Pacific Environment International Exchange:Best Practices in Mine Management, Related to Pollution Prevention, Salmon Protection, Reclamation Planning and Financial Assurance.

Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia10-22 October, 2007

Final Trip ReportBy Sibyl Diver

Program Overview and Goals

On October 10-22, 2007, Pacific Environment organized and conducted an international educational exchange program on Best Practices in Mine Management Related to Pollution Prevention, Salmon Protection, Reclamation Planning and Financial Assurance in Kamchatka, Russia. The trip brought three U.S. mining specialists - Paul Robinson, Research Director, Southwest Research and Information Center (sricpaul@earthlink.net / www.sric.org); Jim Kuipers, P.E, mining environmental consultant, Kuipers and Associates (jkuipers@kuipersassoc.com); and Rick Humphreys, Abandoned Mines Coordinator, State Water Resources Control Board, State of California to Kamchatka (rhumphrieys@waterboards.ca.gov) - along with Pacific Environment’s partner Olga Moskvina, director of Magadan Center for the Environment in Magadanskaya Oblast, Elena Chernobrovkina, member of the Buryat Regional Department on Lake Baikal and translator, and Pacific Environment’s Senior Program Associate Sibyl Diver to Kamchatka to meet with mining officials, government regulators and members of the public.

Our international delegation presented at a two-day conference in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky that was hosted by the Kamchatka Oblast People’s Council of Deputies, the Committee on Ecology and Resource Management of Kamchatsky Krai, the Rosprirodnadzor Division of Kamchatka Oblast and Koryaksky Autonomous Okrug, the Division for Minerals Management for Kamchatka Krai, and the Kamchatka Oblast Council of the All-Russia Society for Nature Protection.

Following the conference, the Pacific Environment delegation and our Kamchatka partners participated in meetings that were organized in three communities (Milkovo, Anavgai, and Esso) that are being affected by the regional development of hard rock minerals. These community visits included the full international/interregional delegation as well as local colleagues Aleksei Petrov, press secretary for the Kamchatka League, and Anton Ulatov, researcher with the Kamchatka Institute of Fisheries Sciences and Oceanography (KamchatNIRO).

Over the past three years, the price of precious metals has increased drastically, and the incentive for expanding mining in Siberia and the Russian Far East. Although relatively little mining has taken place in Kamchatka to date, the Aginskoye gold mine is now operating and further mining development is fast approaching. Local

311 California Street, Suite 650 ▪ San Francisco, CA 94104tel. 415.399.8850 ▪ fax. 415.399.8860 ▪

www.pacificenvironment.org

newspapers are announcing auctions for companies to bid on new mining licenses. And local government agencies are voicing their encouragement for mining as a solution to Kamchatka’s socio-economic problems. Meanwhile, citizens and local specialists lack basic information about the environmental and social impacts of the mining cycle. Mining companies capitalize on a local plea to provide jobs to gain public support. And there has been minimal public discussion of the impact of mining on alternative local economies, such as fisheries and tourism.

Given that the current political climate supports mining in Kamchatka and in light of Pacific Environment's past experiences, the objective of our exchange was to focus efforts on fostering a dialogue between the mining industry, government officials, and the public sector on the environmental and social impacts of mining. In 2002, Pacific Environment hosted a similar Kamchatka mining exchange, during which few mining companies chose to attend the event and our delegation was prevented from visiting mine sites. At that time, we found that community members were somewhat hostile to environmental interests and focused primarily on the economic benefits promised by the companies. This delegation addressed mining issues more in the context of socio-economic concerns. We clearly communicated our purpose: preventing the problems associated with mines, not necessarily preventing the mines themselves.

Conference Presentations and Results

We gathered for the first day of the conference in the main hall of the Kamchatka Oblast’ Administration building with an audience of seventy five. As we had hoped, audience members included government officials and mining representatives. The hall also included fisheries scientists and communities affected by regional mining. Pacific Environment worked with our local indigenous partner, the Ethno-Ecological Information Center “Lach” to ensure that indigenous community leaders from Milkovo, Anavgai and Esso were in attendance. The relationship building which resulted from these efforts was a key element in the success of our follow-up community visits.

