RJC Mining Supplement - Report on public comment  period 3 171109

RJC Mining Supplement - Report on public comment period 3 171109

-

Documents
41 pages
Lire
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

Description

HUUUUHHH Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC) Mining Supplement – Standards Development Report on third round of public consultation – September to October 2009 Inquiries please contact:  Dr Fiona Solomon, RJC Standards Development Director, fiona.solomon@responsiblejewellery.com   1. Background During 2008 and 2009 the RJC has sought comment on the first draft of a 'Mining Supplement' from individuals and organisations interested in the responsible mining of diamonds and gold. The Mining Supplement will become part of the RJC’s system for certifying responsible business practices for the diamond and gold jewellery supply chain. The RJC aims to begin operating its certification system in December 2009. The Mining Supplement will expand the RJC’s current Code of Practices to cover additional mining specific issues. The RJC Code of Practices already outlines standards for responsible ethical, social, human rights and environmental practices that are applicable to RJC Members, who come from all parts of the jewellery supply chain.   Public comment periods on successive drafts of the Mining Supplement were held as follows: • September – October 2008 (60 days) – draft standards • July – August 2009 (60 days) – draft standards and guidance • September – October 2009 (30 days) – draft standards, guidance and assessment questions.  Comment reports, such as this, have been compiled for each comment period and are available on the RJC website at: www ...

Sujets

Informations

Publié par
Nombre de visites sur la page 58
Langue Latin
Signaler un problème

H
U
U
U
U
H
H
H
 
Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC) 
Mining Supplement – Standards Development 
Report on third round of public consultation – September to October 2009 
Inquiries please contact:  Dr Fiona Solomon, RJC Standards Development Director, fiona.solomon@responsiblejewellery.com   
1. Background 
During 2008 and 2009 the RJC has sought comment on the first draft of a 'Mining Supplement' from individuals and organisations interested in the 
responsible mining of diamonds and gold. The Mining Supplement will become part of the RJC’s system for certifying responsible business practices for the 
diamond and gold jewellery supply chain. The RJC aims to begin operating its certification system in December 2009. 
The Mining Supplement will expand the RJC’s current Code of Practices to cover additional mining specific issues. The RJC Code of Practices already outlines 
standards for responsible ethical, social, human rights and environmental practices that are applicable to RJC Members, who come from all parts of the 
jewellery supply chain.   
Public comment periods on successive drafts of the Mining Supplement were held as follows: 
• September – October 2008 (60 days) – draft standards 
• July – August 2009 (60 days) – draft standards and guidance 
• September – October 2009 (30 days) – draft standards, guidance and assessment questions. 
 
Comment reports, such as this, have been compiled for each comment period and are available on the RJC website at: 
www.responsiblejewellery.com/supplement.html  
 
