The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights have entered their 13th year, yet allegations of abuses still haunt mining projects

In March each year, security representatives from 20 extractive companies convene for their annual shindig on human rights. Many of the world’s largest mining companies are always among their number: Newmont, Rio Tinto, AngloAmerican, BHP Billiton and AngloGold Ashanti, among others.

Bringing them together are the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. Launched in 2000, the principles are presented as the benchmark in best practice. But are they delivering? Are mining sites free, or freer, of human rights abuses than they were before?

The mining signatories all insist that the past dozen years have brought huge progress. The voluntary principles provide guidance on key issues, such as security-related human rights assessments and engaging private and public security forces. More than that, they offer a forum for practitioners to get together and share practical insights and lessons learned.  

The verdict outside the mining industry is not quite as unanimous. Images of striking miners being gunned down by state security forces in South Africa are still fresh in mind. The past few months have also witnessed violent clashes in the mining districts of Peru, Bolivia, Guatemala, Ghana and more besides. 

“There continues to be problems despite the existence of the voluntary principles, which suggests that there is still a significant amount of work to be done to try to resolve these problems,” says Keith Slack, global programme manager at Oxfam America.

Security issues

The nature of security-related human rights abuses in the mining sector is clear enough. Television images of heavy-handed guards, police and soldiers wielding batons and firing guns sum it up succinctly.

If the issue is to be understood in its full context, it’s important to appreciate how such violent episodes are arrived at. Geography has a large part to play. Some countries are “more challenging” than others, says Isabelle Brissette, manager of risk and human rights at Rio Tinto. “Most of these [high risk countries] are in Africa, but they might also be in South America or Asia.”

Differentiating factors centre primarily on the force of law, the prevalence of poverty and, above all, attitudes towards human rights. Africa’s poor showing in all these categories explains its place at the top of most security managers’ alert list. Highly militarised environments or post-conflict situations heighten human rights risks even further. The mineral-rich states of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone provide illustrative examples.  

At a more local level, the proximity of local communities presents another major risk factor. Mining companies can afford to be “much less worried” if their project site happens to be in the middle of the Australian desert or Canada’s frozen tundra, says James Smither, associate director at global risks advisory firm Maplecroft. Populated areas, especially those that play home to low-income communities, present a different situation entirely.

Violent clashes require a trigger, however. One common flashpoint is theft. Mine sites are home to high-value portable assets, be that fuel, equipment, scrap metal or minerals themselves. This last issue ties in with a second trigger: artisanal mining. Large operators often control concessions where small-scale mining has been historically commonplace. This is especially prevalent in regions where precious metals such as gold and silver lie close to the surface. Tanzania, Ghana, Peru and DR Congo (again) are classic cases.

Smither notes: “Mining companies face a balancing act between maintaining the safety of assets and personnel while at the same time protecting the rights of local populations, including artisanal miners.”

Management steps

The voluntary principles originate from an effort to responsibly manage high-risk security situations when they arise.

They are by no means the only attempt. Back in 2005, London-based peacekeeping charity International Alert published its Conflict-Sensitive Business Practices report. Running to 195 pages, the guidance document provided extractive companies with tools for assessing macro and project-level security risks, as well as management advice in flashpoint situations. The United Nations’ recently released Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights marks a more contemporary contribution.

Companies have also developed their own internal policy positions and guidelines. These generally represent a synthesis of the voluntary principles and related best practice guidance. Examples include AngloAmerican’s Seat process and Rio Tinto’s New Entry Country Procedures.

Whatever the management approach, most reflect the two primary thrusts of the voluntary principles: namely, how to analyse security-related risks and, how to manage security forces – public and private – to mitigate the probability of human rights abuses.

Risk assessment is, comparatively speaking, the easy part. Most mining companies now have established risk analyst teams and use fairly standardised risk management approaches, such as ISO31000. The voluntary principles’ requirements – to clarify the sources of risks, identify and assess these risks, and evaluate risk mitigation options – fit neatly into existing risk evaluation frameworks.

Contractor concerns

The trickier problems arise on the ground. At the heart of the matter are the men (they are mostly men) providing security services at the mine site. Mining firms all have their own site-level security managers. But the grunt work – patrolling the perimeter, guarding equipment and assets, protecting personnel and so forth – is provided by large numbers of contracted labour.

This is where the big risks lie. In the event of a violent incident involving site security, the fact that those involved are contractors and not employees of the company counts for little in the court of public opinion.

Lee Langston is senior director of corporate security at Newmont. He’s in no doubt about the reputational damage that security contractors can cause: “They are pretty much the face of the company … Consequently any poor conduct or bad judgment by them reflects on our brand and reputation.”

The voluntary principles lay out clear guidance on selecting, training and monitoring the performance of private contractors. In most mature mining markets, such as Australia, North America and western Europe, private security personnel normally come with established credentials. Looking into individuals’ backgrounds can be more difficult in Latin America, Asia or Africa, where public information is limited, says Maplecroft’s Smither. As a minimum, mining firms should carry out due diligence on the security company itself, he advises.

