Rhetoric vs. Reality

Newmont touts itself as a leader in sustainable development in the mining industry.

In a report issued in May 2020, the Executive Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer of Newmont, Stephen Gottesfeld, emphasized that respecting the fundamental freedoms and human rights of Newmont’s workers and the communities affected by Newmont’s activities lies at the heart of its sustainability approach. However, the experiences of communities Haiti, Ghana and Peru, among other countries, suggest that Newmont may not live up to its commitments.

Newmont is a member of numerous external, multi-stakeholder initiatives. Some of these initiatives include:

  • The U.N. Global Compact: an initiative through which companies pledge to embrace and operationalize ten principles related to human rights, labor, the environment, and anticorruption, including the principle that businesses should “support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights.”  

In addition to external frameworks and principles, Newmont also has a set of internal policies and standards that guide its operations. The content of many of these policies and standards mirror Newmont’s international commitments.

Newmont’s exploration activities in the north of Haiti in Grand Bois and La Montagne from 2009 to 2012, as part of the Newmont-Eurasian joint venture, exemplify ways Newmont has fallen short of some of these commitments to human rights and sustainable development even during the exploratory phase of mining.

Human Rights

Newmont Commitment

Under the U.N. Global Compact, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and Newmont’s Human Rights Standard, Newmont has a commitment to respect human rights and ensure that it is not complicit in human rights abuses. Newmont commits to act with “due diligence” to avoid causing or contributing to violations of human rights and to work to prevent or mitigate the human rights impacts of its activities. While the Guiding Principles are not binding, they represent an emerging consensus in the industry.

Reality in Haiti

The absence of robust government institutions and regulations alongside severe and persistent human rights violations in Haiti increase Newmont’s likelihood of exacerbating, or being complicit in, human rights violations.

For example, in Haiti, the right to clean water is unrealized, with less than 50% of households in rural areas accessing clean drinking water. [Link to Water] Gold mining by any company risks contaminating water supply and decreasing the amount of water available, thus contributing to the ongoing violation of the right to water, and, in turn, likely violating the right to health. This would go against Newmont’s human rights commitments, as well as its company-wide pledge under its Global Water Strategy to uphold access to clean water given that it is “an essential component of economic and social development.”

Although Newmont might promise to provide local communities with new water infrastructure, new wells and trucked water cannot compensate if the groundwater is contaminated.

Environmental Stewardship

Newmont Commitment

Newmont states on its website that “Environmental Stewardship is Central to [their] Business.” Under international initiatives, Newmont commits to minimizing, mitigating, and remediating the harms its activities can cause to the environment.


Reality in Haiti

Haiti suffers from numerous environmental vulnerabilities, including its location on many fault lines, severe deforestation, and frequency of natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes, and drought. [Link to Environment] Decades of counterproductive foreign intervention have so weakened Haitian government institutions that it has little capacity to effectively mitigate or respond to disasters [Link to Legal Context]. Mining activities risk worsening these pre-existing vulnerabilities by accelerating deforestation and transferring land from small-scale, sustainable farmers to extractive activity, creating conditions that would make Haiti more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. [Link to Environment].

Exploration activities by Newmont between 2009 and 2012 may have already caused damage to the environment. The Newmont-Eurasian joint venture reported that in Grand Bois, they “built a camp, drilled 34 holes, excavated 8 shallow trenches, collected 4,146 surface samples, and conducted 24.3 kilometers of geophysical surveys on a grid pattern.”  Newmont-Eurasian said that they had remediated the area in accordance with their environmental standards.  Residents of Bojè, a community in Grand Bois in the North department, strongly feel that their crops had not grown as well since Newmont-Eurasian operated there. In a 2014 interview, one woman stated that, in the past several years, she could no longer grow watercress or bananas. 

In La Montagne, Newmont-Eurasion activities included constructing a camp and collecting 5,500 surface samples.  Newmont Eurasian did not drill in that area.  Residents in the La Montagne area said that they believe that Newmont-Eurasian’s exploration activity has hurt the land and made farming more difficult. 

“You see that in the 4th Section of Jean Rabel, mining has changed the land. There are fewer trees. You can’t grow things. We all live off of the land. If it does not produce for us, we are not good, not good at all.”
– Resident of La Montagne

While many residents of communities received compensation from Newmont-Eurasian for damaged crops, residents complained that the provided compensation was inadequate.

Due Diligence and Stakeholder Engagement

Newmont Commitment

The Global Compact, Guiding Principles, and ICMM Principles all emphasize the responsibility of companies to perform human rights diligence that involves assessing the environmental and social risks of new projects through meaningful consultation with affected groups.

Additionally, Newmont’s Social Baseline and Impact Assessment Standard reiterates this principle, and states that “necessary and relevant site information shall be identified and made available to stakeholders in a culturally appropriate manner to create an informed engagement process” and affected communities should be involved in social impact assessments at the exploration phase.

Reality in Haiti

Newmont’s prior mining activities in Haiti are in tension with these principles. The Global Justice Clinic and Kolektif Jistis Min documented the lack of community participation in and information about Newmont’s exploration activities. Community members interviewed by GJC stated that neither mining companies nor government officials provided the public with any written information or information on the radio about the potential environmental and social impacts of mining.

In 2014, GJC requested baseline environmental and social data from Newmont-Eurasian related to its exploration activities in Grand Bois and La Montagne. In response, Newmont-Eurasian provided GJC with an informal “summary of baseline efforts.” The document provided was too vague to be useful in assessing the concerns residents had shared about the possible lasting impacts of the companies’ activities. Further, the document was never made publicly available.

Free, Prior and Informed Consent

Newmont Commitment

Newmont has publicly committed to respect the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Specifically, Newmont has a standard to “access and acquire land” based on a negotiated agreement. According to its Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement Standard, Newmont is committed to “avoid resettlement [of local residents] where possible.” When alternatives are not available, Newmont will work to ensure affected people and communities are engaged to make informed decisions, adverse impacts are minimized and livelihoods and living conditions are restored or improved.

Reality in Haiti

During Newmont’s exploratory activities in Haiti, Newmont failed to effectively communicate the potential risks that mining would pose to affected communities. Numerous community members of La Montagne indicated that Newmont-Eurasian representatives failed to respect residents’ rights to participation, information, and informed consent when seeking land use permission.

In 2014, a resident of La Montagne told GJC that he affixed his thumbprint to the agreement (in lieu of a signature) because the company had paid him 1000 Haitian Gourdes (approximately $21.40 at the time) in exchange for doing so. He said that he had no idea what the agreement said. Other residents thought that signing the agreement would bring future benefits akin to a development project led by a nongovernmental organization. Still others said they had understood that they must sign the agreement to receive compensation for damaged crops, and some stated no one had mentioned that the agreement warned of the potential destruction of land.

Social Sustainability and Community Investment

Newmont Commitment

Newmont has stated that it is committed to community development and local economic opportunities as aspects of its policy of “shared value.” Under its Social Responsibility guidelines, Newmont pledges to ensure “mutual value” through “diversifying” the local economy, “catalyzing economic development,” investing in infrastructural development in communities, and “paying taxes and royalties to governments that support essential government services and raise the standard of living in host communities.”

Reality in Haiti

The Haitian government’s history of failing to collect corporate income tax, as well as corruption and a weak regulatory system, means that it is highly unlikely that Newmont’s mining operations would result in “shared value” for the local community.

In fact, Newmont’s track record shows that far from bringing wealth and public infrastructure to local communities, Newmont’s mining operations often end up resulting in displacement while failing to create jobs.