www.responsiblejewellery.com 
The Responsible Jewellery Council is the trading name of the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd, First Floor, Dudley House, 34‐38 Southampton Street, 
London, UK, WC2E 7HF. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 05449042. 
1 U
2. Consultative Panel  
A Consultative Panel for the Mining Supplement was established in July 2009. Participants in the Consultative Panel were invited on the basis of input into 
the first round of public consultation for the Mining Supplement and/or their past engagement in dialogues about mining‐related standards, verification 
and certification. The Consultative Panel worked closely with the RJC Standards Committee to further develop the draft standards and guidance during the 
second and third comment periods in 2009. 
The Panel included the participation of the following: 
• Okyeame Ampadu‐Agyei, Corporate Social Responsibility Adviser, Ghana 
• Assheton Stewart Carter, Vice President Corporate Community Engagement, Pact 
• Christine Charles, Board Member, Aboriginal Enterprise in Mining Energy and Exploration  
• Cristina Echavarría, Executive Director, Alliance for Responsible Mining 
• Julie Gelfand, Vice President Sustainable Development, Mining Association of Canada 
• Dorothée Gizenga, Executive Director, Diamond Development Initiative International 
• Felix Hruschka, Standards Co‐ordinator, Alliance for 
Responsible Mining 
• Kirsten Hund, Regional Adviser Extractive Industries, WWF Carpo 
• Deanna Kemp, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, University of Queensland 
• Estelle Levin, Director, Resource Consulting Services 
• Georgina Pearman, Post‐Mining Alliance, Eden Project 
• Gordon Peeling, Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada 
• Andrew Rouse, Resource Conservation Manager, WWF Australia 
• Ian Smillie, Chair, Diamond Development Initiative International 
RJC Members: 
• Rob Headley, Chief Operating Officer, Jewelers of America (Co‐Chair RJC Standards Committee) 
• Andrew Parsons, Environmental Policy Advisor, AngloGold Ashanti (RJC Standards  
• Mick Roche, Global Manager – Stewardship, BHP Billiton (Co‐Chair RJC Standards Committee) 
Support: 
• Michael Rae, Chief Executive Officer, RJC 
• Fiona Solomon, Standards Development Director, RJC 
www.responsiblejewellery.com 
The Responsible Jewellery Council is the trading name of the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd, First Floor, Dudley House, 34‐38 Southampton Street, 
London, UK, WC2E 7HF. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 05449042. 
2 U
 
Consultative Panel teleconferences to discuss the Mining Supplement standards, guidance and process were held on: 
• 29 July 2009  
• 21 August 2009 
• 24  2009  
• 3 September 2009  
• 7 October 2009  
• 22  2009  
• 27 October 2009  
 
Standards Committee teleconferences were held on:  
• 10 June 2009 
• 31 July 2009 
• 2 September 2009 
• 5 November 2009  
 
The RJC is sincerely grateful for the time, expertise and valuable input of the many individuals and organisations who contributed to standards 
development.  
 
3. This report 
The development of the Mining Supplement is underpinned by a process of stakeholder consultation and engagement. The RJC commits to:  
• be open and transparent in its standards development process for the Mining Supplement  
• encourage and facilitate input from a wide range of interested and affected parties  
• treat input from interested and affected parties with integrity and respect, and  
• report publicly on submissions received, including how comments have been addressed in subsequent drafting.  
 
This public report details the feedback received in the third and final comment round and how these have been addressed in the finalisation of the Mining 
Supplement. 
www.responsiblejewellery.com 
The Responsible Jewellery Council is the trading name of the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd, First Floor, Dudley House, 34‐38 Southampton Street, 
London, UK, WC2E 7HF. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 05449042. 
3 U
U
 
4. Comments received from Consultative Panel and through public comment process  
• RJC sincerely thanks all those who contributed their comments to the Mining Supplement process. 
• Comments have been grouped into topic areas, and tabulated. 
General 
Name  Comment  RJC action/response 
Robert Walker and  Northwest & Ethical Investments L.P. is pleased to provide further investor
• Thank you for your feedback. 
1
perspective on the Responsible Jewellery Council’s (RJC) Mining Supplement .
Steve Carley, 
We would like to thank the RJC for considering our comments on the second
Northwest & 
2
draft of the Mining Supple ment and appreciate the transparency of your
Ethical Investments 
process. Because many of our earlier concerns have been addressed in the
L.P., 15/10/09 
present draft, we will confine our comments to a few detailed suggestions.

With over $4.3 billion in assets Northwest & Ethical Investments L.P. is
Canada’s largest socially responsible mutual fund company. Our approach to
investing incorporates the thesis that companies integrating best
environmental, social and governance practices into their strategy and
operations will provide higher risk-adjusted returns over the long term.
Through our evaluations, proxy voting activities, corporate engagements and
policy submissions, we are experienced in encouraging companies to
incorporate ESG best practices.

