Enhancing the contribution of mining to sustainable development

JONATHAN C. A. HOBBS

Sustainable Development Group, Policy Division, Department for International

Development, 1 Palace Street, London SW1E 5HE, UK (e-mail: j-hobbs@dfid.gov.uk)

Abstract: This paper reviews recent developments aimed at improving the mining sector’scontribution to sustainable development. Mineral endowments are regarded by many devel-opment and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as a ‘curse’ and coun-terproductive to long-term growth and poverty reduction goals, even antithetical tosustainable development in developing countries. This paper argues that, in spite of someempirical evidence in some countries, this is not an inevitable general rule and that themining sector offers numerous possibilities for catalysing sustainable development andattainment of the millennium development goals. This is, however, conditional uponadequate governance and social and environmental safeguards being in place. The hetero-geneity of the mining sector is considered and concern is expressed for the under-management of the growing, albeit not new, phenomenon of artisanal and small-scalemining in developing countries. Without better management of this sector any attempts toimprove the contribution of mining to sustainable development will be severely limited.

How can the extractives industries (normallytaken to refer to mining, oil and gas, but in thispaper limited to the former) be sustainable?The very nature of the term extractive impliesthat this sector exists by exploiting and depletingnon-renewable, finite, natural resources. The sus-tainability of extractive industries is, therefore, adifficult message to market and relatively newconcepts such as ‘sustainable mining’ or ‘sus-tainable minerals’, which are attempts to do so,are considered by many as no more than illusorycontradictions in terms.

The prevailing perception in many quarters isthat there is little that is ‘sustainable’ aboutextractive industries, even if we accept the longtime horizons that geologists adopt to convincesceptics that minerals are renewable resources,that is, resources that, on human time-scales,are essentially inexhaustible when managedcorrectly.

Non-renewable resources exist in a fixed quan-tity in the Earth’s crust and thus, theoretically,can be completely depleted. On a time-scale ofmillions to billions of years, geological processescan renew such resources. However, on humantime-scales, they can be depleted quicker thanthey are formed, although some non-renewableresources can nonetheless be recycled andreused (Miller 2000). (Figs 1–3).

The only way for extractive industries to havea seat at the sustainable development ‘table’ isthrough broadening our understanding of the

nature of not only the concept of sustainability,but also the dimensions of capital. We need tolook beyond traditional definitions of capitalthat are limited to the financial and tangiblefactors of production – investment andequipment – to four different types of capital:human, financial, manufactured, and naturalcapital. The latter are usually described as com-prising resources, living systems and ecosystemservices (Hawken et al. 1996). We can, however,usefully qualify the definition of natural capital bysubdividing the concept into two to illustratetwo dimensions of resources, renewable andnon-renewable, and thereby accommodatemining in sustainability discussions.

The legitimacy for the extractive industries tobe a party to the sustainable development agendais achieved when the sector is seen to be usingthe first three forms of capital to transform non-renewable, natural capital, not only into thematerial benefits that fulfil society’s need forgoods and services, but also into more sustain-able opportunities and livelihoods for society(Fig. 5).

In some countries, the longevity of miningoperations has spanned many centuries. Forexample, Sri Lanka’s gemstone mining isreputed to have lasted two-and-half thousandyears thus far. The key to the success of therole of minerals in sustainable development,however, is in the utilization of this resourceas a platform for achieving economic

From: MARKER, B. R., PETTERSON, M. G., MCEVOY, F. & STEPHENSON, M. H. (eds) 2005. Sustainable MineralsOperations in the Developing World. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 250, 9–24.0305-8719/05/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2005.

diversification, growth and broad developmentgoals, while maintaining social stability and pro-tecting environmental integrity.

While a number of developed countries (USA,Canada, Sweden, Finland and Australia, amongothers) and a few developing countries(Botswana and Chile; Hope 2003) have achievedconsiderable economic success through relianceon minerals in their development processes, wealso find regions with extensive histories ofmineral exploitation where the direct benefits tothose regions have been less obvious (Figs 6–8).

The mineral wealth of Cornwall in the UnitedKingdom, for example, has been exploited sincePhoenician times, reaching its peak at the turnof the 19th–20th centuries. One would haveexpected this mineral wealth to make the countyan enduring region of prosperity, ahead of thosewithout such mineral resource endowments.Instead, it was recorded during the death throws

of the tin and copper mining era to be the countywith the most extensive land dereliction in theUK, its only merit being, in some places at least,its industrial archaeology value. (At its worstperiod, UK Government figures for 1966 showedthat Cornwall was the county with the highestdegree of dereliction; Barr 1970.)

In spite of centuries of prosperous miningactivity, Cornwall is now officially classified asone of the poorest regions in Europe and is a reci-pient of European Union development assist-ance, much of which has been used to clean upthe physical legacy of past tin, copper, andkaolin mining. No wonder then that it has beenselected as the home for a new Post MiningAlliance Initiative, working in partnership withthe Eden Project, which has created an edu-cational and tourist resource in a disused chinaclay quarry.

