The AGM of Rio Tinto took place on Friday 8^th April in London. It was hybrid meeting ( in person and online) and the Director of Andrew Lees Trust (ALT UK) participated in person to raise questions about the QMM mine in Madagascar, together with Joe Bardwell of Publish What You Pay (PWYP), which is supporting the PWYP Madagascar (MG) research and advocacy efforts for Antanosy communities on the frontline of the mine.

We report with a transcript of the Q&A with our comments to some of the responses from Rio Tinto about Madagascar below, and in order of the questions asked.

FULL AGM RECORDING AVAILABLE HERE

The timelines for the Q&A relevant to Madagascar are located next to each question, and presented thematically and in order below including:

1. Social and Political Licence to operate
2. Transparency and communications
3. Dam Safety
4. Rights and Remedy
5. Water Provision

SEE REUTERS PRESS COVERAGE HERE

BACKGROUND: Since 2018, PWYP MG, PWYP UK, ALT UK and Friends of the Earth (EWNI) jointly advanced a series of advocacy actions with regard to the QMM mine, notably to bring to light QMM’s illegal breach of an environmental zone, followed by demands that Rio Tinto/QMM resolve its water management system, increase transparency around the mine and, most urgently provide drinking water to mine affected communities around the Mandena site. These demands also relate to studies that identified of elevated levels of uranium and lead downstream of the mine.  

Recent events around the QMM mine, with the appearance of dead fish following mine tailings dam failures, and a massive mine process water release, have further highlighted and accentuated the need for robust scrutiny about the impact of the QMM mine on the local environment and specifically the local waterways and water quality

SEE MORE INFO ABOUT RECENT EVENTS HERE

We acknowledge that Some steps have been taken by RT/QMM in the last year, and go some way to meet demands made by our advocacy group since 2018, namely:

1) QMM has finally committed funds to advance drinking water access (filtration systems) into the three communes (targeted to increase access to drinking water). 

2) Rio Tinto/QMM have conceded that the QMM water management system is not working have set about scoping solutions – specifically they are advancing a “temporary solution” (though this raises questions and requires further study – see below Question 2 )

3) Rio Tinto have now publicly committed to finding and sharing water baseline data that has been requested for more than three years. Our advocacy group was repeatedly told there were no baseline data.  This data is critical to understanding how the mine has changed water quality in the region. These baseline water data have become increasingly pertinent following the recent mine tailings dam failures at QMM.

SEE BRIEFING PAPER HERE

The water quality issues remain contested. The claims that Rio Tinto/QMM mine has no impact on the receiving environment is still in question and current analysis – both by QMM’s external provider’s JBS&G and the local authorities in Madagascar – are proving scientifically unsatisfactory in credibly answering to the issues arising.

Many social issues remain unresolved, and the latest study by PWYP MG shows communities around Mandena most affected by the mine are suffering extreme hardships from loss of lands and livelihoods, such as represent almost a 50% decrease in their quality of life /income from before the QMM mine started.

SEE PWYP MG 2022 STUDY BRIEFING HERE

Since the premise of the Rio Tinto/QMM mine as a centrepiece of the World Bank Integrated Growth Pole (PIC) programme in the south was that it would lift the Anosy region our of poverty, this result – the deepening poverty and suffering for the rural populations – is a notable failure of the project and needing urgent attention.

QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE AGM 2022 ABOUT MADAGASCAR : –

There follows a TRANSCRIPT of the Q&A with ALT UK comments inserted

I. QMM’S SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LICENCE

46.00 – 47.22: Power, Trustee for the Jesuits of Britain, a Catholic Church Trust and institutional investors in Rio Tinto :

My question takes to Madagascar where there seems to be strong indications that the company may be losing – we talked of strengthening its social licence, but is it losing it there? It’s relating to mine affected communities at the site in Mandena. We understand many villagers have been the in the Town Hall occupying it recently, and the reported losses of their incomes is as high as 50% – and just recently, last week the Government of Madagascar in the person of the President talked of holding QMM (Rio’s subsidiary there) responsible for the impact of the failure of the dam structure, death of aquatic life and the water quality issues. So, my question is: is QMM now at risk of losing its political licence to operate in Madagascar?

47.23 – 54.28: Simon Thompson (ST) , Rio Tinto, Chair:

This relates in part to the recent report from PWYP MG which have not read yet. First when you build a mine in a very poor country like Madagascar, one of the poorest in the world, it does create inequalities. Because before the mine everyone was uniformly poor and when the mine arrives and creates well paid jobs it increases inequality in the community and this is an issue that mining companies confront whenever they are developing project in poorer countries. So, the reality is that in Madagascar with the arrival of QMM we have created well over 200 well paid direct jobs and produced employment connected to the mine and supply chains of about 11,000. When we developed the mine we brought clean water to Ft Dauphin – nearest major town to the operation, where many of our employees live. We then handed that clean water facility to the govt, and we are currently building clean water facilities for three rural communities located much closer to our mine.

ALT UK Comment: The inequality exists but in fact it is the diminished livelihoods of the rural poor in the region , those living adjacent to the QMM operation, and suffering directly as a result of the mine that is the issue. Only about 2% of the rural communities interviewed have jobs with QMM. The local CSO Platform in Anosy reports two water supplies in Ft Dauphin. One for citizens and one specifically for QMM, the port and QMM’s worker base (As shown in the QMM 2007 plans) . See diagram below

S Thompson/ Rio Tinto : But the reality is there is a divide between the urban population in Ft Dauphin who benefit from electrical power that we supply to 80,000 people and to clean water and jobs whereas the rural communities nearer to the mine do not share in those benefits fully. This is why we are really focused on working with stakeholders including the World Bank who have taken an active role over many years now in seeking to develop a regional development programme to try and redress that balance.

ALT UK Comment: There is no sense of any benefits for over 90% of the rural population impacted by QMM (PWYP MG 2022).  The World Bank PIC Phase 2 is focused on supporting local entrepreneurs, which does not directly address the reduced subsistence livelihoods of the impacted rural communities in question. In particular, it is the lost lands and diminished natural resources as a result of the QMM operation that is most impacting the rural poor (ibid).

S Thompson/ Rio Tinto, continues: We will never be able to do it in full but we can strive to do so for example we are converting our power generation in Madagascar to renewable using solar and wind and when we complete that we will be supplying not only the power to Ft Dauphin but also be able to supply power to two of the rural communities that are close to the operation. We do recognise that we need to step up our engagement with the communities we have put a tremendous amount of effort into doing that over the past year or so and we feel we are building better relationships not just with civil society orgs in Madagascar, but also directly with those communities.

ALT UK Comment: Power supply alone will not address villagers land and livelihood losses. Villagers were protesting lost fishing livelihoods as recently as December 2021 with road blocks, and two were arrested. QMM sought to criminalise/penalise the leaders of the protest. In March 2022, villagers occupied the Town Hall to demand remedy to their situation, having been left with no access to the lake following a mine overflow incident– and thereby no fishing livelihoods to ensure their survival.

S Thompson, Rio Tinto continues: It was the Ministry of Water in fact who made the comment about holding QMM responsible for some fish deaths near to our operations.

ALT UK Correction:  Wrong. The Minister of Water delivered the President of Madagascar’s message: This message is summarised as follows: “QMM has already worked here in Anosy 25 years ago. During these years, you have encountered various problems caused by the extraction of ilmenite from QMM. Since I was the President of the transition, I have already thought about protecting you for this situation. Currently, the natural waters (rivers and lakes) are all polluted, the fish found dead, you can no longer work. The QMM is responsible for all this because Only QMM extracts ilmenite here in Anosy, only QMM discharges wastewater into the river. So QMM is responsible for all of this. We will have to find solutions for the protection of the community”

SEE TV MEDIA AIRING OF THE MESSAGE DELIVERY HERE

S Thompson , Rio Tinto : It’s quite hard to answer this question concisely because it is a complex story.  But Madagascar in the early months of this year suffered dome extreme weather after a very prolong drought. In Feb -March there were three cyclones in a matter of weeks which deposited about half the typical annual rainfall in a very short period of time. Our operations are essentially ponds in Madagascar and our normal procedure is to keep the level of the water in those ponds below the level of the water in the external environment so that should there be any flow of water it will be from the external environment into the ponds rather than vice versa.