One way in which we seek to improve sustainability performance across
whole sectors is by participating in consultations on industry standards. In
the following pages we offer our suggestions on the latest drafts of the RJC
Principles and Code of Practices as well as comments on additions to the RJC
Standards Guidance.

www.responsiblejewellery.com 
The Responsible Jewellery Council is the trading name of the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd, First Floor, Dudley House, 34‐38 Southampton Street, 
London, UK, WC2E 7HF. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 05449042. 
4 U
In general, each iteration of the Principles and Code of Practices has been
stronger – a testament to the thoroughness of the process established by the
RJC.
 
… [comments included in relevant sections below] 
We thank the RJC for this opportunity to bring our investor perspective to the
development of standards for the jewellery supply chain, and applaud the
assembling of so many good practices into a single standard.

1 http://www.responsiblejewellery.com/supplement.html
2 esponsiblejewellery.com/downloads/RJC_MiningSupplement_Report_public_comment_p2
_160909.pdf
 
Andrew Parsons,  • The scope of certification excludes facilities that are not producing saleable
• For clarification, have added the 
product (“A Mining Facility is not included in the Certification Scope if there is no
AngloGold Ashanti,  following to the definition of Mining 
saleable product”), which may make references to exploration activities very
15/10/09 
Facility: 
difficult.
Facilities in the exploration to pre‐
• Range of minor editorial suggestions to Guidance to improve clarity, grammar.
commissioned stages of the mine lifecycle 
• Mineral Resources Forum website has been disabled – check for other web
are not visited as part of the Verification 
references.
Assessment.  Business practices in these 
  stages of the mine lifecycle can be 
evidenced, where necessary and 
appropriate, by desktop review of policies, 
systems, procedures and processes.   
• Added. 
• Thank you for this.  Have added an 
Access date for definition reference;  
and changed other websites found in 
section E’s of guidance. 
 
Other – existing COP, glossary 
www.responsiblejewellery.com 
The Responsible Jewellery Council is the trading name of the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd, First Floor, Dudley House, 34‐38 Southampton Street, 
London, UK, WC2E 7HF. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 05449042. 
5 Name  Comment  RJC action/response 
Bruce Harvey, Rio Tinto  • COP page 5, Management systems ....should read "assessing
• Added ‘and benefits’ in Scope section. 
impacts and benefits"; this will make it consistent with the new
28/9/09 
• Have amended to this definition in the 
commentary in the RJC STANDARDS GUIDANCE.
glossary and the Standards Guidance – 
thanks for the suggestion. 
• COP page 21 Definition of Community is not the
• Have also added definition of stakeholder to 
mining/minerals/metals definition developed out of SD Conference in
glossary. 
Jo'burg 2002. which is "The term ‘community’ is generally applied to
• Have amended community engagement 
the inhabitants of immediate and surrounding areas who are affected
definition. 
in some way by a company’s activities; these effects may be
economic and social as well as environmental in nature." The
definition offered is too "sociological" for a document that relates to
mining and suppliers.
• Likewise there is not definition of stakeholder, which from Jo'burg
is ‘Stakeholders’, are “those who have an interest in a particular
decision, either as individuals or representatives of a group. Including
people who influence a decision, or can influence it, as well as those
affected by it”. Stakeholders include non-government organisations,
governments, shareholders and employees, as well as local
community members.
These definitions have now been picked up by many in industry.
• The definition of "community engagement" "is also off-putting; I'm
sure there is something simpler. Perhaps; Engagement is a two
way information sharing and decision making process covering
community issues and priorities as well as the concerns and
needs of the business. Beyond just listening, the aim is to ensure
mutual understanding and responsiveness by all parties
to enable them to manage decisions that have the potential to
www.responsiblejewellery.com 
The Responsible Jewellery Council is the trading name of the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd, First Floor, Dudley House, 34‐38 Southampton Street, 
London, UK, WC2E 7HF. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 05449042. 
6 H
H
affect all concerned."
Blair Sands, Rio Tinto, 
Page 5, Scope - Propose the inclusion of 'Sustainable development' as a • Have added to introductory sentence. 
7/10/09 
foundation of the code in addition to human rights, environmental
performance etc.
Mila Bonini, RJC, 12/10/09 
COP 2.1 Human Rights – standards guidance • Added to references. 
Add newly released ICMM publication ‘Human Rights in the
Metals and Mining Industry’.
www.icmm.com/document/642
Jennifer Harvey, Rio Tinto, 
Suggested amendment to definitions for: • Thank you for this comment – the correct 
14/10/09 
Convention (ILO C138) has now been 
• Child Labour– explain exception under ILO Recommendation referenced. 
• Amended 
146.
• Amended 
• Amended 
• Community Engagement, Development – remove defined term
• Amended. 
from definition
• Control: change ‘is defined as’ to ‘consists of’
• Member: Add ‘and management systems’ in (iii)
• Waste rock – remove defined term from definition.
Andrew Parsons, AngloGold  Code of Practices:  • Added to list. 
Ashanti, 15/10/09 
• Background, Add to ICMM: ‘, Position Statements and guidance  • Gold recyclers would be included in ‘Gold 
documents;’ 
trader, hedger or refiner’ category.   
• Application:  under Producers, where do gold recyclers fit?
• Amended. 
www.responsiblejewellery.com 
The Responsible Jewellery Council is the trading name of the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd, First Floor, Dudley House, 34‐38 Southampton Street, 
London, UK, WC2E 7HF. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 05449042. 
7 U
• Definition of rehabilitation:  change to:
• Added. 
 To return disturbed land to a safe, stable and self‐sustaining condition. 