Momentum for change

Up to 20 years or so ago, the only referencematerial available in Schools of Mines or univer-sity engineering departments that could be con-sidered as, in any obvious way, linking miningwith sustainable development were those addres-sing the technicalities of tailings design andmanagement and rehabilitation of disturbed andderelict post-mining lands.

Fig. 1. Fulfilling the goods and services demanded bysociety: off-shore diamond dredging, west coast of SouthAfrica (photo: Hobbs).

Fig. 2. Fulfilling the goods and services demanded bysociety: Mozal, aluminium smelter, Mozambique(photo: Hobbs).

Fig. 3. Fulfilling the goods and services demanded bysociety: coal mining, Witbank, South Africa (photo:Hobbs).

J. C. A. HOBBS10

The mining industry has lagged behind other‘primary’ industries, notably chemicals and oiland gas, in their understanding of, and commit-ment to, the broader concept of sustainabledevelopment. Sustainable development wastaken as being synonymous with environmentalmanagement and was characterized by resigna-tion to acceptance that a mining operation wasa ‘necessary evil’, restricted in locationaloptions and only amenable to mitigation andamelioration of its impacts, not actively seekingout the positive development opportunities itcreated.

This was noticeable at the Earth Summit(UN World Conference on Environment and

Development) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992,where the chemical industry took ‘centre stage’with their Responsible Care# initiative. The(then) Business Council for Sustainable

Fig. 4. Fulfilling the goods and services demanded by society: phosphate mining, Morocco (photo: Hobbs).

Fig. 5. Diamond mining, Orapa, Botswana (photo:De Souza).

Fig. 6. Cornwall’s mining legacy. The Red Riverdraining into to St. Ives Bay, Cornwall; ‘Red’ because itconveys tailings from the Tolvadon valley, the scene ofcenturies of tin and copper mining and milling (photo:Hobbs).

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 11

Development (now World Business Council forSustainable Development; WBCSD), which ledbusiness leaders’ participation in the EarthSummit, had only one chairman of a companywith mining as its core business among its 48members, Rio Doce International of Brazil.

The seminal publication presented byWBCSD’s business leaders to the EarthSummit, Changing Course – A global businessperspective on development and the environment(Schmidheiny 1992), included only one, three-page case study on the mining sector’s contri-bution to sustainable development, ALCOA’s‘Sustainable mining in the Jarrah Forest,Australia’, which predictably focused on landrehabilitation issues. The supportive regionalreports similarly only included one mining casestudy from Africa, rehabilitation of limestonequarries at Bamburi Portland Cement, Kenya(Haller & Baer 1994).

Other sectors had been galvanized into actionbeyond minimum regulatory compliance by aseries of environmental, social, safety, financialand public relations disasters and adversarialcampaigns by an increasingly activist civilsociety. These included:

. the Bhopal (Union Carbide) disaster thatkilled 5100 and seriously injured 200 000 inIndia;

. the incipient impact of pesticides on raptorsthrough food chains (notably dichlorodiphe-nyltrichloroethane; DDT);

. the realization of the contribution of chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs) to stratospheric ozonedepletion;

. the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in PrinceWilliam Sound;

. Shell’s experiences over the Brent Spar oilrig disposal; and

. community conflicts in the oil-rich Nigerdelta.

Fig. 7. Cornwall’s mining legacy. Derelict tin mineworkings near Redruth, Cornwall (photo: Hobbs).

Fig. 8. Cornwall’s mining legacy. Wheal Coates enginehouse, now a National Trust property, near St. Agnes,Cornwall (photo: Hobbs).

Fig. 9. East African limestone quarrying, arehabilitation challenge, Twiga Portland Cement, nearDar es Salaam, Tanzania (photo: Hobbs).

J. C. A. HOBBS12

All serve as prominent examples along withgrowing concerns about climate change.

This was not to say that the mining sector wasinactive nor that there was any shortage of con-flicts, antagonistic campaigns, environmentaland safety disasters or communication break-downs that confronted the mining industry:

. protracted difficulties in gaining access tonew mineral resources were common, suchas those faced in the late 1980s and early1990s by Richards Bay Minerals whentrying to extend mining of heavy mineralbearing sands (ilmenite, rutile and zircon)further into the coastal dunes of St. Lucia inSouth Africa;

. the Romanian Baia Mare cyanide spill in2000 entered the Danube and adverselyimpacted four countries;

. community conflicts and cessationist civilwar were attributed to Bougainville copperresources exploitation in Papua New Guinea.

These and others contributed to mountingpressures and incentives for change.

