Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/362981753/Suitability-Criteria-for-extractive-minerals
Timestamp: 2019-09-18 15:32:03
Document Index: 560759113

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 7', 'Art 25', 'Art 149', 'Art 145', 'Art 147', 'Art 150', 'Art 194', '§3809', '§3809', 'Art 36']

Suitability Criteria for extractive minerals | Convention de 1973 sur les espèces menacées | Zone protégée
Go/No go Zones
enregistrerEnregistrer Suitability Criteria for extractive minerals pour plus tard
HOUSE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, AND NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE BUDGET REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
Pacific-Power--PPL-104
01 06 12 OSM BLM Consolidation Release
Notice: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico; Postponement of Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures
Notice: Meetings: Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Board of Overseers
Arisya Fitri Nugraha-C252170031
Proposed Rule: Endangered and threatened species: Northern aplomado falcons; nonessential experimental population establishment in New Mexico and Arizona
7B - Nepal - Kathmandu Valley 20170201 Public
APPENDIX N Integrated Management Plan
Suitability Criteria for Mining Places considered for No-go criteria across the world (non-exhaustive list):
 World Heritage sites
ICMM, Bank of America, Citi Group, JP Morgan, Shell, AIIB
 Watershed catchment areas, Rivers
India, Philippines, USA 1 , Nova Scotia, Qubec, El Salvador
 National parks
India, Philippines, USA, Sweden, Ecuador, Canada, Colombia
 Primary forests
Philippines, India, Canada
 Migratory Birds Sanctuary
 Biological and Cultural diversity
Philippines, India, AIIB
 Ramsar Wetlands
Colombia, HSBC, AIIB
 Sacred natural sites/ sacred groves
 Affects Indigenous people, local communities
 Local communities overwhelmingly reject the proposal in a referendum
 Indigenous burial grounds, cemeteries
USA (NAGPRA)
 Large relocation
 Finances an ongoing Conflict
Total, Soco, Norway Oil Fund
 Small Islands and Mountain tops
JP Morgan (mountain top), Indonesia (small Islands)
 Artic / Antarctic
 Deep Sea floor mining
 Pollution due to deadly by-products and toxic reagents used (Mercury, Cyanide, Arsenic etc.)
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Germany, Turkey, Hungary, Czech Republic
 Already has a heavy pollution load present in the environment
 Damage due to secondary pressures (increased urbanisation, infrastructure etc)
 Agricultural Lands
Philippines, British Columbia
 Administrative and Defence reservations, bridges, highways, railroads, dams, other infrastructure projects
 Annual Tourism income exceeding certain amount
 Active Seismic zones
(considered in Peru)
 Places prone to natural disasters like landslides, flooding and hurricanes
(considered in Peru, Indonesia)
1 Wild and Scenic Rivers
Multilateral Conventions, Treaties and Organizations:
In 1998 World Heritage Center, IUCN and ICOMOS initiated discussion with ICMM regarding effect of mining on World Heritage sites. UNESCO welcomed ICMM’s pledge on not mining in World Heritage sites in 2003. In 2015, UNESCO identified 59 out of 203 protected sites that face threat from extractive industries. 2
IUCN’s position is that mineral and oil/gas exploration
IUCN World Heritage Advise Note: Mining
and exploitation (including associated infrastructure
and Oil/Gas Projects (2013)
and activities) is incompatible with the Outstanding
Universal Value of World Heritage Sites and should not be permitted within these sites. All exploration and extraction of mineral resources in protected areas corresponding to IUCN Protected Areas Management Categories I to IV should be prohibited by law, and that such projects in Category V and VI sites should undergo thorough Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). 3
ICMM with World Heritage Center and IUCN reached
No-Go Commitment (2003)
No-Go Commitment from major mining corporations
*Prohibits mining within the UNESCO World
Metals (ICMM)
1. Respect legally designated protected areas
Heritage sites, but does not insist on a buffer
2. Not explore or mine in World Heritage properties.
zone thus leaving the site vulnerable to transboundary damage.