ALT UK Comment: Madagascar frequently has cyclones. The QMM mine has built 30m high, 4-metre-high berm – with the function of a dam, to prevent flow of water into or out of the mining pond. That this dam structure failed under the heavy rains is an issue. It is not the first time.  See also below Question 3 :QMM DAM SAFETY

S Thompson , Rio Tinto: However because of this exceptional extreme weather we got an accumulation of water within the pond areas and we therefore had to release some water into the external environment – something we have not done for well over  18 months – and we did that with the full permission of the National Environmental Office ( ONE) and indeed we involved local communities in that , and as a precautionary measure we provided the local communities near the mine with clean drinking water whilst we were releasing that water into the environment . Now, several days later there were some fish deaths reported actually not very close to where the water was released but further out in the waterways which we investigated because we take that very seriously.

ALT UK Comment: What is not explained: release of “some water” means QMM had to get “exceptional” permission to release 1 million cubic metres of mine process wastewater. “Exceptional” permission was required because since 2020 QMM mine process water has been reported as not compliant with Malagasy water regulatory limits for discharge into the environment ( with exceedances of cadmium and aluminium). ANDEA, the water authority attached special conditions to this release – see below in Q:3, QMM DAM SAFETY and ANDEA PERMISSION HERE

S Thompson, Rio Tinto: And working again with the ONE we tested those fish, we found no signs of toxicity, we found no signs of contamination with heavy metals so I’m afraid their deaths aren’t explained  but I have to say the local fishing community and indeed our staff reported that the water was extremely turbid, which is not surprising because of the vast quantity of flood water which not only caused enormous damage to local communities but also washed a huge amount of sediment into the waterway where the fish were found.  So, we were surprised by the Minister’s comment because certainly the analysis we have done and the analysis the ONE in Madagascar has done doesn’t suggest there is any link with our activities.  But certainly, it’s something we take extremely seriously and we will continue to engage with the Minister of water and try to understand what if any steps we should take.

ALT UK Comment: Hundreds of dead fish were located in the lake – downstream of the mine, where locals fish for food and livelihoods. As fish live in moving water there is no saying exactly where the deaths took place. The study reports of the water testing by the authorities are in question. The analysis is far from adequate to draw conclusions and more investigation is needed.

SEE SWANSON MEMO ON THE LOCAL STUDY REPORTS HERE.

ALT UK Comment: The death of the fish is most likely explained by the combination of high aluminium and low PH which is present in the QMM mine basin water, and which would have been released in quantity. This combination can cause asphyxiation in the fish. However, other metals of concern also need further investigation.

S Thompson, Rio Tinto: I should say, and it’s a long answer but it’s a complicated subject, that we are about to open a water treatment plant at QMM which will actually provide a permanent long term solution to this…….so it will enable us to release water rather than doing so in sort of emergency situations such as we face because of these extreme weather events  – we will be able to release water back into the environment which will be at least as good if not better than the quality of the water in the receiving environment. So, we do have a permanent solution.

ALT UK Comment: RT/QMM shared papers with ALT UK and PWYP MG the day before the RT AGM. The plan being proposed is a pit treatment process to address elevated aluminium and the low Ph and is signalled as a “temporary solution” in another document, pending a “permanent solution” expected in 2024. Whether the permanent solution is this same treatment plan after a two-year experimentation in situ is yet to be clarified. The word experimentation refers to the fact that a) there is no EIA, risk assessment or SEMP available data to determine to what extent the plan has been modelled, tested and reviewed for any necessary risks and mitigation mechanisms for the Malagasy situ/location and, b) it has not been subject to public consultation in Anosy, as would be expected for a change in design of the QMM project design.   

ALT UK Comment: One risk of the proposed treatment process is that neutralising the high aluminium and low PH with limestone creates Aluminium Hydroxide, a toxic sludge which if release via cyclonic conditions could potentially kill everything in the lake environment.   We note from exchange with experts that this is the cheapest and easiest solution to the aluminium/Ph problem – in fact a proper water treatment plant costing in the order of 20 million dollars, 10 times more than the proposed plan, would be more appropriate for the QMM scenario for the longer term.     

ST, Rio Tinto: As I mentioned we are also developing clean water projects for the communities living close to the mine, which again will address some of their concerns.  But I absolutely accept that we have work to do to enhance our licence to operate in Madagascar.

2. TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNICATIONS

1.7.35 – 1.10 : Tahiry Ratsimbahoatra

Introduced by Yvonne Orengo, Director, Andrew lees Trust (ALT UK )We work closely with PWYP MG and PWYP Intl, and PWYP just brought out the report that Mr Thompson just mentioned. Unfortunately a community rep from Mada was not able to attend today because of Covid: I am bringing a question from him:  Tahiry Rastsiambahoatra is an Antanosy man from the region where the QMM mine is situated. His question is about the Transparency of Rio Tinto’s communication which he says  creates a feeling of betrayal vis-à-vis the local community and QMM in Madagascar: for example, • 2001: QMM said  their WEIR would improve water quality in the Lake Ambavarano, but fisherfolk report a 90% loss of fish species in the lake since the weir was built – and have protested due to their lost livelihoods • 2001 QMM said it would not exploit monazite because of its high radioactivity, now QMM exports Monazite and takes it through town• 2017  QMM said it was compliant on the buffer zone limits. But, after two years late Rio Tinto admitted QMM had breached the environmental buffer zone; rural communities take drinking water and fish in the local lakes directly affected by QMM mine process water and the contamination it brings. Q: when will QMM communicate transparently to avoid the widespread distrust of the community? …

Added from Yvonne Orengo (ALT UK)

I want to add that QMM told us for years – our organisation with PWYP have been asking a lot of very technical questions about water quality in Madagascar – we were told there was no baseline water data. But now we discover there is. We are still waiting for it.  People were told there was no problems with QMM mine water; they are still being told that. But when pressed to disclose its discharge water data, QMM had to admit last year to exceedances in cadmium and aluminium. We concluded the QMM water management system was not working; QMM and Rio Tinto had to concede this is true. It also has high levels of uranium and lead but QMM does not like to discuss these and the absence of a regulatory limit for uranium in Madagascar means they haven’t had to – yet.    Civil society was told that QMM was looking for solutions for the discharge water – and you have mentioned them today Mr Thomson – I was delivered papers yesterday and announcements in MG press were made about this last week, only last week.   In fact, they are a temporary solution, not a permanent solution, and they were scoped out last year – but nobody knows anything about it. It’s a solution that creates even greater risk to the water environment and consequently to health and the subsistence livelihoods of rural communities living around the mine.  Q. Why has there been no transparent discussions about this treatment solution?  It’s a neutralising pit solution – we’ve been asking for information for over a year? Where is the EIA and Risk assessments? and where are the public consultations which should then accompany those and which are required for a change in the project design in Madagascar?  Why does Rio Tinto allow QMM to continue to do, as the villagers put it: “what it wants”, without transparent processes and open communications? is Rio Tinto really willing to change its culture? – because this way of operating in Madagascar is not conducive to building trust and or to the transformational changes it is aspiring to

1.11.55 : Simon Thompson, Rio Tinto:

This is my last London AGM. You have asked a question about Madagascar at all eight of the AGMs both virtual and in person so I want to acknowledge ALT commitment to holding Rio Tinto to account and hope you will concede we have always been responsive to all your requests. You have made 5 meetings with management; you’ve made 17 or 18 detailed requests for information which we have endeavoured to provide. You have mentioned baseline and we will provide that, but the difficulty is that if you ask at short notice for data that is 27 years old we have to go back into the archives and get that data. In terms of meeting, you personally on developments at QMM, I know Jakob offered 3-4 different dates to meet ahead of this meeting regrettably you weren’t able to meet those times. That offer remains open.

ALT UK Comment: The Chair did not answer the question about the lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), public consultation or risk assessment for the new treatment “plant” or pit. These latter are specific steps required under Malagasy law and essential for a transparent process around the project activity and any changes to its design. Failure to conduct full public consultation is one reason local people feel QMM is lacking transparency and this in turn undermines trust.

ALT UK Comment:  Baseline water data has been requested from Rio Tinto/QMM for more than three years. There is absolutely no short notice to speak about.   If water monitoring was happening as expected at QMM, this baseline data would have been a constant point of reference, readily available, since the project began.

Multiple questions posed to RT/QMM on technical matters since 2018 remain unanswered or ignored.   We have been in a dialogue process with Rio Tinto since 2017 and the company executives know exactly what high-level meetings have not been delivered as promised (e.g., during all of 2020) and when requested (e.g., November 2021). We welcome all data that has been provided and discussions, and will continue to engage with the company to press for greater transparency, relevant data and appropriate action.

