accurate records for population, land ownership and patterns of use and inheritance, the
company is unable to understand the full extent of its impact on the land and resource
rights of the Pamaka and other Maroon tribes.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has confirmed that, alongside FPIC, an
environmental and social impact assessment that identifies impacts to indigenous and tribal
peoples’ rights is an essential mechanism for safeguarding the human rights of Maroon
peoples in the context of resource development in Suriname. The assessment of human
rights impacts is also a fundamental requirement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights. Where projects are to be established on tribal lands, companies should
demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the social, political and cultural context.
Commissioned studies, including those undertaken as part of an ESIA, should address
human rights issues and impacts and support both the company and tribal peoples in their
negotiations over resource development.45 These studies should consider women’s rights,
including the intersection between gender and other factors such as race, poverty, age and
disability, and the extent to which the site might either improve or exacerbate access to
basic services, livelihood opportunities, or otherwise impact different groups of people,
including women.
Newmont states that greenfield opportunities in new jurisdictions require a thorough
understanding of the social and political landscape in order to effectively manage risks. 46
Impact assessments help to identify the severity of risks for different groups of people,
appropriate avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures, and to communicate these
matters with the relevant parties. The Panel notes that Newmont has only recently
introduced requirements to include human rights as part of impact assessment studies.
Nonetheless, Surgold has not operationalized fundamental social impact assessment data
collected during the exploration and project approval phase. The data collected during these
studies is not stored in a manner that is readily available for use at the site and has not been
incorporated into site-level plans or management systems. Without a comprehensive social
knowledge base, sharing information with local people about impacts and discussing the
effectiveness of control measures is unlikely to be comprehensive.
The Panel engaged with several company representatives who held knowledge of different
aspects of the social context and who could describe the social organizing structures of the
Pamaka. However, this knowledge appeared to be individually held, and not systematically
45
Newmont had commissioned a human rights impact assessment (HRIA) for the Merian mine. This
study considered the human rights and vulnerability-related risks for different groups of people. The
Panel requested to see the HRIA, in either draft or final form, on several occasions. At the time of
writing, Newmont advised that the study was in the final stages of completion, but was not available
to the Panel.
46
See: http://sustainabilityreport.newmont.com/2014/_docs/newmont-beyond-the-minesustainability-report-2014.pdf, p.9.
21