Art 7: Any activity relating to mineral resources, other
Protocol on Environmental Protection to
than scientific research, shall be prohibited.
the Antarctic Treaty (1991)
Art 25: Article 7 ban on mining may not be repealed
unless a future treaty establishes a binding regulatory
framework for such activity
Established the marine environment beyond national
United Nations Convention for Law of
Nations Convention for Law of Sea
jurisdictions (The Area) as “the common heritage of mankind”. Mineral Resource Exploitation in “The Area” would be
under The International Seabed Authority and exclusively for peaceful purposes, and aligned with
Polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich
2 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mining-heritagesites-idUSKCN11B1YD
3 Category I Strict Nature Reserve or Wilderness Areas – for scientific purposes or wilderness protection
Category II National Parks – for ecosystem protection and recreation Category III Natural Monuments – for conservation of specific natural features Category IV Habitat or Species Management Areas – for conservation through management intervention Category V Protected Landscape or Seascapes – for landscape protection and recreation Category VI Managed Resource Protected Areas – for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems
UN Charter and other rules of international law in the interests of maintaining peace and security. Art 149: All objects of historical nature will be preserved. Art 145: “Prevention, reduction and control of pollution…to the marine environment, including the coastline and of interference with the ecological balance of the marine environment”. “Protection and conservation of the natural resources
ferromanganese crusts are mineral ores mined.
of the Area and the prevention of damage to the flora
The regions under exploration are:
and fauna of the marine environment”.
1. Clarion Clipperton Fracture Zone
Art 147: Activities in Area shall be carried out with
“reasonable regard” for other activities in the marine
unnecessary waste”.
3. Mid Atlantic Ridge
Art 150: “Orderly, safe and rational management of
5. South Atlantic Ocean
resources of the Area… in accordance with sound principles of conservation, the avoidance of
Art 194: States shall take all measures that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution using best practicable means at their disposal in accordance with their capabilities.
Discusses process for managing Environmental and
Social Risk; but does not indicate any no-go criteria. It only states that industry should follow national law or international standards and best practices.
For mining projects in legally protected areas as well
IFC Sustainability Framework 2012
as World Heritage sites, IFC requires company to
meet stringent performance standard in order for the
project to be financed by IFC.
In 2003 Extractive Industries Review recommended that World bank take leadership role and not finance any mining projects affecting World Heritage properties and mining sites within critical natural habitat zones. World Bank has not made any official policy. World Bank does keep an internal list of areas that fulfil the critical ecosytems and precludes investments that involve their significant conversion.
Extractive Industries Review (2003)
Bank will not knowingly finance projects that involves
Environmental and Social Framework (2016)
activities prohibited by legislation of the country in
(Exclusion List)
which the Project is located or by international
conventions relating to the protection of biodiversity resources or cultural resources, such as, Bonn Convention, Ramsar Convention, World Heritage Convention and Convention on Biological Diversity.
Prohibits any transactions for resource development within UNESCO World Heritage sites. Enhanced review for projects in key biodiversity areas, Ramsar wetlands, legally protected IUCN I-VI, critical
habitats of endangered species and migratory species, and high conservation value forests. Prohibits development of any greenfield mines and mountain top coal mining.
“Citi will not directly finance new mining projects within the boundaries of a World Heritage Site.”