S Thompson, Rio Tinto: So, you are right the water treatment plant was developed in response to those exceedances that we have seen in cadmium and aluminium in the water that was released from the mine into the environment and that is why we stopped releasing water from the mine into the environment for 18 months whilst we were constructing the treatment plant that should come on stream very shortly.   You are not right that uranium and lead is  also an issue there is no evidence there are exceedances of uranium or lead from the mine, although I know that has been a consistent concern of yours and that is why we conducting the fifth water quality study , this is being conducted by an independent Australian expert in radionuclides and heavy metals and they have now completed their interim report – it has to go first to the national office if the environment in Madagascar for their approval, we are also getting it peer reviewed but the draft report that we have seen, there are no exceedances of uranium or lead or other heavy metals. They are within the WHO guidelines. This is the fifth study that we have conducted because you have persistently raised this issue with us and clearly it is a difficult thing to prove a negative – you are alleging that we are harming the environment. We can produce lots of data to say we don’t think we are, there is no evidence that we are, but it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. Therefore, I hope that this fifth report that is the most detailed and comprehensive looking at all kinds of transmission pathways for heavy metals not just directly from water but via fish and via crops will help to address some of your concerns… 

ALT UK Comment: we disagree that there is ‘no issue with uranium’. ALT UK has put 6 studies on the table highlighting the water data that raises concern over elevated uranium and lead. Indeed, it was the study by Swanson in 2019 commissioned by ALT UK that finally catalysed Rio Tinto to undertake its own radioactivity study, as her findings showed uranium 50 times higher than WHO Guidelines in some places. RT/QMM has repeatedly denied the analysis of the elevated uranium, first claiming it was all “natural background” and then, using the more recent JBS&G data, to say there are no elevated uranium levels. We highlight that radioactivity expert Swanson has questioned whether the JBS&G study (its one study with different parts) can credibly answer the questions raised on QMM’s impact on public exposure.

SEE SWANSON MEMO ON JBS&G STUDY HERE

ALT UK Comment: We asked Rio Tinto in January (13th Jan meeting) to be sure to communicate publicly that the JBS&G study was mostly advanced when QMM was NOT discharging its process mine wastewater ( only one set of water sampling done in 2019 was carried out during a period when the mine was still discharging its process wastewater). The company has not communicated this when dealing with the current situation but has used this study to assert that the mine’s process wastewater has no impact. Due to the significant constraint, it is hard to regard the JBS&G study results as indicative of the reality for when the QMM mine IS discharging its wastewater. We are waiting on the final study conclusions before further analysis is possible.

ALT UK Comment: There should be no difficulty in proving there is no impact from the mine. If QMM were to use (as they should) and put their baseline water data on the table it would be very apparent what changes to the water quality have either occurred from pre to post mining – or not.  The failure to produce baseline water data required for monitoring purposes raises not only questions of transparency, but also of competence and negligence viz a viz QMM’s PGEP 2001 commitments. These baseline data should be used for comparative purposes since the mine began.

S Thompson / Rio Tinto: You did talk about the fish population behind the weir. I am afraid that was an issue that was identified in the original social and environmental assessment study for the project, that was something that was always known about

ALT UK Comment: Indeed, and prior to its construction , there were significant amounts of commentary and alerts regarding the changes the QMM weir would bring to local people. Consequently, the project’s Environmental Management Plan (PGEP, 2001), which forms part of QMM’s formal agreement with the Government, required QMM to monitor this effect pre, during and post weir construction and committed QMM to mitigate and address losses of the community from any impact to water quality, their health or livelihoods. QMM has not done so (PWYP MG 2022)

S Thompson/Rio Tinto: …and the monazite which indeed we are exporting, that is a radioactive product, that is a natural product that occurs in the mine and therefore to export it with all the precautions that we take, in accordance with a very strict regulations that apply to transport of radioactive material is probably net of benefit to the local environment in reducing the overall background radiation.

ALT UK Comment: It is not certain what impact is occurring from the extraction and export of monazite. There are no reports or publicly available studies. Swanson was able to calculate some projections in her 2019 Independent Radioactivity Review.   However, a key issue is transparency: there is no available EIA, SEMP nor was there a full public consultation about the transport of the monazite through Ft Dauphin, as required for changes to the QMM project. Only a ‘validation’ meeting, which was described by local civil society as a “fait accompli”.  Even the local Deputy at that time made public complaints about this to the Minister for the Environment. Also, there is no accessible record on the value of this export, and how that it is factored into Rio Tinto/QMM taxes etc. to the Malagasy Government and payments to the community, since its export was not included in the original ‘cahier de charge’.  

S Thompson /Rio Tinto: So …look, had many meetings and discussion. We clearly have to step up our engagement in the local community but I hope you have seen in the last 12 months in particular a change in the approach , we are making progress in addressing these long standing issues and I would like to say that now that the pandemic is coming to an end and travel restrictions please let us host you, come and look, we have issued many invitations to you to actually visit the mine and while I have been on the Board I don’t believe that you have done so – we would love to show you what we are doing ,  it would complete  open book as it for other CSOs, ask any questions you want and if you raise issues that we can address we will seek to do so.

ALT UK Comment: We are not aware of any “open book” disclosures to CSOs visiting the QMM mine. PWYP Madagascar have been involved in requesting information with ALT UK for four years, experiencing the same barriers and delays to information sharing and response to questions.  On visits: ALT UK has already explained to Rio Tinto on multiple occasions that if we travel to Madagascar we will do so on our own steam.  Our local relationships, and the trust we have established with communities and Malagasy civil society in country over more than two decades, cannot be compromised.

 1.17.03 – 1.19.06: Yvonne Orengo response back to ST/Rio Tinto:  

We have been consistent in the things we have put forward to the Board. We have put forward significant data to support our arguments and actually I don’t think it should be difficult for you to prove what is actually for you apparently is a positive – that you don’t have any impact on the environment.   Up till now, over the last five years and all questions and all the data we have put on the table showing there are problems, you haven’t been able to counter that with the opposite, and there are significant issues with the JBS&G study,  as we have already laid out; there are significant issues with the laboratory  results that have come back from ANDEA, the water authority, and those are all in the public domain now – we have put the critiques from our radioactivity specialist up – we would like to discuss those further ;    we would also like to discuss why the SEIA isn’t there and the risk assessment for this new treatment because that is a requirement of the Malagasy government, if you change the project you must have those consultations – they haven’t happened . People still trying to catch up with your 2014-2018 environmental plan, which they still don’t know about. So, you are still having a lot of big gaps between what you say – and I’m sorry Mr Thompson but I could pick what you said earlier to pieces, and it certainly was the Presidents message not the Minister of Water that went out; I could pick it to pieces from beginning to end.  There are a lot of things that have to be sorted out on Madagascar – please take it seriously because those people you are saying is all about inequality – It is not. The people we are talking about are now half of the value of their livelihoods than they were before the mine.  The mine was meant to bring with the joint venture people out of poverty in this region. It’s done the reverse. Those people who were already poor when you started now, they are half the value of their lives(lihoods) lower then when you began.

3. QMM DAM SAFETY  

1.19.36 – 1.20.38 Colm Fahy, International Missions Office of Jesuits of Britain

Following the cyclones, the issue of whether the QMM dam structures and mine water management systems are fit for purpose. We note that QMM only report an “excavated storage facility” at QMM, not a berm, a dam or an embankment.  Thereby evading international dam safety criteria.  We understand that following the recent events there was to be an investigation on the QMM tailings dam failure. So, when will the tailing dam failure investigation report be made public? …And would it not be good practice for Rio Tinto to monitor what counts for a tailings dam according to international safety standards for such.

1.20 36 – 1.24. 36: Thomson Chair RT/Megan Clark: 

There is no tailings dam at QMM. The berm you refer to is an embankment made of sand which separates the mine from the external environment.  The process that we use in QMM is that we create a water pond, within the mineral sands, we put a dredge on to that pond, the dredge dredges the sand from one end of the pond goes through the dredge where the valuable mineral sands are extracted and the remaining silica sands go off the back of the dredge  back in to the environment where it ultimately dries and the pond progresses through the  environment and we rehabilitate that sand progressively by replanting a variety of indigenous species to restore the habitat as close as we can get it to before we started mining . There are no tailings at QMM.  And we take mine tailings management extremely seriously.

ALT UK Comment: The Chair did not answer the first question and say when the investigation report by Interface would be made available, as requested by the shareholder.

