INVESTORS AND MEDIA 
In the news
Who here has heard the David Bowie song "Heroes"? Quality track, that is.
Rohitesh Dhawan, President and CEO, ICMM.
Have you noticed that at the beginning of the song, his voice sounds close and warm, but by the end, it is strikingly reverberant—almost like there's two of him singing? Experts agree that this change in tone is of the reasons it's such a memorable song. Do have a listen again with this in mind and send me a message on LinkedIn to me know if you can hear it.
What does that have anything to do with mining, and today's theme of Breaking out of the Echo Chamber? Well, because the song best illustrates how echo chambers are actually wonderful things. Yes, you heard me right, I am saying that we need more—not less—echo chambers!
Let me explain what I mean. The song was recorded in the large concert hall in the Hansa recording Studio in Berlin, where David Bowie was able to use the acoustics of the room to achieve echoes of his voice that made it so powerful. Had he performed the same song in an open-air public garden, we probably wouldn't be loving it nearly 50 years on from its release. The structure, the intimacy, the boundaries of that echo chamber are the reason why it is so effective in communicating his message. Hence my point—echo chambers can be really powerful and useful spaces, and there are a number of issues in mining that are unresolved and which need the positive force of an echo chamber to work through.
Of course, the theme of this Resourcing Tomorrow—"Breaking Out of the Echo Chamber"—is meant metaphorically, not literally. It is essentially saying that the mining industry is talking to itself, the same people, the same messages, getting the same results (or lack thereof)—and so, we need to break out of it, with fresh thinking, new ideas, and to different audiences.
I agree with that core premise, but I think the problem lies not with the echo chamber itself, but—to stretch the analogy further—with the door to the chamber.
And so, we don't need to break out of it, but instead we need to fire the doorperson who has only been letting in a certain type of person into the room. We also need to put up a different sign on the outside, so more people want to come into the chamber. And when people are in, we need to make it a welcoming and inclusive space, so they want to stay, and listen and join in to help shape what happens inside.
Let me stop talking in metaphors and make this practical. There are 4 key issues where we don't yet have societal consensus. They require some kind of structure—an echo chamber in the positive sense—to work the issues through and get to a broad consensus—but that does not mean unanimity. And most importantly, they need a wide range of people in the room representing a diversity of interests and perspectives. The issues are:
1. Maximising local benefit from mining
If there's one thing everyone seems to agree on, its that citizens of countries where mining takes place should feel the benefits of their resources. And ICMM's data shows that broadly, this is indeed the case. Our Social Progress Report, available on our website, shows that people in mining-dependent countries are on average, healthier, wealthier and better educated compares to similar countries that are not mining dependent. This is across 41 socio-economic indicators across human health and wellbeing, and the data spans the last 23 years.
So, while the data shows that local citizens are indeed benefiting from mining activities, there is a general sense in the public discourse that this is not the case. That the industry extracts resources for the sole or primary benefit of shareholders, and leaves populations poorer. This has led some to believe that the answer is to have more downstream beneficiation and processing of minerals locally, with the result that almost every country wants to do everything in the mineral value chain!
These are important perspectives to work through in a clear-eyed, fact-based way. For instance, ICMM data shows that in the last 10 years, for every dollar of profit earned by ICMM companies, 36 cents were returned to governments by way of corporate taxes and royalties. For those that believe that the industry leaves too little behind for local populations, this would be a good basis for a discussion on where we go from here.
And for those who believe that greater downstream processing in countries where minerals are extracted is the answer in every case, we must go deeper to develop a mutual understanding of what's needed for this to be an effective strategy.
2. The footprint of the industry
There is perhaps no greater divergence of views and understanding on the industry's physical footprint. For instance, many people are rightly concerned about mining driving deforestation at a time when nature is in crisis. There are horror stories of deforestation and pollution from the tropical forests of South America and Asia. Yet, the data shows that mining was responsible for "only" 0.64% of annual global forest loss in the last 20 years—a tiny fraction of say, agriculture. But many people would not be aware of that, or believe that it significantly underestimates the true footprint—well, those are the perspectives we need to hear and work through, so we can come to a common understanding and way forward.
Similarly, many people are rightly concerned about mining worsening water stress. Yet, in a country like India, mining is a subset of the 2% of water that is used by the entire industrial sector. Once again, we need to work through the lived experiences and concerns of people but remain guided by data and facts, so we can try and narrow the gap between perception and reality—and shape future reality.
3. Permitting of new mines
How many times have you heard it said, particularly by the industry, that we need to speed up permitting of new mines—and I would add, while maintaining high Standards and not cutting corners? And of course we do this—as it takes an average of 15.7 years to bring a new mine to production, which is time we don't have to meet the needs of the energy transition. Yet, what we don't acknowledge enough—especially as the industry—is that the delays are not just the fault of government.
Often, the industry does not provide the data that the regulator has asked for, which leads to re-work and delays. And this isn't always a stalling tactic from regulators, as some would suggest it is. So there's work to do in bringing the industry and regulators together to reduce the time taken while maintaining high Standards. And as one former mining minister put it, perhaps we need a "tripadvisor" for mining companies that governments can use to decide which application is worth spending time on so they don't get bogged down in applications that go nowhere. Interesting idea!
4. Dealing with legacy mining impacts
I'll be brief here as I've previously spoken extensively about the fact that we have a big legacy of ownerless, abandoned and derelict mines which are hazardous to people and the environment, and which we collectively need to deal with. Some believe this is simply today's industry's problem. That is neither correct nor effective; it is not correct because in addition to inexcusable malpractice from operators who have since fled, the reason we have these abandoned mines is because regulations were not effectively enforced or monitored. And it is not an effective strategy because as we have seen across a variety of issues, seeking to impose the weight of history on any one generation does not work. Instead, we need to find a way for different stakeholders to jointly tackle the issue, for the common good.
So, all of this points to the fact that we need a different conversation about mining, and the right space for it. Echo chambers can actually be very good for those, as they amplify sounds and messages, allowing us to absorb them better. But they only work if the doors to them work properly—allowing everyone to have a voice and a say, and to occupy the space.
Let me end by hopefully demonstrating that I'm not just here to preach, but that as the industry, we are acting to give life to these ideas. On the 16th of October, the conveners of four of the most widely used voluntary Standards of responsible mining—ICMM, World Gold Council, Mining Association of Canada, and Copper Mark—published a draft consolidated Standard for responsible mining, which brings our individual systems together into one Standard, with a robust Assurance process and an independent multi-stakeholder oversight system.
I believe this marks a turning point for our industry, by providing any mining company anywhere in the world producing any commodity with a Standard they can use for continuous improvement in mining practices. Most importantly, it gives our stakeholders the confidence that this is not the industry marking its own homework—by having an independent Board drawn from a variety of stakeholder groups where no single group has outsized influence, we are creating a space for consensus based on fair and equitable power sharing.
And each of you has a role to play here—because the Public Consultation is open until the 16th of December. So please, make sure you Google "Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative" and share your feedback on the Standard, the Assurance process, or the Governance. Your participation is critical to help make sure that "door" of the chamber works as it should—creating an inclusive, diverse and creative space.
And if we did manage to build broad consensus on these issues, then those involved would rightly count as Heroes, even if just for one day…!
