CYANIDE CODE

CYANIDE CODE STEERING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the first meeting, December 4-5, 2000, held in Washington, D.C.

The first meeting of the Steering Committee for the code of practice for cyanide use was held on December 4-5 in Washington, D.C. The meeting was organized by UNEP and ICME, and arrangements were made by the Gold Institute. The steering committee members are a small group of participants from large and small gold producers, ENGO’s, the ICCA, the IFC, and government regulators. The meeting was chaired by Kathryn Tayles, and followed the agenda circulated before the meeting (agenda appended #1 9KB).

Introduction to Code Initiative

Kathryn Tayles gave an overview of the activities to date in leading up to this meeting, including the outcomes of previous meetings in Paris and San Francisco. She also outlined the roles of UNEP and ICME in facilitating the process.

Paul Bateman made a presentation (appended #2 256 KB) on the role of the Gold Institute, and on the work done by the industry, and especially by the Industry Advisory Group (IAG). The IAG is a group of 18 companies from around the globe, and includes 9 of the world’s 10 largest gold producers, and 2 of the world’s top cyanide producers. The IAG will provide cooperation and assistance to the Steering Committee and has already started to compile information to assist in that process. The IAG has also agreed to fund the work of the cyanide code process, as directed by the Steering Committee.

Basie Maree gave a presentation (appended #3 ) on the extensive work that Anglogold has undertaken, in South Africa and in its international operations, to develop and implement a company code of practice for the use of cyanide. This work is now almost complete. It contains more detail than would be included in a global code, but it was quite clear that this work will be a major contribution to this cyanide code project.

Role of Steering Committee

Draft roles for the Steering Committee, Code Manager and Secretariat were prepared by UNEP and ICME, and circulated before the meeting. Kathryn Tayles led a discussion on these proposed roles and the Steering Committee has endorsed the drafts, subject to minor modifications (appended #4 18 KB). The Steering Committee will direct the work on the project, and the Code Manager will report to the Committee and implement the work it directs. The Secretariat will continue to facilitate the work of the Committee.

There was considerable discussion on Steering Committee membership, and some additions to the Committee have been agreed on. One would be for a representative from labour. Several possibilities were discussed and prioritized. UNEP will follow up to obtain the appropriate individual. There is also a need for participation by the cyanide manufacturing industry; UNEP will also follow up to arrange this [Juergen Loroesch of Degussa-Huls has since agreed to join the committee].

Budget

The funding for the cyanide code process will be provided by the IAG, through the Gold Institute. The Steering Committee will decide how the funds are to be deployed. The Gold Institute will administer the funds, and will contract for the services required for the process, such as the hiring of the code manager. The total budget for the project will be US$ 800,000, for the following items: code manager (including expenses), other consultants, Steering Committee meetings, stakeholder consultations, Secretariat expenses, code promotion and monitoring activities, administrative costs, and contingency. The Gold Institute has already received about half the money required for the project, and expects the rest shortly.

The Code Itself

Kathryn Tayles made a presentation on the outcome of the Paris and San Francisco meetings (appended #5). There was then discussion of a number of approaches. Some members felt it was necessary to reinforce basic good practices, and some were concerned that "stretch" targets might discourage buy-in, but the consensus was that the ultimate goal was to improve overall practice. There was discussion on the need to find mechanisms to give smaller companies a "leg up" because of the difficulty for many of them in complying with higher targets. As part of the Code development process there will need to be a plan developed to foster their adoption of the code, and to assist them comply with its provisions.

There was a discussion on application to non-gold mining, and it was agreed that the focus should first be on the gold industry, with a review later on of what might be involved in extending the Code to other mining uses of cyanide. It was also agreed the Code would cover cyanide transport to mine sites. There was discussion on the boundary between this Code and tailings Codes and guidelines. It was agreed that to the extent to which tailings management issues are being adequately addressed in other Codes or through other initiatives, non-cyanide aspects of tailings management should not be duplicated.