Regular media headlines exposed the need for agreater responsiveness to society’s concerns by themining sector. Accepting physical environmentaldamage as an inevitable consequence of mining,it was also inevitable that the interpretation of sus-tainability in the sector was centred on legacyissues and rehabilitation. This was an importantbut far from sufficient response (Fig. 9).

A considerable momentum for change builtup, resulting in the sector having the highestprofile of all industrial sectors at the 2002World Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD) in Johannesburg (Figs 10 & 11).

Broadening the concept of sustainable

development

The response in the 1990s had been to improveplanning and operational environmental manage-ment through better environmental assessmentand auditing, pollution prevention and control,and the development of integrated environmentalmanagement systems. International agenciesdeveloped environmental guidelines for themining operations (the Berlin Guidelines 1991,revised 1999). The Australian EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s ‘Best Practice Environ-mental Management in Mining’ (1995, updated2002) advisory and training modules and thevarious technical report publications of theUnited Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) (see www.mineralsresourcesforum.org)serve as good examples of the initiatives thatguided a greater responsiveness in the industryin the post-Rio and pre-Johannesburg climateof change.

These responses demonstrated the truism thatenvironmental management supported, ratherthan acted as a constrain to good business man-agement. They were driven by the practicalrealization that good environmental management

Fig. 10. Broadening the concept of sustainable development, mining often requires sensitive relocation: coal miningfor power generation, Majuba coal mine, South Africa (photo: Eskom).

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 13

reduces liabilities, cuts costs, improves efficiencyand quality, and, for the more insightful compa-nies, was increasingly interpreted as identifyingnew business opportunities.

Clearly, however, the gains were still preoccu-pied with the environmental dimensions of sus-tainable development and largely limited tocore business issues within physical operationalconfines. The social dimension was one wherethe benefits were less obvious to the mining com-panies, other than serving some nebulousconcept of ‘social licence to operate’ andeasing permitting and regulatory processes.

Slowly there was a recognition that sustainabledevelopment is as much about the external socio-economic environment of the company (socialjustice, community relations and good govern-ance and the interplay between these) than, gen-erally, site-specific, environmental issues.

Public relations professionals started to popu-late embryonic sustainable development unitswithin mining companies, frequently separatefrom the more technically oriented environ-mental divisions, which maintained an engineer-ing profile. Their programmes geared to thesociocratic rather than technocratic goals.Glossy corporate sustainability reports emergedthat were as important in changing internal

organizational mindsets in the process of theirformulation as in communicating to externalstakeholders a company’s commitment to sus-tainable development.

Important initiatives emerged that reflected amore comprehensive approach to sustainabledevelopment within the sector. This was illus-trated in the agenda of the International Councilon Mining and the Environment (ICME), WorldBank, UNEP and United Nations Commissionon Trade and Development (UNCTAD) hostedConference on ‘Development, Environment andMining’ in Washington, DC (1994), a conferencethat addressed the contribution that the sectorcould make to international sustainabledevelopment.

Another initiative launched in 1998 was theBusiness Partners for Development (BPD)(Natural Resource Clusters) programme hostedby the World Bank. This was styled as ‘a newway to manage social issues in the extractiveindustries’ and gave particular attention to devel-oping models of ‘tri sector partnering’ betweenprivate, public and civil society sectors basedon the practical experiences of specific naturalresource operations. The BPD pioneered atrend to move the sector towards participationin ‘partnerships’ and ‘multistakeholder pro-cesses’ and encouraged the industry to movefrom an enclave mentality to one in which itcould meaningfully address sustainable develop-ment issues in partnerships through moreeffective social investment, engagement incommunity affairs, establishing new communi-cations links and networks, and so on.

The BPD started to address the difficult greyboundaries where the moral and legal responsi-bilities of a mining company’s role in communitydevelopment end and the role of governmenttakes over. Through case studies such as theLas Cristinas gold mine project in Venezuelaand the Sarshatali coal mine in India, the BPDattempted to explore ways of enhancing the sus-tainability of development through focusing onpoverty mitigation, growing human capital, com-munity participation, environmental benefits,increased social cohesion, and improvingaccess to basic services (www.bpdweb.org).

Business takes the lead

Further significant progress resulted, when theWBCSD added sector-specific action to the pre-viously generic agenda of business advocacy thatit had pursued (as the BCSD) at the EarthSummit in 1992. Following success in focussingattention on sustainable development issues inthe paper and pulp sector, it moved into other

Fig. 11. Broadening concerns of mining todevelopment opportunities, small-scale gold mining,Ghana (photo: Hobbs).

J. C. A. HOBBS14

realms of business where there was a need for asignificant change, including the mining sector.Consequently, some mining companies joinedthe growing organization.

The WBCSD’s resultant Global MiningInitiative (1999) was endorsed by 25 miningcompany CEOs and later transformed into the,two year ‘Mining, Minerals and SustainableDevelopment’ (MMSD) initiative. This was themost comprehensive analysis the sector hadever been subject to regarding sustainable devel-opment performance. A framework was devel-oped to guide its role in the sustainabledevelopment agenda (IIED 2002).