ALT UK Comment: According to permissions granted to QMM by the regulatory authorities for this project, QMM is required under the project Social and Environmental Management Plan (2014-2018), to build a “berm” 30m wide and 4metres high in order to prevent water flowing from the mine basin into the surrounding environment. This “berm” has the function of a dam.   

ALT UK NOTE: Whats left after the mine extracts ilmenite is reject sands or ‘mine tailings’. These tailings are put back into the mining basin. That basin is technically now a Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) . The “berm” around the TSF is therefore a mine tailings dam. It has a performance objective: to retain mining process water in the mine basin. If it does not do that it has failed. The “berms” have been constructed using reject sands, mine tailings.

ALT UK Observation: In August 2021, in written answers to questions sent by ALT UK/PWYP MG, QMM wrote: ” The mining pond is a specific unique aspect of the mineral sands mining system. This a continuously moving, controlled dam“. We have never heard of any dam described in this way.

The ICMM use the term Tailings storage Facility (TSF) in relation to implementing the new GISTM standards. See RELEVANT MINE TAILINGS DAM DEFINITIONS HERE

ALT UK Comment: It’s important to understand that QMM water data clearly demonstrates elevated uranium in the mine basin water (Swanson Memo 2019). Also, QMM water discharge monitoring report, 2021, reports cadmium and aluminium exceedances which are above Malagasy regulatory limits. The mine basin water also has an extremely low Ph (below 3 according to a 2019 study (CNRE) ) making the water highly acidic, which also effects the behaviour of the heavy metals in the pond and discharge water – hence the need to contain these waters and protect adjacent natural waterways.

ALT UK Comment: Rio Tinto/QMM’s tailings, in the form of reject sands, until recently (2018) contained quantities of monazite. The mine tailings at QMM also contain radionuclides, such as uranium, that are concentrated by the churning of sands during the extraction process (Rio Tinto, 2019; Swanson memo 2019).  

Using QMM water data related to the mining basin, Swanson (2019 Memo) concluded : ” Monitoring data show that the QMM mine definitely releases more uranium into water on the site, thus creating an enhanced source of uranium to the Mandromondromotra River and Lac Ambavarano.”

ALT UK Comment: Emerman’s evaluation (2018) deemed the QMM berm structure unfit for purpose and observed that the safety criterion used by QMM for the dam (1.3) is “similar to the criterion that would be used for the design of storm drains at a shopping mall parking lot” . He also observed that “If mining basins are closed simply by filling with sand, radionuclides will be mobilised into the groundwater system and seepage will be a constant occurrence. If the mining ponds are dewatered by releasing radionuclide-enriched water into the environment without treatment, the current safety protocols and infrastructure for containment of radionuclides in the mining pond are completely irrelevant. »

In March 2019, in Rio Tinto’s “Formal response to the report entitled: Evaluation of a Buffer Zone at an Ilmenite Mine operated by Rio Tinto on the Shores of Lakes Besaroy and Ambavarano, Madagascar” sent to ALT UK, Rio Tinto confirmed (page 3): “The function of the berms between the mine pond and Lakes Besaroy and Ambavarano is to act as temporary barrier (or levee) against transmission of the mining pond water to the surrounding areas in the event of severe flooding. They are constructed from material (mainly sand or “sand tailings” as noted above) available in the area, and beyond their function as a barrier, the use of the sand is intended to facilitate post-mining rehabilitation into forest and wetland as the mining dredge moves inland away from the areas the berms are protecting. Designating them as “dams” as a semantic alternative to “berms” does not fundamentally alter the expected function and associated risks with the structures.” We certainly seek to call the structure according to its function. In this instance to prevent flow of water ie a dam.

The following excerpt from Emerman’s 2020 report Evaluation of a New Water-Quality Study of the Rio Tinto QMM Ilmenite Mine, South-eastern Madagascar appears consistent with the reported recent mine water releases to prevent overtopping and TSF failure: “Emerman (2018) calculated the annual probabilities of seepage from the basins and overtopping of the dams between the basins and the lakes to be 0.18-2.08% and 0.17-0.31%, respectively. Since, according to Rio Tinto (2019), the dams are constructed out of the mine tailings (the sands that remain after ilmenite and Zirsill have been extracted), any overtopping would be expected to destroy the dam completely because water flowing over the downstream embankment would erode away the unconsolidated tailings. Emerman deemed the probabilities of seepage and overtopping of the dams at QMM to be “unacceptably high”. (Emerman, 2018)

Rio Tinto Board member, MEGAN CLARK: offered some explanation on RT’s approach to tailings and dam management elsewhere, stating: RT asserts the important Implementation of Global Industry Standards for Tailings Management (GISTM) that Rio Tinto helped to develop through the ICMM, using our own internal standards and those of our peers in the industry. Look at how it’s going and how we are classified, and the classification scheme of our tailings facilities. We have 21 ranked as high. …etc All on track to meet the GISTM by August 2023. Part of our standards and governance on tailings is that the executives that are accountable for the safety of the tailings facilities and also for minimising social and environmental impact must have a direct line to the Board (and are meeting just this week.) …….So, the Board has had direct conversations with our sustainability committee with account executives. I share that with you to share that we take this extremely seriously we understand the consequences not just in our own business but to the extent the communities around us and we have these frameworks in management and the Board and will continue to do so….

ALT UK Comment: the refusal of Rio Tinto to acknowledge the QMM “berm” as a tailings dam, and recent events as a tailings dam failure or TSF failure, calls into question to what extent they are taking seriously a) their mine tailings management commitments under the GISTM, b) previous recommendations to strengthen the QMM berms post the 2018 overspill and dead fish event/investigation of 2019, and c) the Minister of Water’s current conditions for the release of the mine excess water. See details below.

March 2022 Vol. 2

ALT UK Comment: Although not compliant for discharging its mine process wastewater, from March 8^th QMM began the release of 1 million cubic metres of mine water from its settling ponds or risked a complete collapse of the QMM dam. For this they secured an “exceptional” permission from the Malagasy water regulator, ANDEA. This accord does not exempt Rio Tinto/QMM from its responsibilities for any damage that is caused by the release and sets out a series of conditions : –

Ministry of Water Conditions on QMM include: “QMM engages to compensate and/or compensate promptly for any possible disturbances caused by the release and restore the affected places (action and decontamination). Follow and execute the recommendations of the committee: 1)  the possibility of creating buffer zones for the storage and treatment of water before release in order to limit the volume of water to be released (anticipation of possible risks); 2) keep the committee informed of each release (volume released, duration of release); 3) strengthen the protection of the site: solid and waterproof berms (preventive measure of the risks)”  … and adds: “ that a release of water without authorization of the ANDEA is an illicit activity and incurs the administrative sanctions without prejudice of the possible lawsuit”. SEE AUTHORISATION HERE

Additionally, QMM was required by the Minister to take charge of drinking water for the affected population. And, since fishing was prohibited until the situation is clarified, QMM is asked by the Ministry to ensure the daily food of these families. Reports are not confirming that the latter has happened in a satisfactory way. We understand this was the reason for the occupation of the Town Hall in Ft Dauphin by villagers.

4. RIGHTS AND REMEDY

1.42.03 – 1.44.02: Joe Bardwell of Publish What You Pay (PWYP)

You might have guessed I am asking a question about Madagascar and I think the quantity of questions we are getting today about Madagascar shows how severe the situation is there. In response to the first question we had, you framed this as an issue around inequality and that villages are begrudged because some people are doing better.  But I think Yvonne highlighted that this is about villages and rural people there are feeling worse off than when your mine came. They have lost lands, undermined food security, lost livelihoods, health effects and they put this down to the water in the area. Villages say they can’t feed themselves maintain a necessary income enjoy their health or pay for their children’s education. 63% of 368 villagers interviewed as part of that PWYP report have submitted complaints about this and they relate to the water quality, land losses, for example, and 90% of these say they have received no response from the company or the monitoring body. So, I have a couple of questions: How does the impact of the QMM mine reconcile with Rio Tinto’s sustainability, water and human rights commitments; I think a common thread today has been about righting wrongs. How do you intend to right these wrongs? When will Rio Tinto address villagers’ grievances? And what remedial measures will you put in place to compensate for the losses they have experienced?