2015 Environment and Social Policy Framework
For following ‘Areas of High Caution and Special Focus’ it shall follow after judicious assessment of
a) Critical Habitat, Areas of High Conservation Value and Significant Cultural Heritage Value
including World Heritage Sites, RAMSAR
wetlands, national parks, or other areas of significant cultural heritage value
b) Indigenous People’s Land
c) Large scale resettlement
d) Company – Community Conflict Risk
Prohibits natural resource extraction within UNESCO
a) Primary tropical moist forests;
2016 Environment and Social Policy
Bank of America will use due diligence measures to assure that lending proceeds are not used to finance commercial projects or operations that result in resource extraction from, or the clearing of:
b) Intact forests as defined by the World
Resource Institute (WRI);
c) Primary forests in temperate or boreal forest regions that are not managed using sustainable forestry practices as verified by an
independent third party audit; and
d) High conservation value forests5 unless under approved conservation plans verified by an independent, third party audit with necessary permits granted by applicable
governmental/regulatory authorities.
HSBC World Heritage Sites and Ramsar Wetlands Policy (2014)
a) World Heritage Site being placed on the “In Danger” list
b) The special characteristics of a Ramsar Wetland being threatened
Norwegian Oil Fund’s Ethical Council established in
2004, has divested and blacklisted companies dealing in coal mining, arms production, severe environmental degradation and gross human rights violations. Some of the companies it has blacklisted for environmental degradation include Barrick Gold Corporation, Freeport McMoran, Norilsk Nickel, Rio Tinto, Vedanta Resources, Volcan and Zijin Mining. It has also divested from 53 coal companies including
Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Coal India and China Coal Energy.
Sovereign funds of Kuwait, UAE, China, Singapore, South Korea and etc. do not consider ethical ramifications in their investments.
WWF suggests that mineral activity should not take
Fund (WWF)
place in the following places:
a) Highly protected areas (IUCN categories I-IV, marine category I-V protected areas, UNESCO World Heritage sites, core areas of UNESCO biosphere reserves, and Natura 2000 sites in European Union countries);
b) Proposed protected areas within priority
conservation areas selected through eco- regional planning exercises;
c) Areas containing the last remaining examples
of particular ecosystems or species even if these lie outside protected areas; or
d) Places where mineral activities threaten the wellbeing of communities including, particularly, local communities and
indigenous people WWF proposes a decision tree consisting of three filters, focusing on:
(i) protection status
(ii) potential threats to biodiversity and the environment at both the site and landscape (downstream) level (iii) potential threats to vulnerable human communities
WWF believes that before any mineral activity including initial prospecting and exploration takes place, a full environmental and social assessment should be carried out and further action halted if the assessment suggests that subsequent activity is likely to damage environmental or human wellbeing.
We suggest criteria for
(i) a veto on mineral activity,
(ii) a veto on mineral activity unless maintenance of
critical ecological and social values can be maintained at site and landscape level (iii) conditions in which mineral extraction and related activities could proceed under conditions of responsible management
Extractive Industry:
Recommends best practices to deal with any disputes
with indigenous communities or mining in biodiversity
(IPEICA)
1. Shell will not explore for, or develop, oil and gas resources in natural World Heritage Sites;
2. It will further improve the way it operates in International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Category I-IV protected areas, and areas of high biodiversity value;
3. It will publicly report on its activities in IUCN Categories I-IV; and
4. Shell will work with IUCN and others to help safeguard protected areas.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act establishes
policies for administration, development and protection of public lands. It states use of land along with preservation of natural resources through “multiple use” and “sustained yield”, i.e. “management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.” It allows Bureau of Land Management to classify areas as ‘Wilderness Study areas’ for a period of 15 years. Wilderness Study Areas are defined as “undeveloped United States federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, and managed to preserve its natural conditions” 4 . Secretary of Interior can protect federal lands to avoid “unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands” which is interpreted as ‘substantial irreparable harm’ 5 . This was upheld when Glamis Imperial Gold proposed to mine within the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA).
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), (1976)
National Landscape Conservation System Act allocates 35 million acres of federal lands in the American West for conservation under BLM to “conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes.” The lands were given 10 different conservation designations – National Monument, National Conservation Area, Wilderness Area, Wilderness Study Area, National Wild and Scenic River, National Scenic Trail, National Historic Trail, Cooperative
National Landscape Conservation System Act, (2009)
4 Characteristics of Wilderness Study Area:
(a) Size – Roadless areas of at least 5,000 acres (20 km 2 ) of public lands or of a manageable size; (b) Naturalness – Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature rather than human activity; (c) Opportunities – Provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation.