The MMSD report led to adoption of aToronto declaration (2002) – a commitmentfrom multinational companies to improve per-formance towards sustainability – and createda reorganized mining industry association, theInternational Council on Mining and Metals(ICMM), mandated to develop a work pro-gramme to implement the Toronto Declarationand MMSD recommendations. The ICMM Sus-tainable Development Framework Principles(2003) (Table 1) followed, adding the miningsector’s interpretation to the many voluntaryprinciples developed by other business associ-ations during the previous decade.

The MMSD report, as input to the 2002 Johan-nesburg WSSD, ensured that the sector now hada high profile on the sustainability agenda. Thiswas evident in the Johannesburg Plan of

Implementation (JPOI), the internationallyagreed action plan adopted at the UnitedNations World SSD, 2002. Clause 46 of 170clauses noted that: ‘mining, minerals andmetals are important to the economic and socialdevelopment of many countries. Enhancing thecontribution of mining, minerals and metals tosustainable development includes . . . supportingefforts to address the environmental, economic,health and social impacts and benefits of mini-ng . . . enhance the participation of stakehol-ders . . . and foster sustainable miningpractices . . . through support to developingcountries’ (UN 2003).

As bland as these statements are, they shouldnot be underestimated for the fact that they rep-resented recognition at the highest level of theinternational development community thatmining has a role to play in a sustainableworld. This is still not a view shared by everyone.Nonetheless, the mining sector had moved into anew era and on to a new agenda. Progress againstthe statements made at Johannesburg will be cri-tically reviewed at the UN Commission forSustainable Development (CSD) in 2009–2010,when the sector becomes the focus of theCouncil for Sustainable Development’s workprogramme of tracking JPOI implementation.

The Extractives Industries Review (EIR)

Arguably the most significant initiative,however, has been the Extractives IndustriesReview (EIR) (2004), set in motion in 2000 bythe then World Bank President, James Wolfen-sohn. The EIR was commissioned to investigatewhether or not the World Bank’s investments inthe extractives sector (in this case oil, gas andmining) supported, or detracted from, theBank’s mission of poverty reduction and sustain-able development. A three-year internationalstakeholder consultation process, the indepen-dent EIR, together with simultaneous internalreviews within the Bank followed (Liebenthalet al. 2003).

The EIR eventually concluded that the sectorcan indeed contribute to the World Bank’smission and that there was a continuing role forthe Bank’s investments in the sector. The EIR,however, added the rider that this missioncould only be achieved if certain enabling con-ditions were in place. These conditions are:

. good public and corporate governance;

. greater respect for human rights; and

. more effective social and environmentalsafeguards.

Table 1. The 10 point ICMM principles

† Implement and maintain ethical business practicesand sound systems of corporate governance

† Integrate sustainable development considerationswithin the corporate decision – making process

† Uphold fundamental human rights and respectcultures, customs and values in dealings withemployees and others who are affected by ouractivities

† Implement risk management strategies based onvalid data and sound science

† Seek continual improvement of our health andsafety performance

† Seek continual improvement of our environmentalperformance

† Contribute to the conservation of biodiversity andintegrated approaches to land use planning

† Facilitate and encourage responsible productdesign, use, recycling and disposal of products

† Contribute to the social, economic and institutionaldevelopment of the communities in which weoperate

† Implement effective and transparent engagement,communication and independently verifiedreporting arrangements with our stakeholders

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 15

Good governance can generally be taken toinclude accountable governments, rule of law,absence of armed conflict or the risk of it,respect for human rights and labour standards,protection of indigenous people’s rights and therights of minorities, government capacity topromote sustainable development through econ-omic diversification, and so on.

They further suggested the need to encouragesome specific building blocks of good govern-ance: (Extractive Industries Review 2004)

. promote disclosure of project documents;

. develop the capacity to manage fluctuatingrevenues;

. develop the capacity to manage revenuesresponsibly;

. help governments to put in place effectiveand efficient policy and regulatory frame-works;

. integrate stakeholders in decision making;and

. promote the transparency of revenues flows.

The need for good governance: ‘the

resource curse’

The EIR had been a consequence of, and addedto the debate on, a recurring theme in discussionson the role of the mining sector in sustainabledevelopment. This is that intuitively one wouldexpect that the prudent exploitation of mineralwealth should be the basis for economicgrowth, poverty reduction, political stability,and sustainable development. Paradoxically,however, some resource-rich countries remainamongst the poorest and have the highest levelsof conflict, poverty and corruption. Of theworld’s most mineral-dependent states, 11 areheavily indebted and five have ongoing civilwars. This correlation gives rise to the hypothesisthat mineral wealth can be more of a ‘curse’ thana ‘blessing’.

