CYANIDE CODE

CYANIDE CODE STEERING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the 4th meeting, July 23 - 25, 2001, held in Vancouver, BC

*******************************************************************

Agenda Items 1-2
The meeting was opened by the Chair welcoming new members of the Steering Committee: (Steve Hunt from the United Steelworkers; Fred Fox, Manager of Health, Safety and Environment from Kennecott Minerals Co.; Frederico Yillaseñor from Luismin in Mexico; and Wanda Hoskin from UNEP who has taken over from Kathryn Tayles).

Agenda Item 3
As there were new members, the Chair gave an overview of the development of the cyanide management Code which resulted from an UNEP/ ICME Workshop (Paris, May 2000). While there has been good progress and some consultation, the Chair emphasized the need to finish drafting the Code keeping in mind it needs to be implementable by small as well as large gold producers.

Agenda Item 4 - Review of Current Draft Code
The Code Manager then reviewed the current draft of the Code, now at a final critical stage. While the Principles, Standards of Practice, Implementation Guidance including alternative means of implementation have been addressed, further consideration needs to be given to the level of:

The draft Code was given by Norm Greenwald to a professional English editor who made mostly stylistic changes. This redline draft was reviewed the second day to ensure accuracy of the content along with a discussion of outstanding Code issues.

Agenda Item 5 - Budget
Paul Bateman (The Gold Institute) reviewed the budget situation. $786K of the required $800K has been raised. The Code's development is on budget including engaging a consultant (Winner & Assoc.) who is working on the implementation plan, and monies to launch the Code and kick-start its implementation.

Agenda Item 6 - Schedule Review
The Steering Committee is on schedule to complete the Code by the end of October 2001 so as to start promotion and implementation by the end of 2001.

Agenda Item 7 - Invited Stakeholder Presentations & Consultations
The draft Code was provided to several different people who were asked to present their views to the Committee. Presentations/comments were given by: Hugh Jones, Golder Associates, Perth, Australia; David Chambers, Center for Science in Public Participation, Bozeman, Montana; Ivan Irnovich, Northwest Mining Association, USA; Geoff Day, Lahir Management Company, PNG; Alan Young, Environmental Mining Council of British Columbia; and on the last day, by Carol Raulston, Winner & Assoc., USA.

a) Hugh Jones (Golder Associates)
Mr Jones' comments were from the viewpoint of having been a senior mining regulator for 12 years in Australia (see Appendix 1 for his presentation).

During the subsequent discussion, Mr Jones thought there was enough information in the Code to assist small operators who were just starting so they could do things right. For abandoned operations, no owner meant on-going real problems. For current operators, they may/may not be able to meet all standards of practice because of past decisions. That is, the degrees of freedom available are not equal across the board.

In a discussion about financial surety and mine closure, Mr Jones felt the cyanide aspects of mine closure was only one component of the issue. He referred people to an excellent paper on Financial Surety written by Dr George Miller for ICME (approx. 1999).

b) Ivan Irnovich, Special Projects Director, Northwest Mining Association (NMA)

During the discussion period, Mr Irnovich suggested that reconciliation of a user-friendly Code with flexibility in implementation could be achieved by having a combination of performance measures plus a "cookbook" approach to the Code.

c) David Chambers - Center for Science and Public Participation (CSPP)
Mr Chambers discussed the Code with specific analysis of the July 1998 cyanide transport accident in Kyrgyzstan as CSPP was invited to the area by the Soros foundation. Based on his experience, the cyanide Code needs to reference a spill response plan and once in place, needs to be implemented.

During the discussion, Mr Chambers indicated the importance of communication between the company and local officials.

d) Geoff Day - Lahir Management Co, PNG
He suggested that examples and case studies in the Code would help people understand the intent of the Code. The major part of his presentation was about Deep Sea Tailings Placement (DSTP) as opposed to submarine tailings disposal as cyanide is used at 3 mines in PNG: Misima Mines; Lahir and Minahasa.

Although he asked that DSTP be recognized in the Code, the Steering Committee felt this was beyond the current mandate.

e) Alan Young, Environmental Mining Council, British Columbia
Mr Young expressed interest in cyanide Code as a voluntary initiative to see how it can be applied in other areas. He was impressed at what has been done by the Steering Committee to date and if the Code can be successfully implemented, it could serve as a good example of a unique partnership of industry, governments and NGOs. However, failure at a "certified" faculty would have serious ramifications.

Questions that need to be addressed include:

Agenda Item 8 - Committee Discussion
The Committee reviewed each of the above presentations in detail and summarized the key technical and substantive points to ensure that the details presented were not lost.

Agenda Item 9 - Stakeholder Consultation Status
Norm Greenwald indicated that he contacted 44 people from several countries to solicit their views. Nine formal responses were received (see Appendix 2). Key points related to: how to appropriately strengthen the draft Code; water balance issues; cyanide leach technology; addressing Bara Mare accident concerns; accreditation of auditors and communication.

Norm also indicated that several written responses as well as informal industry responses have been received (see Appendix 3). Essentially the majority of points included suggestions as to how the draft Code could be appropriately stengthened.

The Committee discussed how greater response to our consultation efforts could be encouraged. Specific suggestions, like asking individuals to comment on specific aspects of the Code that were of particular interest to them, were discussed.