5 https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37007.pdf
Management and Protection Area, Forest Reserve and Outstanding Natural Area.
The Endangered Species Act was legislated to carry out the provisions outlined in The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Endangered Species Act (ESA), (1973)
Fauna and Flora (CITES) and requires that all federal agencies- before they do anything that may affect a threatened species- consult with either the Fish and Wildlife Service at the Department of Interior or the Fisheries Service within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. According to the United States Supreme Court, ESA’s Section 7 consultation reflects “a conscious decision by Congress to give endangered species priority over the ‘primary
missions’ of federal agencies. The ESA applies only to discretionary agency actions.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits “governmental action that substantially burdens a person's exercise of their religion unless the government's action is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling governmental interest”. It is often used by Native Americans to challenge expansion of government projects onto sacred lands.
Executive Order 13007 imposes an obligation on the Executive branch to “accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners… avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites”, on federal lands.
Antiquities Act established “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest” on federal lands, as national monuments. It forbade anyone from “appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States”, without the permission of the Secretary of Interior. President Clinton in 1996, stopped the plans for a coal mine in Utah by declaring Grand Staircase a national monument 6 .
President Carter established 50 million acres of land in Alaska as national monument, and an additional 40 million acres was further withdrawn under FLPMA, resulting in widespread protest in Alaska. However
6 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90631198
soon consensus was reached on ANCSA, also an amendment in Antiquities Act required a Congressional approval for any future allocation in Alaska greater than 5,000 acres.
ANILCA provided varying degrees of special protection to over 157,000,000 acres of land, including national parks, national wildlife refuges, national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, recreational areas, national forests, and conservation areas 7 .
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), (1980)
BLM’s Regulation 3809 requires that all mining operations have a Reclamation Plan, with a description of the equipment, devices, or practices intended to use including, where applicable, plans for—
BLM Regulation 3809
(ii) Re-grading and reshaping;
(iii) Mine reclamation, including information on the feasibility of pit backfilling that details economic, environmental, and safety factors; (iv) Riparian mitigation;
(vi) Topsoil handling; (vii) Revegetation; (viii) Isolation and control of acid-forming, toxic, or deleterious materials; (ix) Removal or stabilization of buildings, structures
and support facilities; and
§3809.420: Reclamation shall include, but shall not be limited to:
 Saving of topsoil for final application after reshaping of disturbed areas have been completed;
 Measures to control erosion, landslides, and water runoff;
 Measures to isolate, remove, or control toxic materials;
 Reshaping the area disturbed, application of the topsoil, and revegetation of disturbed areas, where reasonably practicable; and
 Rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife habitat.
7 The ANILCA Act provided for 43,585,000 acres of new national parklands in Alaska; the addition of 9.8 million acres to the National Wildlife Refuge System; twenty-five wild and scenic rivers, with twelve more to be studied for that designation; establishment of Misty Fjords and Admiralty Island National Monuments in Southeast Alaska; establishment of Steese National Conservation Area and White Mountains National Recreation Area to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management; the addition of 9.1 million acres to the Wilderness Preservation System, and the addition of 3,350,000 acres to Tongass and Chugach National Forests.
Acid-forming, toxic, or other deleterious materials:
Mining operations must incorporate identification, handling, and placement of potentially acid-forming, toxic or other deleterious materials into operations, facility design, reclamation, and environmental monitoring programs to minimize the formation and impacts of acidic, alkaline, metal-bearing, or other deleterious leachate, including the following:
 You must handle, place, or treat potentially acid- forming, toxic, or other deleterious materials in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of acid formation and toxic and other deleterious leachate generation (source control);
 If you cannot prevent the formation of acid, toxic, or other deleterious drainage, you must minimize uncontrolled migration of leachate; and
 You must capture and treat acid drainage, or other undesirable effluent, to the applicable standard if source controls and migration controls do not prove effective. You are responsible for any costs associated with water treatment or facility maintenance after project closure. Long- term, or post-mining, effluent capture and treatment are not acceptable substitutes for source and migration control, and you may rely on them only after all reasonable source and migration control methods have been employed.