“War, poverty, climate change, greed, corruptionand ongoing violations of human rights – all ofthese scourges are all too often linked to the oiland mining industries”. Nobel Laureates forPeace (Jody Williams, Archbishop DesmondTutu, Rigoberta Mench Tum, Sir Joseph Rotbalt,Betty Williams and Mairead Maguire)

The extractives industries are simultaneouslyan opportunity and a threat to the developmentprospects of poorer countries. Extractive indus-tries are important in over 50 developingcountries. Mineral resource exploitation rep-resents the potential for many of these

developing countries to embark on a moreurgent path of economic growth.

Yet it is undeniable that the track record ofsome resource-rich countries has not beengood, and there is no shortage of exampleswhere minerals-derived revenues have fuelledconflicts, corruption, and undermined povertyreduction and sustainable development progress(Goreaux 2001; Montague 2002).

The challenge is to recognize the possibility ofthe resource curse and work to counter it. Theissue of good governance has increasinglyframed discussions of the extractive industriesand sustainable development. One key elementof good governance is transparency, particularlyrelating to the management of revenues fromextractive industries.

The Extractives Industries Transparency

Initiative (EITI)

Transparency, applied to revenue flows, enablescitizens to hold governments to account for thefate of those revenues received from the exploi-tation of natural resources. Citizens have theright to know the fate of the revenues govern-ment receives from mineral exploitation.

The Extractive Industries TransparencyInitiative (EITI) was another outcome of theWSSD (2002). Launched by British PrimeMinister Blair, the EITI reinforced the good gov-ernance commitments made by G8 leaders (TheAction Plan on Fighting Corruption and Improv-ing Transparency, Evian G8 meeting, 2003 withTransparency Compacts being agreed with fourcountries at the follow-up meeting at SeaIsland, USA, in 2004) and African leaders inthe New Partnership for African Development(NEPAD). Wiseman Nkhulu – Chairman, Steer-ing Committee of the NEPAD has announced theintention to explore the EITI contribution to theAfrican Peer Review Mechanism).

Transparency is, however, a means to an end,not an end in itself. It is a necessary, but not suf-ficient, contribution to managing any potentialresource curse. The EITI starts from thepremise that extractives industries can benefit acountry, if managed properly, and that there isnothing inherently wrong with the sector.

At the core of the EITI is the view that ifindustry pays its taxes and royalties, then govern-ment should use these to provide services, ratherthan have business shoulder the responsibilityfor aspects of community development thatwould normally be considered a government’sresponsibility.

J. C. A. HOBBS16

Following the WSSD, a ministerial confer-ence, again addressed by the British Prime Min-ister, was held at Lancaster House, London, in2003. This resulted in the widespread publicendorsement of a set of voluntary principlesand actions (available on the EITI website,www.dfid.gov.uk) by over 60 participants.Reinforcement and a check on progress in imple-menting the principles followed at a London con-ference in March 2005. A number of countrieshave now moved beyond endorsement and arepioneering the practical implementation ofrevenue transparency; including Azerbaijan,Ghana, Nigeria (launched personally byPresident Obosanjo in February 2004), Republicof Congo, Sao Tome e Principe, Timor Leste,Trinidad and Tobago, and Kyrgyz Republic. ATrust Fund and reporting guidelines, and so on,have been prepared to facilitate this process,overseen by a multi-stakeholder steering group(DFID 2005).

Implementation requires all extractives indus-try companies operating in a particular country toannually, or more often, disclose their paymentsto government, the government to publish therevenues it receives, the credibility of the datato be verified by independent audit, and civilsociety to use the disclosed data to hold govern-ments to account for the distribution of thosefunds in the interests of sustainable development.

Sector specific sustainability reporting

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has devel-oped more general sustainability reporting guide-lines for companies in the sector – an exercisethat is now routine for large companies.

The Kimberley process

The EITI aims to track payments and receiptsand, alongside other efforts to improve publicfinancial management, help build accountability.This differs from another significant initiative,the Kimberley process, which is about trackinga commodity, the origin of diamonds in themarket.

The Kimberley process is an initiative inwhich governments, industry and NGOs joinedtogether to stem the flow of so-called ‘blood orconflict diamonds’, rough diamonds that havebeen used to finance conflicts and that havebeen mostly obtained illegally (Goreaux 2001).

The Kimberley process certification scheme isa voluntary system that requires participants tocertify that their shipments of rough diamondsare free from conflict diamonds. It accounts forabout 98% of the trade in rough diamonds.

Common interest in improving governance

The benefits of increased transparency arediverse. Governments will benefit from main-taining or increasing inward investment, commu-nities will receive a greater share of the revenues,citizens will be better able to hold governmentsto account, companies will benefit from morepredictable and stable business and investmentclimates and consumers’ will be assured of theorigins of their purchases.

