This article will provide a brief explanation of what is meant by a "best practices" approach to environmental mining reform. It was first prepared as a backgrounder to aid in discussion at an international meeting of mining activists in Lima in February of 1997. It grows out of the ongoing experience of the work of the EMCBC and the mining caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network.

As noted in the Saskatoon Declaration, many different public interest groups are facing and fighting the threat of irresponsible mineral development. It is broadly accepted and proven that mining companies engaged in inappropriate exploration and development activities can have severe impacts on the local community, economy and ecology. History also shows that the costs of cleaning up after environmental and/or social impacts are almost without exception much greater than the cost of prevention. In many cases the damage is irreversible.

Our challenge is to protect ecological and social values from destructive mining practices. Meeting this challenge requires a variety of political and technical tools which depend on,

1. the stage of development: from exploration to mine construction to mine operation and closure, location: proximity to communities and ecologically sensitive areas,
2. the regulatory regime: opportunities for public intervention in decision-making
3. type of company: from small exploration company to transnational mining company

Problems arise from a variety of factors including;

• incomplete impact assessment;
• lack of regulatory standards;
• highly sensitive site location;
• inadequate pollution control technology;
• poor construction;
• [poor] operation and maintenance standards;
• lack of monitoring or enforcement capacity [and/or commitment]; and
• inadequate reclamation planning.

In addressing these issues, we usually are working with fewer technical resources and less immediate political leverage, than the mining companies which can promise capital benefits while minimizing the nature of the costs and impacts during the project assessment phase. To operate successfully, given this power imbalance, we need a clear framework for analysis and action.

A "Best Practices" approach is a way of describing the "bottom line" on which activities are acceptable and which are not acceptable. It is a way of articulating standards and expectations that must be met by companies and by governments regulating companies.

Within this framework it remains possible to say that no mining may be the "best practice because of the potential for damage to highly sensitive land uses. This is the case in Canada where companies have agreed that there will be no mining in protected areas. In other cases activities could be acceptable if particular techniques and technologies are used to protect health and environmental values in the short term and the long term.

The central idea of the "Best Practices" approach, as we are defining it is to use research, networking and advocacy to improve industry practices and regulatory standards. This approach emphasizes the strategic documentation of projects, practices and policies which protect ecological integrity and address community needs. It also provides tools to expose substandard practices and policies through the comparison with other sites and situations. Politically, it uses both "the carrot" and "the stick", and helps to counter the anti-mining, anti-development accusations, where these (often industry-driven attacks) will hurt our political leverage.

Working with this approach requires effective research and networking. Through application of an informed best practices critique, it is possible to provide more effective technical attack on harmful projects, to push demands for new techniques and technologies, expose substandard and unfeasible projects quickly. Some strategic advantages, particularly in mining-dependent economies are that :

a)   it allows public interest groups to argue from a perspective of responsible development (which may mean no development where pollution or degradation is not feasible) and

b)   it allows us to open up more effective dialogue and co-operative action with mine workers and other effected groups who have access to mine sites and who may have different political leverage than that available to environmental organizations in particular.

Some questions arising from this approach:

• What are the most efficient and effective means to acquire and disseminate the required strategic information on mining practices and policies?
• How do groups individually and collectively decide on what is "acceptable?"
• To what degree can we develop a common public agenda for environmental mining standards?

How do we develop access to the technical expertise we need?

Source: Environmental Mining Council of British Columbia