§3809.500-599: Reclamation Cost Estimate
Assumptions 8 - • The estimate must cover all relevant operation,
maintenance and administrative costs for all reclamation required under the filed Notice or approved Plan of Operations. The cost estimate may however provide more reclamation details than is specified in the Notice or Plan;
• Costs must be estimated as if BLM were hiring a
third party contractor to perform all required reclamation; • Costs must include the use of off-site equipment as if the project area was vacated, and the estimate must include all associated mobilization and demobilization costs; • The estimate must include, when applicable, all interim maintenance required to keep the area of operation in compliance with applicable safety and environmental requirements while reclamation contracts are developed and executed;
• The estimate must cover costs to construct and
maintain any long-term treatment facilities or post-
8 http://www.imcc.isa.us/Mitchell%20Leverette%20Bonding%20Presentation.pdf
closure structures required by the filed Notice or approved Plan of Operations; and
• Where applicable, labor costs must be based on
federally mandated labor rates, as required by the Davis-Bacon Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) for contracts over $2,000.
Idaho Surface Mining Act
Idaho Surface Mining Act (1971) requires mining operation using cyanide to provide financial assurance that all closure activities protect the soil and groundwater at site and surrounding region 9 . It requires the lands to return to the original productive state; reclamations involve lands being backfilled, graded, topsoil replaced and stabilized with vegetation. Water quality must be maintained and affected lands and disturbed watercourses must be reclaimed.
Montana’s Initiative 137 (1998)
Montana ban on “Cyanide heap and vat leach open- pit gold and silver mining prohibited. (1) Open -pit mining for gold or silver using heap leaching or vat leaching with cyanide ore-processing reagents is prohibited. (2) A mine described in this section operating on November 3, 1998, may continue operating under its existing operating permit or any amended permit that is necessary for the continued
operation of the mine”.
Canyon Resources’ Seven-up Pete project (estimated $10 billion USD) tried challenging the ban but lost the case.
Oregon's Heap Leach Mining Law
Oregon is the only state that has developed a specific regulatory program for cyanide leaching operations
and facilities. It is carried out by the state’s
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Oregon has an extensive regulatory plan for cyanide, but no mines.
Wisconsin requires companies to show a metallic sulfide mine that can run for a decade without polluting state waters and a sulfide mine has been closed in the state for a decade without polluting the water. The moratorium is actually a permit condition required by the state.
Wisconsin’s Prove It First Law (1997)
Nevada leads the way in conforming to BLM’s cyanide containment policy. Nevada’s Bureau of Mining
Nevada’s NRS 445A
9 http://www.e-mj.com/features/1656-the-current-status-of-cyanide-regulations.html#.WX9G_cbMwy4
Regulation and Reclamation’s policy is set out in “Preparation Requirements and Guidelines for Permanent Closure Plans and Final Closure Reports”
(NRS 445A). It applies to all mines on any property. It primarily ensures that waters of the state are not degraded after mining operations have ceased. BLM will not consider approval of mine closure without a satisfactory closure report. For individual sources nearing closure, all heap leaching pads and tailing impoundments must be neutralized; prior detoxification historic chemical use and materials characterization must be detailed in a closure report.
California’s Senate Bill 22
California legislature enacted Senate Bill 22, which required complete backfilling and grading for mining operations within 1 mile of Native American sacred sites.