Competence training

Training presents perhaps the biggest challenge. Security provision is generally low-paid, tedious and potentially dangerous work. As a consequence, levels of retention and professionalism are often low. Standards in global private security firms are generally reckoned to be higher than among more local players. Companies such as UK-based G4S and Canada’s Garda World, for example, have their own internal training – although the debacle over G4S’s security provision at the London 2012 Olympics has raised questions of competency.

Where evidence of such training is not available or if the quality is suspect, mining companies usually oblige contractor staff to undergo a mandatory course. This is usually provided via an expert third party.

Monitoring the performance of private security personnel is the final piece of the voluntary principles puzzle. Again, most companies have detailed systems for cataloguing on-site security incidents, such as thefts, apprehensions, protests and the like. Factoring in human rights elements should be straightforward, presuming the organisational commitment is there to do so.

In addition to ongoing monitoring, periodic audits may also be appropriate. In conjunction with International Alert, Newmont has developed an audit tool that “hones in on security and human rights”, says Langston. Signed off in November 2012, the tool’s precise metrics remain undisclosed. However, Langston says the company will roll it out next year for its high-risk sites: those in Ghana, Peru, Suriname, Haiti and Indonesia.

Sanctions represent a vital aspect of effective monitoring and compliance. Newmont follows the practice of most voluntary principles’ signatories in placing penalties for security violations in its contracts with private security providers. In serious cases, this may result in termination of the firm’s contract. In the case of Newmont, individual security contractors are barred from the mine site in the event of improper conduct – even if such conduct occurs off-site or off-duty.

Public personnel

In terms of public security forces, it’s a different ball game. Governments sometimes station police, paramilitaries or even full-time army units at mine sites. This is commonplace in many African countries, especially where the mining operation represents a strategic national asset.

It is in situations like this that things get “really difficult” from a human rights perspective, Smither says. He explains: “You can control your contractors to a certain extent, but it’s much harder to control or influence the activities of state security.” The issue is particularly problematic in post-conflict situations, where former combatants are often integrated into the national army or other security forces. Room for manoeuvre is limited too, Smither adds. “It’s very difficult to say to the local commander that you don’t want a particular unit deployed near your mine,” he says.

Even when a mining firm is using private contractors, it’s not free from the hand of public security forces. Host governments have ultimate responsibility for law and order, whether that’s detaining criminal suspects at a mine site or quelling civil disturbances. Rio Tinto’s Brissette admits that it can be a “risky call” to alert national security forces in some countries. “You’re not sure if these guys will have a proper way of conducting themselves.”

The voluntary principles recommend a proactive “engagement” approach. This ranges from the company initially spelling out its expectations around human rights and clarifying international norms, through to regular meetings on security issues and even joint training.

The ideal outcome is to establish a memorandum of understanding with the host state on key issues such as the reasonable use of force, equipment requests and the sharing of security information. “Public security forces don’t like to be told what to do,” reiterates Brissette. “So you have to build a long-term relationship based on trust, which takes time.”

Get that relationship right, however, and most governments prove amenable. That’s AngloAmerican’s experience in Peru, at least. The country’s mining sector is rife with community tension, but through the mediation of International Alert, with whom the UK-listed mining firm has a three-year memorandum of understanding, AngloAmerican is helping train local police in the voluntary principles. International Alert has also offered training to the company’s in-country government liaison team to ensure that the voluntary principles inform interactions with senior police representatives and other state authorities. 

John Samuel is head of social performance at AngloAmerican. He explains: “The government wants development, but it wants this to be legitimate. Therefore, it’s keen to avoid social conflict. So if we come up with ways to help public security forces prevent or responsibly manage conflict situations, then the government generally welcomes that.”  

Principles limitations

After a dozen years, the facts are still indisputable: the mining industry continues to be associated with violence, much of which is acerbated and inflamed by the actions of security personnel.

The voluntary principles are premised on continuous improvement, its advocates argue. Over time, company systems and processes are gradually getting better. That’s especially true when companies cooperate, suggests Claire White, manager at the International Council for Minerals and Metals (ICMM). “In terms of security, collaborative processes are more effective than going it alone,” White says. She points to national working groups aimed at encouraging uptake of the voluntary principles in Iraq, Indonesia and the DR Congo.

Management advisory services are also improving, as evidenced by the Implementation Guidance Tools. Published in 2011 by ICMM, the 100-page document provides step-by-step advice for signatories to the voluntary principles. In 2012 ICMM held workshops in South Africa, Peru and Indonesia to promote the tools.  

White concedes that challenges still remain. There can be a general lack of resources for promoting the voluntary principles and for associated training, she says. “This may especially be the case in crisis situations where site resources are stretched.”