There are obvious advantages in tackling theissue of poor governance for an industry that isanchored to the place where the resource itneeds to exploit physically occurs and that haslimited options to relocate to other countrieswhere better governance prevails.

Improving governance also has importance tothe development community. This is because ofthe changing nature of the way in which inter-national assistance is increasingly being deliv-ered. The development landscape of the past islittered with numerous defunct projects set upby a plethora of, sometimes competing, inter-national agencies, often with their own interestsa greater motivation than those of the developingcountries that they were supposed to assist. Asthis project-specific aid sometimes by-passedgovernments, it is little wonder it frequentlyproved to be anything but sustainable, rarely sur-viving long beyond the departure of the ‘expatri-ate experts’ sent in to set them up.

Instead, aid is now increasingly being pro-vided more strategically, as direct budget orsector support. This has the advantages ofgreater prospects of country ownership, reducedtransaction costs, and greater prospects for har-monizing development agencies’ activities andaligning them with the developing country’sown priorities not those of the aid agencies(Table 2) (Holmon 2003).

For this change to be successful, however,there need to be effective and accountable gov-ernments, transparency, and widely agreedgoals with targets and strategies to achieve them.

Table 2. The Millennium Development Goals 2000

(1) Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger(2) Achieve universal primary education(3) Promote gender equality and empower women(4) Reduce child mortality(5) Improve maternal health(6) Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases(7) Ensure environmental sustainability(8) Develop a global partnership for development

The above goals are supported by 18 targets.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 17

Heterogeneity of the mining sector:

artisanal and small-scale mining

By far the greatest amount of attention to sustain-ability in mining has fallen on the activities oflarge-scale mining companies. The miningsector is, however, a heterogeneous entity,ranging from large-scale multinationals, throughsmall-scale enterprises, to the artisanal minerswho characteristically are labour-intensiveoperators using rudimentary tools (Figs 12, 13).

It is estimated that there are now more peopledirectly employed in artisanal and small-scalemining than in larger scale formal mining. Yetthe complexity of the artisanal and small-scalemining (ASM) sector is leading to its underman-agement, if not active persecution. Governmentpolicies on ASM either do not exist or arepoorly developed. The lack of formalization oflaws, regulations, rights, fair market prices andsafeguards fails to capitalize on the contributionthe sector can make to development processes.

Artisanal mining has been described as the“most primitive type of mining characterizedby groups and individuals exploiting deposits –usually illegally – with the simplest equipment”.The Toronto declaration (2002) recognized that“artisanal and small scale mining . . . are import-ant and complex (but) beyond the capacity ofICMM to resolve. Governments and (called on)

international agencies (to) assume the lead rolein addressing them” (authors italics).

The EIR, in response to the high profile givento this sector at its international consultativeworkshops, commented on the potential of theartisanal and small-scale mining sectors to ‘les-sen(ing) the burden of poverty.’ It urged theWorld Bank to help governments to developpolicies that also recognize the sector as hetero-geneous (in its own right) and to distinguishbetween community-based and itinerant miners,giving the former clear priority over miningrights.

Artisanal mining is not a new phenomenon.The labours of artisanal miners have laid thefoundations for, and their products haveadorned, most early civilizations from AngkorWat to Zimbabwe. The proceeds of artisanalmining opened up early trade relations.

The history of mining itself is rooted in artisa-nal and small-scale operations and it has fre-quently been artisanal miners that have pointedthe way to mineral deposits for more capitalintensive exploitation. For example, the pre-European settler gold mining and ore processingevident in the Francistown/Tati area of Bots-wana supported the Zimbabwe/Mapungubwecivilizations and opened trade for these civiliza-tions with the Portuguese and Arabs. It was theseprimitive workings, dating back to AD 900(Tlou & Campbell 1984) that led early Europeansettlers to deposits that, with increasing mechan-ization, supported the first European gold miningventures in southern Africa in the late 1860s, theremnants of which are still evident south east of

Fig. 12. Small-scale emerald mining, Ndola, Zambia(photo: D’Souza).

Fig. 13. Small-scale gold mining, Ghana (photo:Hobbs).

J. C. A. HOBBS18

Francistown in Botswana (Van Waarden 1999)(Figs 14–16).

Today, the ASM phenomenon is widespreadand growing throughout Asia, Latin America,and Africa, it features in about 30 countries and,according to ILO estimates, provides livelihoodsfor 100 million people, although there areobvious difficulties in establishing reliablefigures. The ILO also estimates that up to 13million people are directly engaged in thesector (Figs 17–21).

Some of the unacceptable practices found inthe historical roots of mining are still found intoday’s artisanal sectors. These should havebeen consigned to the annals of social historyand industrial archaeology. The sector has aninfluence on all of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (Table 2) and other issues at the heart ofdevelopment policy: HIV-AIDS, child labour,poverty, gender discrimination, environmentalsustainability and so on (Figs 17–22).