SEE THE PUBLISH WHAT YOU PAY MADAGASCAR 2022 STUDY BRIEFING HERE (full report to follow)

1.44.02 – 1.45.36: S Thomson:/Rio Tinto:

As you say we’ve had quite a number of questions on Madagascar and as I said at the outset, I’m not sure precisely when your report was published but I think I only received it yesterday so I haven’t had a chance to fully digest it.  But I think at the appropriate time Sinead it would be good if we could set up a meeting with PWYP once we have actually read and analysed the report. But I would say we are already taking steps to try and improve the conditions for the local communities, we are currently building fresh water treatment plants for them within their villagers and as we move towards a net zero mine in QMM we will be replacing all our fossil fuel fired power with renewable energy and as part of that we will be supplying electricity to two of the communities as well, in addition to the 80,000 citizens that we provide with power in Ft Dauphin. So, there are certainly steps being taken but as I have acknowledged we absolutely have to find ways of being more transparent, and working closely with the communities and I think we have made over the last 12 months very significant progress but I think we all acknowledge there is more work to be do.

ALT UK Comment:  The Chair did not answer the question regarding addressing grievances, remediation and righting wrongs.  The provision of energy has nothing to do with compensating for the lost livelihoods and lands of the villagers over more than ten years, all of which have resulted in their being unable to feed themselves or support their families – especially support their children’s education. Villagers’ traditional subsistence agriculture, fishing and animal husbandry practices have supported their families for generations.  To be deprived of these livelihoods, or see them decline with nothing to take their place has created enormous hardship.  This is all a direct impact of the mine on available land and natural resources. The water quality is also a direct impact of the mine. These are issues provided for the in the QMM project framework agreements and must be accounted for and remedy assured.

6.DRINKING WATER PROVISION

2.10 50: Patrick Scott, Individual shareholder:

My question is another relating to Madagascar and I want to ask can Rio Tinto explain its delay in responding to earlier requests for mine affected communities in Mandena, especially when these demands reflect the company’s sustainability water and other international commitments? And will Rio Tinto ensure drinkable water is available to all of the frontline affected communities and if yes, when?

2.11.37 S Thompson/Rio Tinto:

So do we have timing for delivery of the project Sinead? As I mentioned in the responses to several questions on Madagascar, we are currently developing clean water supplies for three communities closest to the mine and Sinead tells me those will be delivered in the third quarter.

ALT UK Comment: The Chair did not answer the question: can RT explain its delay in providing drinking water? Both local, national and international actors have been demanding drinking water for a number of years.  It has taken over three years to respond to formal, written requests for water provision (local and international requests in writing) . We welcome the new potable water project from the Ministry of Water, funded by QMM to the tune of 500,000 dollars, which is targeted to reach approximately 85% of the population. We would also welcome to see any pre-project consultation documents available that can show how that target has been calculated and why the choice of the technology, how it will be maintained, etc

ALT UK Observation : Had potable water been provided at the start of the mining project, as would have been appropriate, – or even three years ago when the uranium in water finding prompted international experts’ demands for potable water access to the communities, then emergency supplies would not be needed when there is a mine tailings dam failure, – when the mine is required to seek special permissions to release its process water because it is not legally compliant, and to have to truck in drinking water to the communities.

2.12.07 Patrick Scott replies:

I would say well August, obviously, better late than never but that’s another 4 months so you have to be mindful of the fact that in those remaining 4 months they are still not getting proper drinkable water.

2.12.25: S Thomson/Rio Tinto :

Again as I mentioned earlier, I think it was the first question, whilst we were releasing the surplus water from the mine site into the environment during the extreme weather events, that we had in February and March,  we were trucking fresh water into those communities as a precautionary measure to make sure they wouldn’t be impacted by any adverse consequences of that matter –  of course we were also sampling the water every single day with community members present whilst we sampled the water,  and happily there were no adverse consequences  of releasing that water so  far as we could determine from that sampling . August is the date we will be delivering a permanent solution rather than a temporary one.

ALT UK Comment: The Ministry of Water and the authorities have not yet made any public pronouncements about the outcome of their studies on the QMM water release of 1 million cubic metres of mine wastewater and the dead fish, and they are continuing to conduct further investigations on the ground.

ALT UK Comment: Swanson has suggested some Near-Term Actions to address the current release issues at QMM: see HERE

Announcing the release of the : SWANSON MEMO ON WATER REPORTS ON THE QMM WATER RELEASE 2022

In February and March 2022 cyclonic rains caused mine tailings dam failures at the Rio Tinto QMM mine in Anosy region and the overflow of mine process water into the local lake/waterways. QMM had to start release of one million cubic metres of mine process wastewater from its mine basin and paddocks to avoid total collapse of the mine tailings dam.

SEE ARTICLE HERE

Following these events, hundreds of dead fish were found floating in the local lake .

The Governor of Anosy instructed that all eating or catching of fish from the lake should be halted until tests could be carried out on water quality and reasons for the fish deaths determined. The state authorities then collected water and fish samples. These samples were sent for laboratory testing and two reports have been developed.

Meanwhile hundreds of villagers occupied the Town Hall of Ft Dauphin, capital of Anosy region, to declare their need for emergency food supplies and demand remediation for their lost livelihoods.

VILLAGERS OCCUPY TOWN HALL – SEE VIDEO HERE

The President of Madagascar, Andry Rajoelina, visited Anosy days later and sent a strong message to the assembled crowds via the Minister of Water, declaring :

….” Currently, the natural waters (rivers and lakes) are all polluted, the fish found dead, you can no longer work. The QMM is responsible for all this because Only QMM extracts ilmenite here in Anosy, only QMM discharges wastewater into the river….We will have to find solutions for the protection of the community.”

QMM issued a rebuttal via a PRESS RELEASE this week denying any link between the QMM mine operation and the dead fish. They claim their own water testing, and the reports from the ANDEA studies, exonerate them.

WATER TESTING LAB REPORTS ON THE QMM RELEASE CAN BE DOWNLOADED HERE and HERE

The reports have been studied by radioactivity specialist Dr Stella Swanson who conducted an independent radioactivity review of QMM in 2019

SWANSON’S MEMO ON THE QMM WATER RELEASE REPORTS CAN BE DOWNLOADED HERE

The 12 page critique highlights a lack of robust scientific analysis, the lack of sufficient sampling – and in the right locations, and the need for further testing to determine the cause of the fish deaths and the risk to human health.

The status of the water quality, the fish deaths, and the ongoing risks to the human populations living around the mine are still in question. No conclusions should be drawn at this stage and no claims made without much deeper investigation into causal effects. The Trust believes a national inquiry is needed, one that would also engage international, independent expertise to ensure a robust and transparent process of inquiry and resolution.

Plans that QMM have announced to spend 2million dollars on a treatment plant are also in question. It is unlikely this amount can provide more than additional pit systems requiring the use of neutralising agents on the aluminium exceedances ( above Malagasy regulatory limits) in QMM discharge waters. Such treatment can result in aluminium hydroxide deposits /sludge that can be easily transported into the environment by cyclonic weather conditions, causing even worse damage and mortality to aquatic life of the local water system.

No Environmental Impact or Risk Assessments have been produced for public consultation on this proposed new QMM water treatment plan – as would be required and is expected. Additionally, a treatment plant costing ten times the amount proposed would be needed in order to treat the waters efficiently and without risk.

Meanwhile local affected communities need food and sustenance to maintain their lives, the quality of which has, they claim, already been seriously degraded after ten years of the QMM mine’s presence .

See latest studies 2022 on community impacts from the QMM mine by PUBLISH WHAT YOU PAY MADAGASCAR : HERE

It is with great sadness and heavy hearts that we share the news of the death of one of our Trustees, Tony Long.  He died in Brussels on the 10^th February, 2022, following a sudden health crisis.  We have been honoured to have Tony as a Trustee and a loved member of the Andrew Lees Trust (ALT UK) family for so many years.  His loss is deeply felt and his influence will continue.

“He was a source of strength, support and inspiration to the Trust.” Richard Marsh (former ALT UK Trustee)

Tony was a close friend of the late Andrew Lees having worked with him on a campaign to protect the wetlands of the Norfolk Broads in the UK in the early 1980s, whilst Tony was employed by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. As for many of the other ALT UK trustees, his close friendship with Andrew helped to keep the Trust’s aims aligned with Andrew’s values and environmental passions.