Other challenges focus around the scope of the voluntary principles. There’s no official grievance mechanism required, for example. The same goes for public reporting. “We’re seeing greater demands from NGOs about how the voluntary principles are being implemented,” White says. While a few signatories are currently testing potential key performance indicators, a verifiable compliance system has yet to be established.

Sensitivities and cover-ups

The security profession is characteristically tight-lipped, and in the mining industry, it’s no different. Certain facts, such as site thefts, are commercially sensitive. Others, such as problems with artisanal miners, carry reputational risks. Even so, if a company has done everything possible and security-related human rights incidents still occur, “then it behoves them to report it to local authorities”, Smither states. At worst, this avoids accusations of cover-ups. At best, it helps others learn and for practices to improve. Remediation to those affected should follow too.

Of course, incremental improvements are better than nothing. But they are not best of all. One obvious improvement to the voluntary principles would be to remove the word “voluntary”. Making all mining companies, large or small, sign up to formal rules is the “logical next step”, according to Arvind Ganesan, director of Human Right Watch’s business unit. Another step-change would be to oblige private security providers to put their name to the principles.

Signatory companies stress the need for more governments to join, too. The voluntary principles currently count seven participating states, only one of which – Colombia – could be deemed high-risk. Diplomatic efforts are under way to get more governments on board, starting with Peru, Ghana and Indonesia. As yet, none has budged.

Improvements to the voluntary principles will eliminate security risks for the mining sector, because ultimately security-related human rights abuses are more than just a security issue. The voluntary principles focus on how to act responsibility in conflict situations. They make no serious attempt at redressing the root causes of that conflict, however, other than in a very immediate sense. It would be injudicious to criticise the voluntary principles for this – it’s not what they were set up to do. Companies must be mindful that concentrating on the effects of social conflict without addressing the causes can only ever be a temporary palliative.

Integrating security strategies into community development activities is therefore essential. Rio Tinto’s Brissette describes herself as a “strong believer” in community relations management as “the first way to proactively manage security”. That concept is getting through at group level for most mining companies.

The real work is on-site, where functional cultures often clash. Where security staff see a thief, community development managers are more likely to see a low-income individual eking out his traditional livelihood.

Security representatives would do well to take their community counterparts along to the voluntary principles’ annual meeting. Opening a dialogue between the two worlds can only be to the good. Presuming they can avoid a punch-up, of course.

The Voluntary Principles: participants

Corporations

AngloAmerican

AngloGold Ashanti

Barrick Gold Corporation

BG Group

BHP Billiton

BP

Chevron

ConocoPhillips

ExxonMobil

Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold

Hess

Inmet Mining

Marathon Oil

Newmont Mining

Occidental Petroleum

Rio Tinto

Shell

Statoil

Talisman Energy

Total

Governments

Canada

Colombia

Netherlands

Norway

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

Non-governmental organisations

Amnesty International

The Fund for Peace

Global Rights

Human Rights First

Human Rights Watch

IKV Pax Christi

International Alert

Oxfam

Pact

Partnership Africa Canada

Pearson Centre

Search for Common Ground

What are the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights?

Established in 2000, the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights are a multistakeholder initiative involving governments, companies, and non-governmental organisations. It instructs extractive companies on providing security for their operations in a manner that respects human rights.

Implementation guidance tools

Introduced in September 2011, the Implementation Guidance Tools for the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights comprise four practical modules.

These cover: stakeholder management, risk assessment, private security providers, and public security providers. Each module contains separate management tools relating to self-assessment, action planning, worksheets and reference.

At the end of each module, there is information about classic challenges and how to resolve these. The toolkit’s authors concede that the guidance does not cover every eventuality in which the voluntary principles could be applied, and neither should it be considered a replacement for them.

How to get the voluntary principles right

• Corporate mandate “from the top”: explicit corporate-level commitment to respecting human rights.
• Internal co-operation: it is impossible for one department or function to implement the voluntary principles on its own.
• Local community support: good security and a “social licence to operate” go hand in hand.
• Cooperation with external stakeholders: security is conditional on the constructive participation of governments, NGOs and local communities.

Source: Implementation Guidance Tools (2011)

Training: Rio Tinto and Pearson Center

Rio Tinto runs a three-day training programme on the voluntary principles for private security providers in at-risk countries. Delivery is provided by the Pearson Center, a Canada-based non-profit group. The company invites public security forces to join the course, for which a certificate of completion is awarded. The course structure is divided into four modules.

(1) Human rights frameworks: familiarises participants with human rights norms regulating security related activities, including the voluntary principles.

(2) Roles and responsibilities of security personnel: covers practical issues such as dealing with vulnerable groups, assemblies, crowd control and evictions.

(3) Human rights and ethics: instructs participants in how to deal with misconduct and unethical behaviour.

(4) Human rights and the use of force: participants learn how to apply global guidelines on the use of force and firearms.