Presentations started off in a cautious tone and only gradually became more of the dialogue we had hoped for. Local mining industry specialists started with highly general presentations. However, our international delegation presented more detailed case studies on pollution prevention, citizen monitoring, and mine clean-up practices. By the second day, one Russian presenter changed his presentation to respond directly to U.S. delegation presentations. KamchatNIRO fisheries scientists also provided excellent presentations on the impacts of Kamchatka platinum mines on salmon rivers. The final presentation on citizen involvement in mining development was made by Olga Moskvina, a Pacific Environment partner in Magadanskaya Oblast. Ms. Moskvina's presentation provided an important take home message: citizens, mining companies, and government officials are indeed able to communicate with one another, based on her experience working in other regions of Russia. This was an excellent launch for two hours of roundtable discussion among conference attendees. However, our international delegation was left with the sense that few community members in Kamchatka have a real understanding of the serious environmental impacts of mining, and although local specialists may be better

informed, they appear to be uninterested in long term environmental impacts of mining in their public statements.

An important output from the event was the press coverage provided by three local newspapers and radio. A written record of the roundtable discussion was also made available after the event. Another important result was the distribution of highly informative Russian-language materials, including a compilation of articles on international mining standards, prepared by Pacific Environment staffer Misha Jones, as well as the Russian language presentations of our delegation:

Mining Regulations in California (Rick Humphries) Reclamation Planning and Financial Assurance Practice in the United States

(Jim Kuipers) Inspection and Monitoring Programs at Mines: A Baseline Data Gathering

Example (Paul Robinson) Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines; The Reliability of Predictions in Environmental Impact Statements (Jim

Kuipers) Including Local Community Interests in Mining Development Projects (Olga

Moskvina) Acid Drainage at the Kholodninskoye Lead-Zinc Deposit, Buryat Republic,

Russian Federation (Paul Robinson)

Following the conference, members of our delegation had been promised a visit to both the Aginskoye gold mine and the Shanuch nickel mine. In preparation for the site visit, we worked with our hosts to compiled an inclusive list of thirty individuals whom we hoped to consider for the visit. We then learned that only five individuals would be permitted to each site. Despite much scrambling to provide the last minute documents requested by Kamgold, this invitation was quickly retracted. Even after our positive interactions with mining officials at the conference, no one — neither foreign specialists, nor local experts — was granted access to mine sites. We continued our inquires through other sets of contacts, but were informed that the Moscow Ministry of Natural Resource (MPR) had issued a directive that no mining company was permitted to meet with international experts without explicit permission from the MPR director Trutnev. Although we were unable to this MPR directive, it remains clear that the political realities of mining of Kamchatka have made public access to information very challenging.

Community Visits and Results

Despite our disappointment in being unable to visit regional mining operations, this rejection had created an opportunity for our delegation to spend our remaining time in Kamchatka meeting with community members in the towns of Milkovo, Anavgai, and Esso. We were hosted at each location by one of the women whom we had invited to our conference. Our priorities for the trip included 1) listening to the concerns of local people; 2) providing information and initial analysis on possible mining impacts; and 3) building relationships and motivation required for future collaboration.

