As highlighted above, the company’s social knowledge base is not sufficient. There are also
deficiencies when it comes to analyzing differential impacts on women, girls, and other
community members that face multiple forms of marginalization. This deficiency heightens
the risk of the company unknowingly causing, contributing to, or exacerbating abuses of
women’s rights. The company has the opportunity and responsibility to reinforce the
leadership roles of women within the Pamaka traditional authority structure and to ensure
that its approach is inclusive of women, and is considerate of issues of social exclusion.
Summary points
• The traditional authority structure of the Pamaka provides opportunities for
women to participate as general members of the community, leaders, and
representatives.
• Some Pamakan women expressed frustration that their access to information
about the project’s potential adverse impacts and benefits was inadequate and
had diminished over time.
• The company has not adequately analyzed differential impacts of the project on
women, girls, and other community members that face multiple forms of
marginalization.
• There are opportunities for the site to ensure that its approach is inclusive of
women, while being respectful of Pamaka authority structures, and that it
considers issues of social exclusion.
6
Recommendations for the Merian mine
As noted above, Newmont is operating in a context where there was no opportunity for the
Pamaka to consent to developing the Merian mine on customary lands: the state granted
the company the right to explore and exploit sub-surface minerals in the absence of
conducting meaningful consultation with, or obtaining consent from, the customary land
owners; and the Government of Suriname dispossessed some Pamaka of their customary
land, which included Gowtu Bergi, to make way for the mine. Against this backdrop,
Newmont 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.
In the Panel’s view, Newmont has not conducted the requisite studies to understand the
negative implications associated with this dispossession, and has not provided adequate
compensation or benefit-sharing, on the basis of a recognition of land and resource rights.
In these circumstances – noting that Newmont sought to apply FPIC principles at Merian but
does not claim to have obtained FPIC from the Pamaka – Newmont requested advice from
the Panel about how to better align its community engagement practices with the principles
of FPIC within a human rights framework in the future. The Panel encourages Newmont to
consider the following specific recommendations:
26