New Mexico Mining Act, (1993)
The Mining Act establishes standards for obtaining mining permits of hard rock and industrial minerals (coal, oil and gas and nuclear are excluded). The act requires a close out plan to be submitted that demonstrates the work to be done to reclaim the permit area “to a condition that allows for the reestablishment of a self-sustaining ecosystem appropriate for the life zone of the surrounding areas”; unless conflicting with a post-mining land use (no other waivers allowed), that the proposed reclamation is economically and technically feasible, and that all environmental requirements can be met without perpetual care. Art 36- 12: If a prediction of an end date on which treatment will no longer be required cannot be made with a reasonable degree of certainty, then a discharge should not be allowed to begin. The Act also requires for the mining operator to provide financial assurance, “sufficient to assure the completion of the performance requirements of the permit, including closure and reclamation, if the work had to be performed by the director or a third party
contractor.” The act also prohibits the operator from using “any type or variety of self-guarantee or self- insurance.”
Michigan's Non-Ferrous Mining Regulations
In order to gain permit for mining in Michigan the operators need to submit a reclamation plan that details final land contours, proposed final land use and relationship to surrounding land, provisions for sloping and terracing banks or bottoms of open pit surfaces, replacing top soil, revegetation and final density of plants and disposition of all hazardous wastes, refuse, tailing and other solid waste in a
manner that protects environment. Also “the mining area and the affected area shall be reclaimed to achieve a self-sustaining ecosystem appropriate for the region that does not require perpetual care following closure and with the goal that the affected area shall be returned to the ecological conditions that approximate pre-mining conditions subject to changes caused by non-mining activities or other natural events”.
2010: Ministry classified coal mines into Category A
Forest type, Forest density, Biological richness,
(No go zones) and category B (Go zones). Blocks with
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/will-
more than 10% weighted forest cover 10 or more than
the--go-nogo--concept-hurt-india-s-growth-
30% Gross forest cover were no go zones. A third (203
ambitions-/730868/3
blocks) of total coal blocks, spread across 3000 sq km fall under No Go category. This rule was vetoed by the coal ministry. 2011: Violate and Inviolate Policy was introduced instead that designated national parks, sanctuaries, forests that served as catchments of perennial first order streams or 250m from perennial rivers, storage reservoir, wildlife protected areas, rare forest types, and wetlands larger than 10 hectares as inviolate.
https://scroll.in/article/761934/india-is-
To determine inviolate zones 1 km 2 grid across the
diluting-forest-protection-by-ignoring-this-
country was scored out of 100 points based on 6
one-vital-thing
Wildlife values, Landscape integrity and Hydrological
value 11 . Zone with score of more than 70 points were
standard.com/article/economy-
policy/inviolate-forest-policy-pared-down-in-
2014: This was further diluted by reducing it to a 4 parameter criteria by eliminating the Hydrological parameter and combining biological and wildlife richness parameter. In the end only 39 mines were inviolate.
limbo-114122000570_1.html
2004 Supreme court of Canada ruling gave the
aboriginal peoples the right to review land-use
10 Weighted Forest Cover = 0.85(Dense forest cover) + 0.55(Moderately dense) +0.25(Open forest cover). This is divided by the total area of the block for the percentage.
11 * Forest type, based on Forest Survey of India data, would be scored based on extent, range and uniqueness of natural vegetation types (giving high scores to very valuable or highly restricted forest types). * Biological richness was to be scored based on the country-wide biodiversity characterization carried out by the Indian Institute of Remote Sensing. * Wildlife values were to be scored on the presence of wildlife protected areas, such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and identified animal corridors. * Forest cover was to be rated, using Forest Survey of India data, as an average of gross forest cover and weighted forest cover, the latter giving greater weightage to areas with higher canopy density. * Landscape integrity was to be assessed from satellite images and maps based on the degree of forest fragmentation around the grid cell. Larger, more intact forest blocks would score higher than areas that had been fragmented by other intervening land uses. * Hydrological value of forests finally would be assessed based on whether they served as catchments for perennial streams, hydro-power or irrigation projects, or water supply schemes, and in relation to their proximity to streams and rivers.
decisions by mining companies that might affect their
legal right to harvest, hunt and fish on lands they
All “prospection, exploration, exploitation, extraction
or processing of metallic minerals in El Salvador” has been banned, as indigenous groups prioritized human rights, access to clean water and long term protection of environmental resources.