Despite conversations with colleagues before the trip who expressed the opinion that community members were complacent about mining, we found that local people had significant concerns about what is happening in and around the mines in their regions. In Milkovo, we met with local government officials and the Club of Kamchadals, an indigenous community group that has a concern that mining companies are not providing jobs to indigenous communities. In Anavgai, we first met with 9th and 10th grade students, then with community elders who are concerned about the impacts of mining on the traditional fishery, as well as the lack of overall economic benefit to the village. In Esso, we met representatives of regional obshchinas, indigenous family enterprises focused on fishing or hunting, who were concerned about inadequate opportunities for citizen monitoring. One obshchina reported a fish kill on the Icha River that occurred in July 2007 and felt that the local fisheries agency KamchatNIRO had intentionally excluded the indigenous community from follow-up monitoring. The Bystrynskii Nature Park staff in Esso were also highly concerned about efforts to locate additional mines within the park boundaries, part of the Volcanoes of Kamchatka UNESCO World Heritage Site. Finally, we met with the Esso chapter of the Rotary Club, whose members were all dependent on the town’s vibrant tourist business and, therefore, concerned about mining impacts on the local tourist economy.

Our delegation made a point of first asking questions and listening and then providing information where requested. At our meetings with the Milkovo administration and Esso community meetings, Anton Ulatov presented especially useful photographs of the Aginskoye mine, and our international experts used this opportunity to comment on the site conditions illustrated in the photographs. Some of the photographs were taken in the summer of 2007 and appear to show damages to the mine’s tailings dam liner, perhaps from exposure to elements or heavy machinery. More specifically, the pictures appear to show large holes in the tailings dam liner and geomembrane layer. The photos were also extremely useful for discussing design problems of the mine with local community members. Photographs indicated that the tailings facility was probably constructed within a streambed, with the upriver stream flow redirected by narrow diversion channels. These channels appeared to be insufficient for diverting the stream around the mine waste tailings pond during high flow periods. This could indicate a serious design flaw, as high flows in the spring would most likely overflow from the diversion channels and carry mine waste downstream towards indigenous community fish camps and into salmon spawning habitat. An actual visit to the mine site would be necessary to confirm these problems; however, the pictures and reluctance of mining companies to allow visitors provide grounds for asking pointed questions about possible engineering and design flaws, as well as mine maintenance concerns. At our Esso meeting, Olga Moskvina also discussed her experience working with indigenous communities on mining issues and presented photographs of “moonscapes,” demonstrating the extent to which mines can alter landscape function.

Our trip clearly provided groundwork for future collaboration and follow-up. In Milkovo, Olga Moskvina exchanged cards with the Milkovo Regional Administration Deputy Natalyia Yu’yanova, who pledged to share useful information for her work in Magadan and suggested that we share our data reports at a government-sponsored public hearing in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in November on these topics. In Anavgai, community leader Liliya Bannakanova formally requested that the

Kamchatka League organize a seminar on environmental issues for the Anavgai community that will focus on mining issues and everyday environmental issues of littering. In Esso, we discussed the opportunity for both indigenous community members and the Rotary Club to make a concerted request to visit the mine site and gain information from the company. We also discussed the opportunity of sending basic cameras to some of the fishing obshchinas downriver from the Aginskoye mine to document further problems.

In addition to our community visits, we took advance of travel time to discuss issues internally. Rick Humphries talked through placer mining clean-up issues for Olga Moskvina on one evening. Jim Kuipers and Paul Robinson provided technical analysis of mining failures Magadan, as well as Anton Ulatov’s photos of potential problems with the Aginskoye gold mine.

Despite the hectic pace of our trip, our meetings were punctuated by Kamchatka cultural and ecological experiences, which connected our delegation members to the primary reason for doing the conservation work we are attempting on the peninsula. This included an excursion to take in a haul-out of Steller’s sea lions – all young bachelor males which would remain in the vicinity of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky fish processing facilities until ice covered Avacha Bay. We took a dive into geothermal pools at Paratunka and again in Esso, an unusually clean city because of the presence of geothermal heating and absence of coal-fired power plants. The cultural events we experienced were stunning. In Anavgai, we were treated to dance performance by talented Even youth, alternately strutting and clucking like a grouse, prancing like a reindeer, and keening like a sea gull. Then, in Esso, we visited a one-of-a-kind ethnographic museum that detailed the history of Even, Koryak, and Itelmen peoples and their interactions on the Kamchatka Peninsula. Finally, we were able to take part in a traditional Russian sauna and hosted for a dinner meal at a generous friend’s home.

