CYANIDE CODE

VOLUNTARY INDUSTRY CODE FOR CYANIDE MANAGEMENT IN GOLD MINING

INFORMATION DOCUMENT #1

BACKGROUND

The tailings spill from the Aural mine at Baia Mare in Romania in January of this year focused public attention on the risks associated with gold mining. Although the immediate consequences of the accident have since been dealt with, this did not prevent the resurgence of considerable public concern as well as concern in the mining industry itself. Some on the on-going use of cyanide in gold mining have raised questions. Alternatives to cyanide pose their own economic and environmental challenges.

While this type of accident remains an infrequent occurrence, the actual and potential consequences of cyanide can be very harmful. To ensure public support for the continued use of cyanide the gold mining industry should demonstrate that it is taking additional actions to drive high standards of practice and performance in managing cyanide and reduce the frequency of incidents. The industry has recognized this and has decided, for its part, to support an initiative to further improve management systems.

STEPS TO DATE

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), working in partnership with the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME) convened an international multi-stakeholder meeting on cyanide management in gold mining in Paris, 25-26 May, 2000 to consider the development of a voluntary industry code of practice to improve performance which would regain stakeholder confidence in a proactive way.

The Workshop brought together 40 people from the industry and other interested groups. Included were a good geographic representation of the gold mining industry, industry associations, cyanide suppliers, NGOs, national governments and the global financial and inter-governmental agencies, and cyanide experts. Attendance was deliberately limited to facilitate effective participatory discussions.

The Workshop focused on: issues and principles that could be included in a Code; a process to oversee and guide the Codes' development and implementation; verification and reporting; the need to engage large and smaller companies; and its promotion, throughout the industry, especially to medium and small gold mining companies. The clear consensus was that the cyanide initiative is important and that the process of developing a voluntary global industry Code of Practice and management systems should proceed as soon as possible. To facilitate the development and promotion of the Code, it was agreed that a multi-stakeholder Steering Committee be formed. The Report of the Workshop is available on UNEP's Mineral Resources Forum website at http://www.mineralresourcesforum.org .

Since then, discussions have taken place within industry and in other sectors, to obtain additional input on the Code and to better define the way forward. The global gold industry is diverse, both in terms of geography and size and there is no single representative body. A large number of companies and associations are aware of the initiative and widespread support is being received across North America, South Africa and Australia. The Gold Institute in particular is playing a catalytic role within the broader industry. It is investigating the establishment of an effective way to engage the industry to work on this issue to ensure ongoing communication of results and progress and that funding is obtained.

THE STEERING COMMITTEE

To provide oversight and guidance to the process and to set a timetable to develop a draft Code a Steering Committee is in the process of being formed. UNEP and ICME are charged with the responsibility of canvassing nominees who are being chosen to provide a balance in representation of stakeholder groups, geography and skills. The Committee will be small, with people drawn from each sector –gold mining, both large and small/medium producers; cyanide producers; NGOs; the global financial and inter-governmental agencies; and national governments. Recommendations continue to be received from representative stakeholder groups.

The individuals would bring issues and perspectives to the initiative, which are representative of their sector. It is recognized that they would not be able to act as a representative of their global counterparts in any formal sense. However, Steering Committee members would be expected to communicate with others in their sector internationally in an approach that is suitable to them. This, together with the involvement of the broader stakeholder group that was present in Paris, may better ensure the development and effectiveness of the Code as well as provide a broader based sense of its ownership, promotion and implementation.

Terms of Reference

In providing guidance, the Steering Committee will review and approve the terms of reference for the Project; for the Steering Committee; and for the Code Manager. The Committee would make the final selection of the Code Manager and would be responsible for agreeing on priority areas for Code development, advising on scope and coverage in relation to other codes and regulations, and set a timetable for the work. It would have drafts reviewed and provide advice on ways to promote the Code to enhance its uptake and implementation.

The Code Manager is intended to be an individual engaged to work full time on drafting the Code; seeking inputs from experts in companies, academia, consultants and other sources and managing the consultation process involving a range of stakeholders.

The detailed work of the Code Manager and the Steering Committee will be supported with assistance from ICME and UNEP acting as the Secretariat.

THE CONTENT OF THE CODE

The Report of the Workshop covers content related issues, which emerged during the meeting. This thinking was of course preliminary and incomplete, but provides useful input to the process of developing the Code. It was suggested that the Code should:

• Be relevant to large and small companies;

• Include leading edge practice, thus providing a stretch for companies to meet;

• Focus on the management of cyanide in gold mining; Boundary issues will need careful examination. Generic issues may be considered relevant, but the example of tailings management was used to illustrate the point that whereas other guidelines or codes exist or are being developed, this Code should focus on cyanide.

• Not duplicate existing cyanide related guidelines, protocols and Codes if they already cover well certain aspects eg CEFIC’s Guidelines for storage, handling and distribution of Alkali Cyanides. Other specific documents should be critically assessed, referenced and possibly appended to the Code;

• Cover all types of gold operations which use cyanide;

• Consider impacts on communities and deal with the broad issue of emergency preparedness, planning and response;

• Cover risk reduction associated with the use of cyanide and ways to minimize impacts in the event of an incident;

• Contain verification and reporting procedures;

• Be based on sound science and optimally sustainable technologies; and

• Be based on the view that cyanide is the preferred lixivant for gold mining, without ignoring issues related to alternatives and identifying scientific gaps where they exist.

THIS DOCUMENT

This summary has been drafted by UNEP and ICME to assist people and groups in communicating more broadly with their constituents on the evolution of the Cyanide Code initiative thus far. As events unfold further information documents will be produced.

17 August 2000