The European Union (EU) has set the most stringent cyanide limits for tailings ponds in the world— Adopted Directive 2006/21/EC, on the management of waste from mineral extraction operations. Article
13(6) requires “the concentration of weak acid
dissociable cyanide in the pond [be] reduced to the
lowest possible level using best available techniques.”
All mines started after May 1, 2008, may not discharge waste containing more than 10 ppm WAD cyanide, and mines built or permitted before that date are allowed no more than 50 ppm initially, falling to 25 ppm in 2013 and 10 ppm by 2018.
Article 14 also requires that mine operators put in place financial guarantees to ensure cleanup after the mine has finished. In 2006, the EU rejected a proposal to ban all cyanide use. The EU presumed that stringent regulations already in place provide adequate environmental and human health protection.
Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Turkey have cyanide bans. 12
Costa Rica has a national ban on open-pit gold mining
2001 Mining Code in Colombia states no mining
activities can “adequately coexistence of mining
activity could take place in national natural parks,
natural parks with regional character or forest reserves. 13 Mining in these places would only be supported by studies that demonstrate mining
activities with the objectives of the forest areas”
Legislation 685 (2001)
Under the 2010 amended legislation, this prohibition is extended to the paramo ecosystem and wetlands designated under the Ramsar Convention. Colombia successfully blocked development of an open-pit gold mine in a sensitive high altitude wetland that supplied water to million people. The referendum held resulted in 98% vote for no mining.
12 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/world/americas/el-salvador-prizing-water-over-gold-bans-all-metal-mining.html
13 http://www.simco.gov.co/Portals/0/ley685_E.pdf
NIPAS Act (1992) protects Strict Nature Reserve,
Philippine Mining Act of 1995 bans mining in these
Nature Park, Nature Monument, Wildlife Sanctuary,
(NIPAS) Act
Protected Landscapes and Seascapes, Resource Reserves and Natural Biotic Areas.
Virgin forests, mossy forests, National Parks, Provincial/Municipal forests, Tree parks, Green belts Game Refuge, bird sanctuaries, Marin Reserves/Parks, Tourist zones, Archaeological and Historic Sites, and Cemeteries.
Philippine Mining Act 1995
Executive Order 79 (2012) establishes no-go zones in 78 sites with following criteria:
Executive Order 79 (2012)
Tourism development areas identified by the
National Tourism Development Plan (NTDP); Prime agricultural lands such as plantations and
other properties devoted to valuable crops; Fisheries development zones and marine
sanctuaries as declared by the agriculture secretary; and Island ecosystems to be determined by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) through mapping technology.
Documents similaires à Suitability Criteria for extractive minerals
Arisya Fitri Nugraha
Alice Scheepers
core-subject blueprint
sceince naturalresourceblooms
Catskill Landowers Association Opposes Gas Drilling Regulation
green ed.pptx
Mark Mirar
Intro Environment Constitutional Provisions
Josianne Ricardeen Vistal Cesar
Proposed Rule: Permanent program and abandoned mine land reclamation plan submissions: Ohio
Plus de dnmq86
Internship Booklet 2008
ICMM 2003 No Go Commitment
Seymour - Identity Issues and Civil War
Herbst - States and Power in Africa
Tilly - War Making and State Making as Organised Crime
Conflict Mapping Guide
Populaire dans Wilderness
TPH3804_16_ReviewEssays.pdf
Anonymous ZAqEKojx
Apis Final Gmp Wmp Eis April 2011 Chapters 1 6