Conclusions

Overall, the community visits were the most effective aspect of the trip. We were extremely impressed by the shift in community opinion, which had resulted from two years of community organizing and education efforts by local leaders such as Tatyana Mikhailova, director of the Kamchatka League of Independent Experts. The potential we witnessed for working with and supporting local communities in their effort to address the environmental problems associated with the mining cycle is extremely exciting. Thanks to his many years of making connections in the Esso and Anavgai area through his press work, Aleksei Petrov, press secretary at the League, provides an additional opportunity to follow-up on the trip. Tatyana has voiced her desire to hire a local organizer from the local community in Esso or Milkovo to further this work. We will continue to discuss the best options for follow-up with local partners and our international experts.

One opportunity to promote discussions about both the impacts and benefits from the mining cycle is the work that is currently underway to develop Good Neighbor Agreements between indigenous communities and mining companies. While these agreements can bring local benefits, they can also lead to disparities among local

communities and harm community relationships. During our trip, we were able to discuss social impacts of mining with Elena Kazantseva, a new employee of the Russian Association of Indigenous People’s of the North (RAIPON) who will likely be facilitating discussions between indigenous communities and mining companies on Kamchatka. We were able to discuss some of the positive and negative experiences aspects of creating agreements between indigenous communities and mining companies based on Jim Kuipers’ and Olga Moskvina’s experiences, and it appears we will have future opportunities to work on this issue in Kamchatka.

Our experiences at both the conference and in remote communities demonstrate a startling lack of information about mining issues in Kamchatka, and about environmental issues in general. Although materials on the natural and cultural wonders of Kamchatka are distributed around the world, there is very little scientific or popular literature available on the ground. The shortage of reliable information is an obstacle for communities that choose to gain an awareness of issues affecting their future. Publishing additional materials is an important component of Pacific Environment's mining sector strategy for Kamchatka and for other mining districts in the Russian Federation.

As for next steps with our international delegation, we agreed that the Aginskoye mine and the associated impacts on Bystrinsky Nature Park UNESCO World Heritage Site are an important target for us. Our international specialists agreed to draft a memo that will pose strategic questions, which could support concerned citizens and managers operating the Aginskoye gold mine and could potentially be used for drafting sample letters to company and government officials . We also agreed to share information from our trip with UNESCO, and to publish our documents on a new website miningwatch.ru that is managed by Olga Moskvina. Postings to this website will include conference documents to ensure distribution to others interested in mining in Russia. Conference documents will continue to be distributed in electronic form in Kamchatka. We will also continue to support capacity building with our partners at the Kamchatka League of Independent Experts to address mining threats, and with the Kamchatka League’s efforts to identify local people in Anavgai, Esso, and Milkovo who can be actively engaged on Aginskoye mining issues.

In summary, this was as extremely important exchange program, one that provides building blocks for local work on mining issues on the Kamchatka peninsula of the Russian Federation — spawning habitat for one-quarter of Pacific salmon and traditional territory for indigenous peoples. It is our opinion that we achieved the following goals through this exchange:

Continued to build relationships between the indigenous community and environmental organizations;

Learned about local community concerns of mining impacts on indigenous fisheries, local tourist economies, and companies’ unfulfilled promises of social benefits of mining;

Positioned our local partner, the Kamchatka League of Independent Experts, as a strong leader for future work with companies and communities;

Cultivated a set of international experts willing to grant in-kind support to analyzing problems of the Aginskoye gold mine and the Magadanskaya Oblast' mining sector; and

Developed a preliminary strategy to study design issues at the Aginskoye gold mine and to distribute information about environmental and social problems associated with the mining cycle.

Pacific Environment wishes to extend our thanks to the Trust for Mutual Understanding, Tiffany Foundation, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for their financial support, which made this international exchange program possible. Thanks also to our international and regional experts, who dedicated their time and expertise to this effort.