It is estimated that the artisanal mines of theLake Victoria goldfields, which engage some300 000 people, produce nearly 70% of thegold production of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.In Mozambique. Women comprise 50% of thoseinvolved across Africa. It is estimated that goldand gemstones worth US$1 billion per year areproduced in sub-Saharan Africa through artisanalmining (D’Souza pers. comm.).

Fig. 14. Cornish stamp mill; remnants of earliestEuropean gold mining activity in Southern Africa,Vermaak’s mine, Botswana (photo: Hobbs).

Fig. 15. Pre-European gold milling ‘dolly’ holes andgrinding surfaces in dolerite at Tati, Botswana, fromwhere gold was supplied to the Zimbabwe andMapangubwe civilizations in present, day Zimbabweand South Africa.

Fig. 16. Artisanal mining provided the materials formany of the enduring legacies of past civilizations: (a)Angkor Wat, Cambodia (photo: Hobbs); (b) the GreatWall of China (photo: Hobbs).

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 19

The priority need is to integrate the sector intonational economies to ensure these miners haveaccess to official markets and get a fair returnfor their labours and products. Clearly, social,health, safety and environmental safeguards arefew and far between in the majority of theseactivities (Hobbs et al. 2003).

To address these issues, the Communities andSmall-scale Mining (CASM, www.casmsite.org)initiative was inaugurated at a meeting in Londonin 2001 under the auspices of the UK’s Depart-ment for International Development and the

World Bank. CASM is now a thriving inter-national network of experts, government anddevelopment officials, private sector, NGOs andartisanal miners themselves.

Fig. 17. Artisanal mining and the development agenda.Child labour in Ghana gold mining (photo: Hobbs).

Fig. 19. Artisanal mining and the development agenda.Women in artisanal mining in Rex, Ghana (photo:D’Souza).

Fig. 18. Artisanal mining and the development agenda.Health and safety issues: artisanal mining, Gold Ghana(photo: Hobbs).

Fig. 20. Artisanal mining and the development agenda.Hazardous child labour in Mgusu, Tanzania, handmixing gold and mercury (photo: D’Souza).

J. C. A. HOBBS20

Mirroring large-scale operations, CASM’smission is to move enclave artisanal miningcommunities to more sustainable, integratedcommunities pursuing sustainable livelihoods.This calls for a transformation of the sector

from the current situation – characterized byself-serving opportunism, violence and conflict,dysfunctional social systems (prostitution andfew community institutions), erratic incomesand little or no savings – to communities inwhich land and other rights are respected,community structures exist, reinvestmenttakes place, safety, health and environmentalmanagement systems are in place, and diverseemployment and livelihoods opportunities exist(van der Veen 2003) (Figs 23 and 24).

Fig. 21. Artisanal mining and the development agenda.Child labour in Ghana (photo: BGS).

Fig. 23. Irresponsible legacy of recent small scalemining activity, in the footsteps of earlier generations,small-scale discards, Tati Farm, Botswana (photo:Hobbs).

Fig. 22. Getting the ASM product to market,transporting artisanally mixed copper oxide, Laputo,Democratic Republic of the Congo (photo: d’Souza).

Fig. 24. Irresponsible legacy of abandoned small scalemining activity, hazardous gold mine, exposed shaft,Tati Farm, Botswana (photo: Hobbs).

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 21

Conclusion

It is clear that governments, especially developingcountries, are often now the weakest link in themomentum behind the drive to ‘sustainablemining’ that has been led by the private sector.This gulf has become wider as the private sectorhas devoted considerable attention to improvingits contribution to sustainable development.

The role of developing countries is the creationof more conducive business environments andinvestment climates and the better managementof natural resources, renewable and non-renew-able. This will enhance sustained economicgrowth, political stability, and the contributionthe mining sector can make to the attainmentof poverty reduction, the other MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) and sustainabledevelopment.

This paper has tracked recent progress of themining sector’s progress to greater sustainability,highlighting key initiatives. Two further recentinitiatives hold out promise of progress in thisarea. The first of these is the development ofthe inter-governmental forum on mining andminerals – formerly the Global Mining Dialogue(a Canadian and South African partnershipinitiative originating from WSSD but onlyreceiving the required 25 member countries tobring it into effect in 2005), which is attemptingto provide the necessary forum to encouragemore urgent progress in the way governmentsmanage mineral resource endowments and pro-blematic elements such as the artisanal andsmall-scale mining sector.

Secondly, and at a regional level, the AfricanMining Partnership was launched in Cape Townin 2004 (initially chaired by Ghana). Twenty-twoMinisters responsible for mining in their countriesparticipated (Angola, Burkina Faso, Chad, Repub-lic of Congo, DRC, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia,Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Maurita-nia, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone,South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda) andstressed the important part that the extractivessector has to play in poverty reduction.