For the next round of consultations, the word DRAFT will appear on all pages, a Disclamer should appear and the electronic file to be circulated should be in a PDF (or read-only) file to guard against tampering or unrecognizable changes.

Action:
Wanda Hoskin will follow up with Euromines (Corina Herbestreit), Cornel Gabrian and her contact at the University of Baia Mare.

Wanda Hoskin will also provide draft Code to ICOLD tailings dam committee; APELL for Mining consultants; and abandoned mines and mine closure workshop participants.

Tom Hynes will provide draft Code to John Martschuk, Chair of the ICME Tailings Guidelines Task Force.

Michael Rae will share Code with other NGOs although must have been overwhelmed by MMSD process.
Norm Greenwald: please ensure that Draft is on every page of the next version to be circulated for comments.

Agenda Item 10 - New Developments
As the usual information item, there was a round table discussion on new developments in each of the areas represented by the Steering Committee members.

Agenda Item 11 - Outstanding Issues
Problems from Editting
The editted/redline draft text was found to have some substantive problem areas (major changes in Principle 1 and Principle 2; section 4.8 and the term "leach"; section 3.2 with respect to "worker safety"; discussion on "Mine Closure" and "Financial Surety"; worker safety; emergency response; training; dialogue; compliance and the Preamble).

Action:
Norm Greenwald will address the need to define cyanide facilities.

Norm Greenwald will correct the text, remove all postering language and circulate new version to Steering Committee members for both their information and to circulate to their constituency for review.

Home for the Code
After a lengthy discussion, the Committee accepted the Gold Institute's offer to provide the initial staff and space for the Administrative aspects of the Code. However, as it is a voluntary industry Code, the Committee suggested that International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM which is evolving from ICME) be asked to administer the Code with oversight and assistance by a multi-stakeholder group. There will be a discussion with the new ICMM on the value of their assuming this reponsibility once the office is up and running.

Closure, Financial Surety, Certification etc
Mine site operations are extensive and complex and many of these issues have been discussed by the Committee. However, based on the May 2000 Workshop, the Committee acknowledged that some of these issues are beyond the current mandate of the Committee. Also, because the Gold Institute will only be the temporary home for the Code, also discussed was how to deal with these critical items (eg mine closure; financial surity; certification/decertification; verification and 3rd party audits; sanctions and initiatives; arbitration and appeal).

Because as the Committee does not want to see these elements "fall off the table", the Chair will keep track of the unresolved issues. Once the Code is complete, the Chair will send a letter to UNEP and ICMM indicating the elements which still need to be considered in a second phase of the Code's development.

Action: Harold Barnes will keep track of key issues to enumerate these in a letter to UNEP and ICMM at the conclusion of the Code's development.

Management of the Code
It was AGREED that Corporations would be signatories to the Code and compliance would be at each mine site.

Numerical Standards
There is still a question as to whether they belong in the Principles and Standards.

Action: Steve Bailey will give the Committee background on where the World Bank numbers come from.

Continuous Improvement
What is continuously improving? mine sites? the Code? Unless implementation can be addressed, it is inappropriate to use "continuous" at this point.

Sanctions
There is no way to impose sanctions so this will be dropped at this point.

Incentives
Steve Bailey reported on his findings with respect to financial incentives. While there are ways to provide incentive, these are not traditional and, in any case, are very small - perhaps some money might be available for training but this would be minimal. IFC/WB looks at business merit and uses market based criteria when considering financial support.

Closure and Tailings
These issues will be referred to UNEP and ICMM suggesting a phase 2 of the Code's development.

Metals Mobilization
This issue needs to be considered later along with cyanide degradation products.

External Code Review - Legal and Technical
This will occur prior to the next meeting.

Action: Harold Barnes will solicit legal views.

Agenda Item 12 - Presentation on Auditing Practices and Methodology
To assist the Steering Committee's deliberations, two presentations were given by David East and John Fillo (PricewaterhouseCoopers) on "Auditing Practices and Methodology". They elaborated these from a financial perspective and illustrated their application to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and possible application to the draft cyanide Code. The Responsible Care methodology was also discussed.

The related discussion focussed on both technical elements of the Code to be audited as well as the costs of such auditing.

Action: PWC will get specific certification and audit cost information for the Chair.

Auditor Credentials
The required credentials of a qualified auditor were also discussed. It was AGREED that qualifications would encompass:

Agenda Item 13 - Verification Protocol
It was agreed that Implementation Guidelines are needed to ensure the Code is successful in its intent.

Norm Greenwald will draft the Implementation Guideline to be discussed at the next meeting.

Agenda Item 14 - Code Promotion
Carol Raulston (Winner & Assoc) updated her May presentation proposing a communications and marketing strategy for the Code including designing a website (www.cyanidecode.org) which will be accessible July 25. Work still needs to be done to get approval on a symbol (branding is important - as in the symbol for Responsible Care etc); on developing presentations, articles and interviews; and on developing a communications and marketing plan.

The marketing plan Code will need to be conveyed at least to the following groups:

Action: Harold Barnes and Wanda Hoskin will work on key messages..

Agenda Item 16 - Final Scheduled Meeting
October 15 - 17, 2001
Action: Harold Barnes to say where.

If you need to obtain this page in PDF (24 KB), click here to download it.