“Tony and Andrew had a deep bond in their shared passion for protecting the environment. Andrew greatly valued his wisdom and strategic insights and ALT UK has also benefitted from those talents which he brought to our meetings together with his incredible warmth and kindness.” Christine Orengo (ALT UK Trustee)

Tony joined the board of ALT UK in 2004 whilst head of the World Wildlife Fund European Policy Office which he had founded and directed for some 25 years. With this remarkable background, Tony’s outstanding qualities were always evident in Trust activities. His extensive global experience, compassion, integrity, knowledge of law and institutions, perseverance, together with his friendship and loyalty were all invaluable qualities that contributed to the development of our small charity.

“Tony was a really nice person and I feel very lucky to have worked with him and learnt from him. I will always remember his big hugs and smiles.”  Vola Parker (former ALT UK Trustee)

His expertise, developed from directing his large WWF team, also brought valuable process, rigour and passionate inquiry to the strategic and governance aspects of the Trust’s work and enhanced our professional environment. Tony was always probing the details and decisions in insightful, constructive and informed ways. He had a significant influence on the way the Trust has been governed, promoting the highest professional standards for reporting and fiscal management.

Tony was a good man. He was committed environmentalist to the very end. He was warm and funny. And as his lifelong support of Burnley FC demonstrated, he was always on the side of the underdog! (Mike Childs, Trustee, ALT UK)

Tony embraced the goals and ethics of ALT UK from the start. He visited Madagascar to see the field projects and understand the local context for himself.  He also visited the traditional Malagasy stone and sacred space that was dedicated to Andrew in Petriky forest, and his visit made a marked impression on the staff and volunteers in Madagascar.

From Madagascar:“Everything he did remains etched in our hearts. It’s too fast as you say, we say it’s life but we will never get used to losing one of our loved ones.” Hanitra Raharimanana (Director, Andry Lalana Tohana, ALT MG)

Those who went on to work with the Trust in the London office subsequently continued to enjoy connectivity with Tony through Board meetings, where they were invited to contribute staff perspectives and reporting.

“What a brilliantly kind and warm man he was. I remember his first trip out to Madagascar very vividly, and the early days of his trusteeship. He brought a wealth of institutional knowledge from his EU and international work, and so much passion.” Gerry de Lisle (formerALT UK Staff Member)

Tony supported and encouraged the Trust to punch above its weight and excel beyond its constrained financial capacity, never allowing doubt or hesitation to undermine aspiration. He liked to keep things focused and succinct and contributed greatly to written outputs from the Trust with an eagle eye on editorial candour.

“Tony often pushed for more than sometimes seemed possible, he kept his expectations of the Trust very high, and kept us on our toes! I grew and learnt a great deal from working with him, especially through our close collaboration on the Trust’s advocacy work, and will greatly miss his warmth and friendship.” Yvonne Orengo (Director of ALT UK)

Tony made the regular trips from Brussels to London to attend Trustee meetings and special events. Straight off the Eurostar to our meetings, his warm smiles and greetings from the continent were especially welcome and strengthened our sense of family. The Trust has been grateful to enjoy many of its meetings at the Friends of the Earth offices in London, in a meeting room named and dedicated to Andrew Lees’s memory. A few years ago, Tony donated a beautiful photo of the Norfolk Broads to Friends of the Earth so it could be placed in this room and find its home, tracing a thread through a legacy of friendship and environmental action.

“Tony gave a lot of time to ALT and cared passionately about the cause.” Craig Bennett (former Director of Friends of the Earth)

His campaigning spirit and experience became an important part of the Trust’s advocacy campaign in the last five years, in which Tony contributed his clarity, institutional knowledge and experience of the larger agencies, such as the World Bank, in order to help advance the rights of communities affected by international mining operations in the south of the island.

“Tony cared deeply about environmental justice for communities and livelihoods affected by greed and exploitation of the world’s natural resources. I could sense his commitment and his alignment with the Trust’s values shining through at every level of our work.”  Mary Taylor (ALT UK Trustee)

Tony’s memory and influence will remain with us and we give thanks for so many years of friendship, loyalty and comradeship in the cause.

With profound condolences to his family and all his friends, and in fond remembrance, the ALT UK & ALT Madagascar teams join together in our ALT family refrain:  Immortal love!

Our deepest condolences to the whole ALT-UK team for the loss of Tony. We are thankful for his dedication and the inspiration he gave to us. May his soul rest in peace.  Ketakandriana Rafitoson, Director, Transparency International Initiative Madagascar, and national coordinator of Publish What You Pay Madagascar

In fond memory of Tony Long (1949 – 2022)

La presentation est disponible en Francais ici : CLIQUEZ ICI

On the 4th August 2021, a joint online presentation was delivered by Publish What You Pay Madagascar PWYP MG) , Dr Steven Emerman of Malach Consulting and the Andrew Lees Trust (ALT UK) to share the results and findings of studies related to the water contamination issues around the Rio Tinto QMM mine in Mandena, southeast Madagascar. The presentation included findings from the PWYP MG community study (2020) and recent analysis by Dr Emerman of the QMM wastewater report ( March 2021).

The recording of the event is not available publicly (due to audience permission limitations) but requests can be sent for access to the recording to : info@andrewleestrust.org

The Powerpoint is available to view online (French language only) – see click on link above

More than a dozen Malagasy Civil Society organisations attended the presentation as well as representative of the Office National Office for the Environment (ONE) in Madagascar.

The Trust welcome questions from civil society actors in relation to the studies it has commissioned from Dr Emerman and Dr Swanson.

ACTION NEEDED

We urge the Government of Madagascar, the Malagasy Ministries concerned ( e.g. for Mines, Water, Environment, Health) and the international agencies who are involved in these areas of development in Madagascar, to urgently mobilise a national inquiry into the contamination of local water and the environment by Rio Tinto’s QMM mine and take the necessary action to protect the citizens of Anosy.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO HOLD RIO TINTO /QMM TO ACCOUNT

For a number of years, the Andrew Lees Trust (ALT UK), Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Madagascar, PWYP UK, and with Friends of the Earth (England Wales and N Ireland) have written and attended meetings with Rio Tinto in order to raise concerns about QMM’s mine tailings management and the contamination of local waterways where local people draw drinking water and fish for food. As a result of our investigations our group has demanded the immediate provision of alternate safe drinking water access for QMM mine affected communities in Anosy, southern Madagascar.

Multiple independent studies have been carried out and technical questions raised to substantiate these demands and to emphasise the need for urgent action on local water quality, but Rio Tinto/QMM has continued to deny their impact on the local environment in Anosy.

The recent mine wastewater report issued by QMM has raised more questions than it answers and is incomplete, so potentially misleading. However, QMM water data made available with this report, and water data shared since 2018, only serves to reinforce the findings of Dr Emerman (2019) that the QMM mine is having a detrimental impact and contaminating waters in Anosy region with elevated levels of uranium and lead, well above the WHO safe drinking water guidelines in some places.

ALT UK commissioned a new analysis of the QMM wastewater report 2021 by expert in mining and hydrology, Dr Steven Emerman: –

NEW ANALYSIS – STRENGTHENS CONCERNS

The new analysis /evaluation of QMM’s Wastewater report 2021 by Dr S Emerman further strengthens previous findings and justifies our concerns about water quality and QMM’s contamination of local rivers and lakes in Anosy with the risk of serious health impacts to local people and their children’s development.

The new Emerman study and exchange with QMM has also reinforced our analysis that the QMM mine water management system, using “settling ponds” or paddocks is simply not working. QMM cannot demonstrate that their “natural” process offers a viable mechanism for removing contaminants such as uranium and lead from its wastewater, and is at best wishful thinking. Indeed, the data suggests that many of the contaminants are concentrating in the wetlands (natural swamps) over time.

The company continues to emphasise there are no chemicals being used in their extraction. They fail to highlight what they know, and have acknowledged in writing, that is: the process of extraction of mineral sands concentrates heavy metals in the mining basin. This has been demonstrated to be the case at the Mandena site using QMM’s own water data.

There are concomitant questions to be answered about the long-term presence of contaminants that are generated by the mining process and left in the local environment and wetlands, and which can be mobilised by changes to pH and oxygen levels in the water and thereby represent a chemical time bomb for the area.

Local people are deeply concerned about the quality of their local water and the majority of villagers who collect water directly from rivers and lakes around the mine (because they have no other sources of drinking or domestic water) complain that the quality has degraded since mining began (PWYP MG 2020). They want the quality of their natural water sources restored, and to have access to clean drinking water. see also Blog

Given the significant evidence (mostly using QMM water data) that suggests there is a real cause for concern around water quality and health risks for local people, the group continues to demand that Rio Tinto/QMM clean up its act and urgently provide safe drinking water access to the affected communities around Mandena. This would meet both Rio Tinto’s corporate environmental and sustainability commitments, as well as Malagasy national targets for access to potable water.

