invited the Panel to review its on-the-ground practices at Merian and provide advice about
how the company can better align with FPIC principles in the future.
The following factors are important background considerations in this case:
•
•
•
•
•
Newmont has committed to respect human rights and particularly the social,
economic and cultural rights of indigenous peoples since at least 2006. 5 In 2014,
Newmont committed to work to obtain the consent of indigenous peoples when
operating on their traditionally-owned or customarily-used lands. 6
Planning and development of the Merian mine pre-dates Newmont’s specific FPIC
policy commitments, which do not demand retrospective application or application
to projects in advanced stages of permitting or development.
The Government of Suriname does not formally recognize the customary land and
resource rights of any Maroon or indigenous tribes, despite legally binding
judgments by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights demanding that it do so
and its commitments to implement those judgments.
It is apparent that the Government granted the company exploration and mining
licenses on Maroon customary lands, contrary to its human rights obligations. The
Government did not ensure effective consultations with Maroon tribes prior to
granting the licenses, as required by international standards. 7
To enable the advancement of the Merian project, the Government of Suriname
evicted some Pamaka people from customary land. Pamaka artisanal and smallscale (“informal”) miners and other groups had been mining within the Right of
Exploration.8
Newmont, Social Responsibility Policy, 2006. Newmont is a founding member of the International
Council on Mining (ICMM), established in 2001, and through its membership has committed to
“respect human rights and the interests, cultures, customs and values of employees and
communities affected by our activities” since 2003 (ICMM, 10 Principles on Sustainable
Development, Principle 3).
6
Newmont’s commitment to “work to obtain the consent of indigenous peoples” aligns with the
ICMM’s (2013) Position Statement on Mining and Indigenous Peoples. See:
http://www.icmm.com/publications/pdfs/position-statements/5433.pdf
7
Under domestic law in Suriname, as in most other jurisdictions, sub-surface minerals are the
property of the state, which grants developers approval to explore and mine what the state classifies
as domain land. Nevertheless, under international human rights law, as explained in this report at
pages 3-5, states have an obligation to consult with indigenous and tribal peoples, with the objective
of obtaining their consent, for extractive projects that affect them, regardless of subsurface
ownership. While the Government of Suriname granted exploration licenses before a judgment of
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Saramaka v. Suriname) established domestic law and
practice in Suriname to be inconsistent with this international standard, its granting of the
exploitation licenses came after the Court’s judgment.
8
There are various forms of informal mining in the area, from rudimentary to highly mechanized.
5
2