Standards Guidance:
• Section 1.2, para 3: Add ‘As its title implies, the guidance
does not contain mandatory requirements for Members, and is for
informational and interpretive use only.’
Code of Practices:
Christina Hill, Oxfam  • Have added reference to these standards in 
• Page 3 – We suggest adding to the Universal Declaration the core
Australia, 16/10/09 
the guidance for 2.1 Human Rights, and 
conventions (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
added ‘core human rights conventions’ to 
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
the list of standards in the intro to the COP.   
Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Convention on
• In the standards, the RJC COP mirrors the 
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,
Convention on the Rights of the Child) and the Declaration on the focus of the Global Compact, and the OECD 
Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, on 
• Section 2.1 – We recommend that this Provision be expanded so that
the UDHR and the ILO Fundamental Rights 
it references the core HR conventions and the Declaration on the
at Work conventions as the key 
Rights IPs (also for page 12 (section 2.2.1)
international instruments for promoting 

respect for human rights in the private 
 
sector.  Adding these to the COP is outside 
of the scope of the Mining Supplement, 
however it will be considered in future 
reviews of the COP.  UNDRIP is discussed in 
the guidance for COP 2.13. 
 
 
COP 1.6 – Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative 
Name  Comment  RJC action/response 
Sonya Maldar, CAFOD –  COMMENTS ON EITI STANDARD:  CAFOD is pleased to see a 
• Sincere apologies for the omission of this 
Comment submitted via the  comment from the 2008 report and re‐drafting 
standard on revenue transparency, acknowledging this as an 
www.responsiblejewellery.com 
The Responsible Jewellery Council is the trading name of the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd, First Floor, Dudley House, 34‐38 Southampton Street, 
London, UK, WC2E 7HF. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 05449042. 
8 survey in October 2008 but  issue the sector has been engaging with for several years.  process.  CAFOD have agreed to include it in this 
accidently omitted from 2008  comment round so that it can be discussed in 
However, we feel that this needs strengthening in order to be 
report.  the finalisation of the Mining Supplement. 
effective and reflect a better understanding of the EITI 
• As background, since the October 2008 version, 
process.     The current wording of the standard does not reflect 
the standard has changed from: 
that the EITI process is tripartite, involving civil society and 
Draft 1 ‐ Members with mining Facilities will be 
national governments, as well as companies. When a country 
signatory to and implement the Extractive 
decides to implement EITI “all companies operating in the 
Industries Transparency Initiative process.  
(to) 
relevant sectors in countries implementing EITI have to disclose 
Draft 3 ‐ Members with Mining Facilities will 
material payments made to the government” so the current 
commit to and support implementation of the 
wording of the standard does not add anything significant.     
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative 
While CAFOD is supportive of EITI, we believe it is better for the 
(EITI).  
CRJP supplement to focus on public disclosure of payments by 
• Draft guidance has also been developed since 
individual companies, regardless of whether the host country 
October 2008, and has been through two rounds 
has made a public commitment to EITI or not. This will mean that 
of public consultation.  It provides more detail on 