Since Rio Tinto/QMM has twice broken its agreements with the Malagasy Government and Malagasy laws (breach of the environmental buffer zone and exceedances in cadmium and aluminium in its discharge wastewater, QMM 2021) the company should arguably be held to account under Madagascar’s Decret MECIE and national adherence to the Polluter Pays principle.

ALT UK has published and is sharing the new Emerman analysis with individuals, organisations and networks who have already received the WATER BRIEFING ON QMM and (Update) other related materials.

See also the ALT UK BLOG for further information and actions.

The Rio Tinto AGM held on the 9th April 2021 was a virtual webinar due to Covid 19 restrictions. Only 35 people were participating. The technology placed Rio Tinto firmly in control of the content of the meeting and most questions from shareholders had been presubmitted ( 48 hours before the AGM) .These were read out by a staffer, devoid of the emotional weight felt by those whose concerns were expressed.

The AGM provides an opportunity for communities and indigenous peoples to raise issues and exchange with the Board of Directors when Rio Tinto mines around the world are causing harm, abusing human rights and/or destroying indigenous lives and livelihoods. Support for communities who want to raise their issues is advanced by London Mining Network who annually co-ordinate community representations at the AGM. This year ‘s AGM was overshadowed by Rio Tinto’s destruction of the Juukan Gorge

After the Gorge Can Rio Tinto be Trusted?

Andrew Lees Trust (ALT UK) and Publish What You Pay Madagascar (PWYP MG) attended the AGM to raise questions and issues about the QMM mine operation in southern Madagascar. Specifically about its contamination of local lakes and waterways around the mine with elevated levels of uranium, thorium and lead, well in excess of WHO guidelines for safe drinking water. This is important since the majority of villagers living next to the mine draw drinking and domestic water from these natural sources, and have no access to alternative water sources.

The recording of the AGM can be listened/watched online at this address :   https://edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/mc2odwhx
The questions on Madagascar appear here (time lines) :
46.21 – 50.38            on uranium levels
51.03  –  56.35         on providing safe drinking water 
1.42.25  – 1.46.00    on health issues

The AGM and observations, below, can be downloaded as a PDF document here.

QUESTIONS and ANSWERS: –

Yvonne Orengo of the Andrew Lees Trust (ALT UK)

“You say that company won’t be the same after Juukan Gorge, so why is Rio Tinto/QMM currently telling communities and stakeholders in Madagascar that elevated levels of uranium in water downstream of the mine, 50 times higher than WHO safe drinking water levels in some places, is all “naturally occurring”? You have no evidence to make the claim and it contradicts existing data including QMM’s that shows QMM is contaminating waterways with elevated heavy metals and uranium in its discharge waters. Why do you continue to obfuscate the findings and mislead traditional communities and your shareholders? How does this build trust?”

Simon Thompson, Chair of Rio Tinto, replied:

that QMM is a mineral sands project and that the sands mined there have a low level of naturally occurring radiation. No chemicals are added during the processing, just water. But the process of dredging the sand results in some sand and other sediment being accumulated in the water. The company maintains the water table of the mining ponds below the level of the water in the surrounding environment so it cannot flow into the environment, but periodically the company has to release water from the mine into the environment. Before doing so, water is put in settling ponds so that material separates out, and before release the water is sampled to make sure that the quality is as good as the water above the mine. Third party audits have been carried out four times and a fifth audit is in process but has been delayed because of COVID restrictions, but efforts are being made to make progress with the study and it will be publicised and shared once it has been peer reviewed. There have been temporary exceedances in aluminium and in cadmium and for that reason the company has stepped up its water management programme and there is a team working on this to ensure there is no recurrence. Rio Tinto has shared all of its sampling of water quality with Andrew Lees Trust and other stakeholders including local communities, mayors, civil society organisations and so on Rio Tinto will continue to work hard to improve the quality of water management on the site to ensure they do not have exceedances in the water that is released to the environment.

Observations about Rio Tinto’s response:

Note 1: Rio Tinto did not answer the question or the one we asked about always saying” we don’t use chemicals” when asked about QMM water contamination (see below). It is potentially misleading, as the science is complicated and the contaminants in question are not visible, as is often the case with chemical toxicity. Rio Tinto is not explaining fully when it says “dredging the sand results in some sand and other sediment being accumulated in the water”. Churning of the sands, the dredging process, actually results in the concentration of uranium in the mining basin. This has been demonstrated using QMM’s own water data and was reported by Swanson in her Memo 2020, and as is consistent with mineral sand extraction. QMM discharges elevated levels of uranium, thorium and lead in its wastewater from the mining pond. Elevated uranium levels have also been identified in waters around the mine 50 times higher the WHO safe drinking water guidelines of 0.03 mg/L, which is important because local people draw their drinking water from these natural sources. 

Dr Emerman observes that new uranium measurements included in the QMM Wastewater report 2021, that were not available to Swanson for her 2019 report, clearly show the detrimental impact of the QMM mine on water quality, including numerous elevated measurements of uranium downstream from the mine (a lot of data are from 2015 and should have been provided under the legally binding agreement for Rio Tinto to deliver all relevant QMM data to Swanson for her study). The last four elevated measurements were made after the JBS&G study 2020, which reported that all of the elevated uranium had gone away (“…were within the relevant WHO guidelines for drinking water quality.” QMM 2020).

Note 2: it is not correct to say Anosy has low radiation levels. The study by independent radioactivity specialist Swanson shows background radiation of 1.6mSv/y in the Anosy region[1], higher than the average for elevated areas globally, but lower than some where levels are extremely high – such as Kerala (India)  and Ramsar (Iran), see Swanson 2019. It should also be noted that for over two years Rio Tinto has claimed “high” levels of  “naturally occurring” uranium in the region in response to questions about QMM’s local water contamination (Rio Tinto AGM 2018 and 2019).

Note 3: Rio Tinto does not always manage to keep its QMM mine waters below the local water table levels as claimed. There are at least two overflow events reported around the QMM mine where mine waters have overtopped the QMM mine tailings dam, as well as other reported incidents of when the mining pond water levels have been higher than the surrounding lakes – i.e., above the levels set to ensure no leakage or outflow from the mining basin into the surrounding waters (as per reports shared with ALT UK by Rio Tinto/QMM).

Note 4. There is no evidence provided, and Rio Tinto admits that it cannot guarantee that the QMM settling ponds system is successfully removing contaminants (uranium, thorium and lead) from the QMM mine discharge waters before they are released into the environment.

Note 5: Rio Tinto had been criticised by Swanson (2019) for the “unacceptable” level of radioactivity monitoring around the QMM mine, in particular for the lack of monitoring of ingestion pathways given the reliance on natural sources of water and land resources for local people’s survival. Aside from the baseline study, there were two interim reports by the INSTN in Madagascar (2012, 2014), which focused largely on worker’s exposure. A further study was undertaken by Rio Tinto only in 2018 and after ALT UK raised questions about QMM radioactivity at the Rio Tinto 2017 AGM and instigated inquiries at a meeting with the CEO in May that year. A new external radioactivity study was promised in a meeting with ALT UK, PWYP MG, UK and Friends of the Earth in 2019 following the findings of the ALT UK commissioned Swanson independent radioactivity report, questions arising, and the continued lobbying of the company around water concerns and Swanson’s recommendations. Numerous analyses of uranium and other contaminants in water around QMM have been produced by ALT UK – and have either been ignored or dismissed by Rio Tinto without any scientific grounds.

Note 6:  the company admits “There have been temporary exceedances in aluminium and in cadmium”. What information is enabling the company to say that these exceedances are only “temporary? ” When will this data/ information be shared? Rio Tinto fails to mention that these exceedances are a direct breach of Malagasy law and should be subject to the Polluter Pays principle as prescribed in Madagascar’s Decret MECIE.

According to the QMM wastewater discharge report, there has been nothing temporary about these exceedances:

Note 7:  To our knowledge, until recently (March 2021) there has been no QMM water data sharing with communities, mayors, or civil society. Data sharing of QMM’s wastewater report 2021 only recently happened, and only after repeated requests and pressure from ALT UK, PWYP UK and MG for these data to be released. The data were promised in July 2020. ALT UK/PWYP only received it in March 2021, with no opportunity to analyse the data before the report’s dissemination, which would have enabled informed engagement by local civil society. ALT UK has commissioned an independent analysis of the 2021 QMM wastewater report and will share this, as per all its other studies and analyses, as soon as possible, on our website here. 

