Free Prior Informed Consent the right of a community to grant or withhold consent to projects which will affect them and places communities as equal partners with companies during negotiations. It enables companies to demonstrate their social aspects and risk are appropriately managed. Three key parties: State, Community, Company each have important individual roles in implementing FPIC but will achieve greater success through collaboration. Agreements are required at various stages of a project. A paradigm shift in how in planning is required based on securing and maintaining the right to develop a project early in the project cycle in a transparent, participatory and inclusive manner. Exploration and feasibility work needs to be integrated in this approach, not the other way around. Northland gained it social licence through early proactive engagement with the Muonio Sameby. But lost it by not keeping its promises including failing to sign an MoU, and diminishing engagement once permits were received. Beowulf are implementing a similar approach, and are unlikely to obtain their social licence, putting at risk their ability to successfully develop their project.

1. Free Prior &
Informed Consent
What it is, where’d it come from, where it’s going
+ Lessons from Norrbotten
Geoarena, Uppsalla, Oct 2014
gecko ENVIRONMENT
Max Smith
max@gogecko.eu

2. What is Free Prior Informed Consent
• Communities’ right to self-determination
• what kinds of developments affect them
A powerful method to reduce project risk
Proves social aspects ’managed’
• Equal partners during negotiations
• Safeguard vs veto?
• Agreement or ’super’ consultation?

3. Where’d it come from
• Social externalities – society ’subsidise’
mining projects
• ILO 169 (1989) – Indigenous & Tribal Peoples
• FPIC when relocation unavoidable
• Norway & Denmark ratified
• Sweden & Finland not
• Binding if ratified
• UNDRIP (2007)
• FPIC ”prior to the approval of any project”
• Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden signed
• Non binding – toothless Tiger
• 25 years in the making – contentious issue
Newmont’s Conga – irreversible changes to ecosystem
services to be borne by social receptors

4. Where’s it going
”the trend is unmistakably towards strengthening the rights of Indigenous
People”
ICMM IP & mining good practice guide 2010
• All communities … not only Indigenous People
• Common Law – everyone does it therefore
everyone must do it.
• Race to the bottom?
• Who’s not doing it gets the investment (Sweden?)
• Democracy & demographics – major challenge
7 Oct 2014
Chilean Supreme Courts halts
development on Goldcorp’s El Morro
mine “until indigenous communities
are consulted”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29531430
http://www.federacionminera.cl/portal/?p=1441

5. Who’s it involve
& their role
+ financiers
Tripartite Advisory Committee
How mining should be done (in Sweden): convergence
Best practice – definition & guidelines
Advisory – communities & companies
Information repository
Examples of SIAs
List of experts
Grievance mechanism & Conflict resolution
Facilitation & mediation
m.m. …
State : Company : Saami Responsibilities & inter-relations
Social Licence - Agreement Agreement on development
Policy framework;
Strengthen miljöbalken
& mineral strategy;
Development priorities
Consent prior to
granting concession;
SEA
Collaboration
Engagement;
Best practice;
Information
Commitment;
Human & financial
resources;
Best Practice/
Standards;
Engagement.
Tripartite
committee
Legal Licence

6. Would Continental Precious Minerals have spent 12 million CAD on exploration
if it knew the municipalities would veto a uranium mine
& that locals would ”NEVER” give up opposing one?
http://www.321an.se
Brev till CPM (engelska):
To Patricia Sheahan, Chairman of the Board, Continental Precious Minerals Inc.
To Ed Godin, Chief Executive Officer, President, Continental Precious Minerals Inc.
We, the undersigned, are landowners on the mountain Billingen in Sweden. We
have all from you received letters telling us that you want to make test-drillings
for uranium in the alum shale on our property. To this we strongly oppose …
(and) we will NEVER give up our resistance against test- drillings and uranium-mines!
….
The only long-term result for your company will be a bad reputation.
http://vastgotabergen.se/skrivelser-och-brev/
SEA = 12 m CAD?

7. Howto do it
Metallogenic areas of
Sweden
Source: SGU
• Start early – paradigm shift in planning: all parties
• State – consent (via SEAs) prior to granting exploration licence
• Company – S&E team before exploration
Community (Saami) – proactive engagement
”We are here: This is who we are”
• Agreements – specific stages of project life-cycle

8. Paradigm shift in planning
05, 06 1 q 07 2q 07 3q 07 4q 07 1q 08 2q 08 3q 08 4q 08 1q 09 2q 09 3q 09 4q 09 1q 10 2q 10 3q 10 4q 10 1q 11 2q 11 3q 11 4q 11 1q12 2q12
Traditional
Improve value through exploration until resource identified, commence feasibility studies & based on results commence S&E and Permitting.
Geology
Feasibility
Social & Environment
Permitting
Mine Permit
FPIC Compliant
Social & Environment Agreement
MoU -process MoU - exploration MoU - Permitting MoU - Feasibility Agreement - construction Agreement - operations
IBA
Exploration
Permitting Proj milestone
Mine Permit
Feasibility
Northland Resources
Geology exploration work
Social & Environmental Social & Environmental
MoU - process (how impacts to be managed) baselines
Tapuli & Kaunisvaara permitting IA
0803 Tap BAK submitted 0811 BAK granted 0904 GVT submitted 1008 GVT granted Consultation
Drafting permits
Feasibility - Tapuli Mine & Kaunisvaara Mill Feasibility
0806 PEA finished 0904 PEA start 0909 PEA KAV finished PEA
3 Key Assets Kaunisvaara 0909 DFS start 1009 DFS finished DFS

9. Northland – what went right
• Commitment (to collaboration)
• S&E team resourced early
• Best Practice & Internationally recognised standards
• Equator Principles, ICMM 10 SD Principles, UNDHR
• Engagement & consultation
• inclusive, timely, informative, transparent, participatory
Muonio Sameby – good faith negotiations
Critically Important
• Promised an MoU

10. Northland – what went wrong
Promises not kept:
• Commitment reduced - consultation
• Focus on permits not relationships/partnerships
• Miljobälken, not international standards
• Information in place of collaboration
• Consultation & engagement with Muonio Sameby
reduced
• Project changes not consulted – truck transport of
concentrate
• MoU not signed

11. Muonio Sameby
2013
• No longer a ’Partner’
• Sidelined – media only about project,
• Vilkor not honoured - Årligs Samråd
• SIA (2008, 2010) – not updated
Investement by collaboration & land
has not paid dividends
Social Licence to Operate = lost
• Next mining company will not enjoy the
same level of cooperation. http://www.sametinget.se/61172

12. Beowulf’s Kallak project – perils of compliance
• Compliance & socio-economic benefits to community – but which one?
• The local (Saami) community does not provide its consent
• Beowulf - negative reputation
• no social licence
• challenges for future expansion
• regulatory & financial oversight
• Mining sector – Beowulf project also impacts sector’s reputation

13. gecko ENVIRONMENT
innovation & expertise
in sustainability
max@gogecko.eu
+31 641 658 649
+358 403 218 638