the intent of the standard, as was suggested in 
all CRJP members can take immediate action. Companies such as 
2008, and includes a description of the tripartite 
Newmont, Talisman and Statoil have shown it is possible to 
nature of the EITI.  The guidance notes that in 
disclose payments independently from the formal EITI 
addition to in‐country implementation of EITI, 
process.      The standard should also be more specific on the 
‘Extractive companies are also asked to fill in an 
reporting template required. This should be a disaggregated 
international‐level self‐assessment form within a 
model, broken down by country, mining project and payment 
year of becoming an EITI Supporting Company.‘  
type. It should include the following breakdown of payment 
In this and other aspects, supporting companies 
do play an important role in furthering the EITI 
types, as defined in the US Extractive Industries Disclosure Bill:  
agenda beyond the requirements of host 
(i) host government’s production entitlements;  (ii) national 
country implementation. 
state‐owned company production entitlements;  (iii) profits 
• Beyond EITI, company disclosure of payments to 
taxes;  (iv) royalties;  (v) dividends;  (vi) bonuses (such as 
governments is also addressed under COP4.6 
signature, discovery, or production bonuses);  (vii) license fees, 
Sustainability Reporting.  The RJC requires: 
rental fees, entry fees, and other considerations for licenses or 
Draft 3 ‐ Members with Mining Facilities will
www.responsiblejewellery.com 
The Responsible Jewellery Council is the trading name of the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd, First Floor, Dudley House, 34‐38 Southampton Street, 
London, UK, WC2E 7HF. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 05449042. 
9 concessions; and  (viii) other benefits to the foreign government  report annually on their sustainability
performance, using the Global Reporting Initiative
or the agency or instrumentality of the foreign government that 
(GRI) Guidelines and GRI Mining and Metals
have a value of not less that $100,000.    Finally, this standard 
Sector Supplement. The reports must have
should include contract transparency as recommended in the 
external assurance as defined under the GRI.
IMF Revised Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency 
•  The GRI G3 Guidelines and the Mining and 
(2007). 
Metals Sector Supplement (see MMSS 
Guidelines Version 6.0 of 12 January 2009 Page 
 
26) include a requirement for revenue 
transparency: EC1 = “Direct economic value 
generated and distributed, including revenues, 
operating costs, employee compensation, 
donations and other community investments, 
retained earnings, and payments to capital 
providers and governments.” In the MM Sector 
Supplement, EITI implementation is also to be 
reported under this indicator. 
• The GRI MMSS guidelines provide detail on the 
reporting template.  The GRI guidelines require 
public reporting of payments to governments at 
the international, national and local levels, 
including a breakdown by country.  While this 
may not exactly accord with the US Extractive 
Industries Disclosure Bill, the GRI is the most 
widely used standard in this area, developed 
through a multi‐stakeholder process. 
• In summary – both EITI and GRI are components 
of the RJC’s standard on revenue transparency.  
Have added some discussion to the guidance to 
this effect – while the cross‐reference was there 
www.responsiblejewellery.com 
The Responsible Jewellery Council is the trading name of the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd, First Floor, Dudley House, 34‐38 Southampton Street, 
London, UK, WC2E 7HF. The Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 05449042. 
10