

Sub-requirements (c), (d), and (e) relate to actions to be taken in response to a situation (e.g., soil contaminants reach a trigger level or erosion reaches some threshold level). These are adaptive management elements.

Annually or more frequently, if necessary (e.g., due to proposed or actual changes in operational or environmental factors):
  1. The entity reviews monitoring data and evaluates the effectiveness of adaptive management actions; and
  2. If actions are not being effective, develops new mitigation measures and revises the management plan to improve land and soil management outcomes.

NOTE FOR 4.XX.4.4:  This is similar to 4.2.5.8 in the Water Management chapter.

4.XX.5: Monitoring

NOTE FOR 4.XX.5.1:  Requirement 4.XX.3.2, earlier in the chapter, requires modelling to predict soil loss and land loss. The monitoring of ‘actual’ (estimated) soil loss and land loss over time in 4.XX.5.1.c will likely involve the continued use of models, but could also use aerial photographs to estimate changes in land,[1] or other methods.  Soil erosion rates in 4.XX.5.1.c.i can be based, at least in part, on field measurements (e.g., erosion or runoff plots), and the empirical data gathered can be used to validate models to estimate soil loss.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 4.XX-7:

Background:  There are various methods that may be used in an attempt to determine soil erosion and soil loss over time. However, according to Boardman and Evans (2019), “Soil erosion is widely acknowledged as a global problem, but attempts to measure and estimate its significant are frustrated by our inability to develop reliable, cheap and easy methods of assessment.”[2] Hsieh et al. (2009) outline several methods for quantifying soil erosion, however, with every method there are challenges or conditions for which they are not well suited.[3]

Boardman and Evans (2019) have reported that, “German and Swiss researchers have assessed and monitored erosion based on visual and volumetric measurements of water erosion … [and] although such assessments are comparatively rare in comparison with the use of model assessments of water erosion, they give much more realistic estimates of the extent of water erosion and erosion rates.”[4]  Govers et al. (2017) write that models often overestimate erosion rates, and add that, “While it may indeed be difficult to quantify erosion rates correctly, it is much easier to identify those areas where intense soil erosion is indeed a problem and where action is necessary, whatever the exact erosion rates are. . .simple visual observations on the presence of rills and gullies or wind deflation areas are clear indications that the implementation of conservation measures is necessary.”[5]

Questions:  Do you believe it critical to quantify soil erosion rates, or should monitoring focus on qualitative visual inspections to recognize the signs of erosion and prioritize affected areas for mitigation and restoration?

If you believe that soil erosion measurements are needed, are there particular methods that you would recommend?

Is knowing the actual volume of soil or land loss important? Or should these numbers not be a concern as long as actions are taken to effectively return land to a productive, beneficial use?

[1] See, for example, Popelkova, R. and Mulkova, M. 2016. Multitemporal aerial image analysis for the monitoring of the processes in the landscape affected by deep coal mining,” European Journal of Remote Sensing. 59: 973-1009.  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.5721/EuJRS20164951

[2] Boardman, J. and Evans, R. 2019. The measurement, estimation and monitoring of soil erosion by runoff at the field scale: Challenges and possibilities with particular reference to Britain,” Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment. Vol.44, Issue 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309133319861833

[3] Hsieh, et al. 2009. “A field method for soil erosion measurements in agricultural and natural lands,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Vol. 64, No. 6.https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2009/ja_2009_hsieh_001.pdf

[4] Boardman, J. and Evans, R. 2019. The measurement, estimation and monitoring of soil erosion by runoff at the field scale: Challenges and possibilities with particular reference to Britain,” Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment. Vol.44, Issue 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309133319861833

[5] Govers G, Merckx R, van Wesemael B, Van Oost, K. 2017. “Soil conservation in the 21st century: Why we need smart agricultural intensification,” SOIL 3: 45–59. https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/3/45/2017/soil-3-45-2017.pdf

The entity develops and implements a program to monitor impacts on land and soil on an annual basis. The program includes:
  1. Using credible methods to sample soils to determine potential contamination, including:
    1. Sampling at a sufficient number of monitoring locations and at appropriate sites and depths to provide reliable data on chemical contamination/pollution; and
    2. Analyzing soil samples for all contaminants that have a reasonable potential to adversely affect identified current and future land uses, using accredited laboratories capable of measuring parameters at appropriate levels as described in the IRMA Soil Chemical Quality Criteria by End-Use Tables (see 4.XX.6); and
  2. Visual inspection of lands and facilities that may be subject to erosion; and
  3. Using credible methods to measure or estimate:
    1. Soil erosion rates and soil loss; and
    2. Loss of land.

4.XX.6: Comparison of Monitoring Results to Soil Chemical Quality Criteria

The entity demonstrates that the level of contaminants in soils are:
  1. Consistent with concentrations measured in baseline or background soil quality samples; or
  2. Are being maintained at a level that protects current and potential future use of land and soil resources (see IRMA Soil Chemical Quality Criteria by End Use Tables).

NOTE FOR 4.XX.6.1:  For 4.XX.6.1, soil chemical quality criteria tables will be developed using a similar approach to the water quality tables in Chapter 4.2.  Many jurisdictions have soil chemical quality standards or guidelines for different land uses. So, for example, there may be different allowable concentrations of certain metals, minerals or organic constituents in residential areas versus non-residential, or depending if areas are zoned or designated for agriculture, commercial or industrial uses, natural areas, etc.

IRMA will draft some proposed Soil Chemical Quality Criteria by End Use Tables based on an evaluation of standards from various jurisdictions.  We will draw from standards listed in the ESDAT system, unless commenters know of other good sources of data for soil chemical quality standards: https://esdat.net/environmental-standards/

4.XX.7: Reporting and Disclosure on Land and Soil Management

NOTE FOR 4.XX.7:  The requirements below are consistent with other IRMA chapters.

The entity discusses land and soil management strategies, monitoring results and performance with relevant stakeholders on an annual basis, or more frequently if requested by stakeholders.
An access to information (or equivalent) policy that allows stakeholders to access soil quality monitoring and other soil- and land-related data upon request is in place and shared with stakeholders.

General Comments

Name(Required)
Keep your comment confidential
Drop files here or
Accepted file types: pdf, Max. file size: 50 MB, Max. files: 5.