The overall challenge in encouraging sustain-able development in mining is to convert whathas been described as the vicious circle of extrac-tive investments, historically at times character-ized by enclave activities that fail to generateindigenous jobs or local investment, operateunder a veil of secrecy, have little or no benefi-ciation or added value, result in little economicdiversification and exhibit little compliance toenvironmental and social standards and laws,to a virtuous circle, where jobs are created, rev-enues collected and managed competently,

incomes saved and reinvested, there areforward and backward economic linkages, diver-sification is encouraged and environmental andsocial impacts managed and where povertyand unsustainability are replaced by prosperityand sustainability, in other words ‘sustainablemining’.

The author is grateful to Kevin d’Souza (WardellArmstrong), Paul Henney and Andrew Bloodworth(BGS), and Peter van der Veen, Jeffrey Davidson andGotthard Walser (World Bank, IFC) together with manyother colleagues, for sharing their insights and expertiseover the past two years of collaboration in the work ofCASM. Sincere thanks are also due to Dr. AnneBlackbeard of Blue Jockets Ranch, Tati Town, Botswana.

References

BARR, J. 1970. Derelict Britain. Penguin, Harmonds-worth, England.

BUSINESS PARTNER FOR DEVELOPMENT. 2002.Putting Partnering to Work 1998–2002 Resultsand Recommendations. Business Partner for Devel-opment, World Bank, Washington, DC.

DANIELSON, L. 2002. The Role of the Minerals Sectorin the Transition to Sustainable Development.International Institute for Sustainable Development(IISD), London.

DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

(DFID). 2005. Extractive Industries TransparencyInitiative. DFID, London.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 1995. BestPractice Environmental Management in Mining(26 Modules). Commonwealth of Australia (nowknown as the ‘Sustainable Minerals Series’).

EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES REVIEW (EIR). 2004. Strik-ing a Better Balance – the World Bank Groupand Extractive Industries – Final Report. WorldBank, Washington, DC.

GOREAUX, L. 2001. Conflict Diamonds. AfricaRegional Workshop Paper Series no. 13. WorldBank. (http://www.worldbank.org/afr/wps/index.htm).

HALLER, R. & BAER, S. 1994. From Wasteland toParadise. Koschany, Munchen, Germany.

HAWKEN, P., LOVINS, A. & HUNTER LOVINS, L. 1996.Natural Capitalism – the Next Industrial Revolu-tion. Earthscan, London.

HOBBS, J., BLOODWORTH, A. & HOADLEY, M. 2003.Escaping poverty through artisanal mining – ayear down the line and how are we doing? In:‘Vision’ Endangered Wildlife Trust, volume 11.Future Publishing, Johannesburg, 118–121.

HOLMAN, M. 2003. Critical issues in developing amining related Poverty Reduction Strategy for thePeople’s Republic of Tanzania. Minerals and Strat-egies Research, Cape Town.

HOPE, K. R. 2003. Lessons for Africa.Business inAfrica,December 2002/January 2003, Johannesburg,28–32.

J. C. A. HOBBS22

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND

DEVELOPMENT (IIED)/WORLD BUSINESS

COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.2002. Breaking New Ground – Mining, Mineralsand Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London.

LIEBENTHAL, A., MICHELITSCH, R. & TARAZONA, E.2003. Extractive industries and sustainabledevelopment – an evaluation of World Bankexperience. World Bank, International FinanceCorporation and Multilateral Investment GuaranteeAgency, Washington, DC.

MILLER, G. T. 2000. Living in the Environment:Principles, Connections and Solutions (11thEdition). Brooker/Cole Publications (Division ofITP), Pacific Grove, USA.

MONTAGUE, D. 2002. Stolen goods: Coltan and con-flict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.SAIS Review, XX11(1) (Winter–Spring).

MURSHED, S. 2004. When Does Natural ResourceAbundance Lead to a Resource Curse? Inter-national Institute for Sustainable Development,London.

SCHMIDHEINY, S. 1992. Changing Course – AGlobal Business Perspective on Developmentand the Environment. MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

TLOU, T. & CAMPBELL, A. 1984. History of Botswana.MacMillan, Gaborone.

TYLER MILLER, G. 2000. Living in the Environment.Brooks Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove, USA.

UNITED NATIONS: World Summit on SustainableDevelopment; Political Declaration and Plan ofImplementation. 2003. United Nations, New York.

VAN DER VEEN, P. 2003. CASM: A force toward sus-tainable communities. Paper presented at the Com-munities and Small Scale Mining (CASM) AnnualConference, Elmina, Ghana.

VAN WAARDEN, C. 1999. Exploring Tati – Places ofHistoric and Other Interest Around Francistown.Marope Research, Francistown, Botswana.

WORLD BANK AND INTERNATIONAL FINANCE

CORPORATION. 2002. Treasures or Trouble?Mining in Developing Countries. IFC,Washington, DC.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 23