There was discussion on the need for verification and accountability. There was consensus that this would be an important component of the process. Suitable models will need to be identified and the IAG was asked to commence work on this. The role of internal and third party audits will need to be considered, and an audit "score sheet" against the Code may be developed.

There was discussion on a requirement to buy cyanide only from recognized responsible sellers, but the consensus was to focus on purchasing from sellers who handle it properly, rather than limiting to specific companies.

There was preliminary discussion on how to deal with Code non-compliance. Options mentioned were decertification, leaving it to governments to use the code for regulation, giving of provisional certificates, and rating scales.

Code Development Process & Timeline

Kathryn Tayles presented a draft timeline for the project, with completion by the end of 2001. There was discussion on various elements, and some modifications were agreed. The timeline as amended is appended (append #6 7 KB ).

There was discussion on the future "home" of the Cyanide Code, to ensure that it remains a dynamic document and is updated as required. Both UNEP and ICME were suggested as possibilities, but neither organization thought they could take this on [this has since been discussed again at ICME, and may be reconsidered - for ICME or any other organization it would first be necessary to have critical operational requirements defined in advance]. It was decided to refer the "home" issue to the IAG, to ask them to advise the Steering Committee of options for maintaining and housing the Code.

There was a proposal for the Steering Committee to create a "review group" of experts drawn from different backgrounds to be asked to review drafts of the Code as developed by the Code Manager and to provide the Steering Committee with comment and advice.

Appointment of Steering Committee Chairman

Harold Barnes was nominated, and elected by acclamation. Kathryn Tayles continued chairing this meeting but Harold will chair subsequent ones.

Code Features/Elements

There was preliminary discussion on which possible elements the code should contain, including: performance standards, tailings and water management, emergency response, community relations, chemical stewardship, pipelines and storage systems, auditing and reporting.

There was agreement of the need for performance standards with broad stakeholder support, the need for an auditing process (possibly third party accredited), the ability to appeal (by either side) the results of audits, and the need for the process to be transparent.

Code Manager

The names and resumes of five candidates for the position of code manager, were circulated before the meeting. There was extensive discussion of the abilities and experience required for the position, and a consideration of the merits of the candidates in regard to the required characteristics. All the candidates had significant strengths to contribute to the process, but in the end two candidates were short-listed, though one scored higher than the other. A telephone interview of the higher-scoring candidate was carried out by Harold Barnes, Glenn Miller and Tom Hynes, and the Steering Committee concurred on this person, subject to successful negotiation of his fees for the year. These negotiations are currently underway.

Other Issues

A number of issues came up during this meeting that should be addressed at future meetings. They include the need for an interim working name for the code ("branding"), the involvement of small scale producers (how small to target?), leverage/incentives to get buy in, the need for on-going research including alternative lixivants, transportation (partnerships), mine closure, and other problems such as mercury release from leached ores.

Basie Maree will invite the new code manager to attend the meeting in South Africa, on January 10-11, of the cyanide initiative underway there.

Information was provided on a cyanide conference in New Orleans on Feb. 11-13.

A number of matters discussed during the meeting were to be communicated to the IAG. A letter covering these matters was subsequently sent from the (interim) Chair of this meeting to Paul Bateman as Convenor of the IAG (appended #7 ).

Dates for Future Meetings

Dates have been selected for the four remaining meetings of the Steering Committee. The first two dates are firm but the latter two may need to change, depending on future events.

Meeting #2 March 1-2, 2001 San Francisco

Meeting #3 May 10-11, 2001 Washington

Meeting #4 July 23-24, 2001 Vancouver

Meeting #5 October 15-16, 2001 Washington

The Steering Committee and the Secretariat join in thanking the Gold Institute, and particularly Paul Bateman and Doug Fuller, for their assistance and their hospitality throughout the meeting. It was very much appreciated. The Committee also wishes to thank Kathryn Tayles for her highly effective chairing of this meeting.

Tom Hynes

If you need to obtain this page in PDF (17 KB), click here to download it.