Ketakandriana Rafitoson of Publish what You pay Madagascar (PWYP MG) asked :

When it comes to the rural poor of the Anosy region in southern Madagascar, those very people targeted to be “lifted out of poverty” by the presence of the QMM mine, villagers tell us that their water has been polluted and degraded over the last ten years since the QMM mine started its operation. Local people are reliant on natural water sources for survival. All the existing water data and studies point to contamination and the detrimental effect of QMM operations on the local waterways and water quality of the region.  So, how does Rio Tinto/QMM explain and justify its reluctance and delay to address safe drinking water needs of the mine affected communities? When will Rio Tinto concede the QMM mine is contaminating waterways around the mine and provide safe drinking water to the affected communities, made up of poor fisherfolk and rural producers living on less than $1.5 per day. Why the delay?

and

We have been researching the QMM mine’s contamination of local waterways in Anosy for over four years with the help of an expert hydrologist and a radioactivity specialist and we want Rio Tinto to explain why QMM is insisting to the affected communities and civil society, and why Rio Tinto tells its shareholders, that it ‘uses no chemicals’ for extraction at the QMM mine, only water. It leads with this whenever asked to answer questions about QMM’s contamination of water with elevated levels of uranium and lead, cadmium and aluminium.  Why is RT not explicitly admitting what they know: that QMM’s extraction process (churning mineral sands) causes the elevated levels of uranium and heavy metals in its mining pond and discharge wastewaters that are the subject of the inquiry?  Why is the company apparently trying to take advantage of the lack of scientific understanding of the situation in its audiences to divert attention from the facts, our very real concerns about water contamination, and our demands for safe drinking water?

Simon Thompson, Chair of Rio Tinto, replied:

that he had partially answered the second question in response to Yvonne earlier. He said Rio Tinto were not trying to confuse people. They were trying to be “as transparent as we can be” and this is why they engage with mayors and CSOs to ensure they understand what they are doing on safety and water management. The data from the wastewater study did show elevated levels of aluminium and cadmium but not uranium and lead But, “we acknowledge a problem of access to fresh water across the whole of southern Madagascar,” which is partly a function of drought and high population growth, he said.  Population doubles every twenty years in that part of Madagascar, and access to water is affected by slash and burn agriculture, which also affects water quality flowing into rivers and there are endemic health risks from waterborne diseases. Rio Tinto acknowledges there is an issue of access to fresh water and did invest with the World Bank to improve access to water and sanitation including to put twenty wells into local communities and is improving waste disposal and sewage treatment to improve the quality of water, and Rio Tinto continues working with the government to improve water in the Ft Dauphin and two other local municipalities to improve access to fresh water. But slash and burn and high population growth are associated with poverty, and although the mine will not solve everything, it is providing high paid jobs and technical support to local municipalities and the government to help.

Observations about Rio Tinto’s response:

Note 8: Blaming the rural poor and their traditional agricultural practices for the lack of “fresh water” access in the Anosy region is disingenuous, to say the least. The ‘othering’ of the rural poor is, however, consistent with the company’s track record, narrative, and treatment of villagers. It was used to push the mine project through in the nineties by claiming all the forests would be destroyed by local people’s slash and burn agriculture within twenty years. This has proved completely erroneous, since the main parcels of littoral forest in Anosy are still largely intact more than two decades on. The largest loss of forest area in the Anosy region is caused by QMM’s mining operation. The rural poor in Anosy have been accused by QMM of failing to accept the company’s “gifts of development” whereas, in reality, those benefits they have a right to enjoy, such as clean drinking water access, are denied them by QMM, who instead contaminates their natural drinking water sources. In this regard, to use the suffering of the rural poor and the government’s inability to meet potable water targets in order to deflect from QMM’s water contamination – and to blame drought, which is currently causing famine, suffering and starvation to over a million people in the neighbouring, dry Androy region, is quite shameless.

Note 9: In terms of transparency Rio Tinto promised to communicate the results of the Swanson 2019 radioactivity report to local people. The commitment was made by Rio Tinto in 2018 in accordance with ALT UK’s framework agreement for the study, but has seen no advance in the promised processes of engagement, despite repeated requests for over two years. Covid will no doubt be used to explain another year of inaction. However, QMM can find time and ways to communicate its own wastewater report – just ahead of the Rio Tinto 2020 AGM, and presumably to assure shareholders it is meeting ESG expectations. As is usually the case, QMM is controlling the narrative with its own data interpretation and information.

Note 10: The mine is required to meet environmental discharge limits to satisfy its mining permit, rather than safe drinking water limits. The 2021 QMM wastewater report clearly shows levels of uranium and lead that are in excess of WHO drinking water guidelines in QMM discharge water. Rio Tinto concedes that QMM process water may have higher concentrations of minerals and metals than is deemed safe by drinking water standards (1). It states that QMM therefore retains its process water on site to allow these materials to settle out to the bottom of a series of holding ponds “maintained for this purpose before release”. The company claims “This ensures water leaving the site into adjacent wetlands and streams is under permitted limits”. However, WHO safe drinking water guidelines are exceeded at points of water collection around the QMM mine, for example, at station WS0502, which is cause for concern (see also Note 4 above).  The majority of people living around the mine draw their drinking water directly from QMM impacted lakes and waterways, as there are no alternatives. This raises questions about which limits should apply.  For example, Madagascar has established a limit for lead for discharge into the environment (0.2 mg/L) and which is higher than drinking water limits. However, the Malagasy Ministry of Health DECRET N° 2003-941 of 09 September 2003 regarding water destined for human consumption recognises lead to be toxic over 0.05 mg/L. The Malagasy government has not yet established a legal chemical (mg/L) limit for uranium levels for discharge into the environment. This failing is not a licence for QMM to discharge any amount of concentrated radionuclides (uranium and thorium) into the environment. Furthermore, Rio Tinto obligates itself to meet international standards that are stricter than local standards

---

[1] Rio Tinto letter to the group, February 2020

Note 11:  It is interesting to hear Rio Tinto talk about their investments in water provision with the World Bank and the Malagasy government, because one of the main reasons why Rio Tinto has refused to provide safe drinking water to QMM mine affected communities in Anosy is because they say this is the remit of the state, not QMM. Malagasy water policy states clearly that foreign companies working in Madagascar are expected to contribute to achieving national potable water targets.  It should also be noted that most of the 20 community wells RioTinto/QMM helped fund were placed in Ilafitsignana for the Permanently Affected People (PAPS), those who were displaced from their land and homes at the start of QMM’s project more than a decade ago. This village is nowhere near the Mandena mine site where the communities are drawing their drinking water from the lakes around the QMM operation, and where they have requested and urgently need access to clean drinking water. Communities in Mandena report that their drinking water has degraded in quality over the last ten years and attribute the negative changes to the presence of QMM mining operations.

Yvonne Orengo of the Andrew Lees Trust (ALT UK)

“We are getting the same answers to the questions we have been asking since 2019 despite significant amounts of studies and data that has been provided to you that show there is a serious concern and cause for concern about water quality around the QMM mine. There is no evidence that you have been able to provide to us for over more than two years to show that the QMM settling ponds are effective at removing heavy metals and uranium. This (can) mean severe health impacts, e.g. uranium: kidney damage, neurological diseases, multiple illnesses, and lead: development of children’s brains that can have a generational impact. Let’s be clear: this is not about general access to water in the region. It is It is nothing to do with ‘tavy’ (slash and burn agriculture) drought or population growth. It is specifically related to QMM contamination of waterways. … given the levels of poverty you refer to and challenges the poor are facing, I repeat Ms Rafitoson’s question: How can Rio Tinto justify not providing safe drinking water to the affected communities?”

Simon Thompson, Chair of Rio Tinto, replied:

Rio Tinto accepted it had not made as much progress on this as over the last twelve months as had been hoped, because of the pandemic. The company had listened to Yvonne and others when they raised these concerns, and as a result that is why the fifth study of water quality and radiation risk had been launched in December 2019. Some progress was made before the pandemic struck, but not as much as the company had hoped. That process has been delayed but sampling is now getting back on track. This further study will be peer reviewed and made public. All data will be shared with the external advisory group, local communities, mayors and CSOs. He said that Yvonne would soon be having a meeting with Sinead (Kaufman), who is taking over responsibility for this area. “We recognise we have more work to do to address the concerns that you raise,” he said.

Observations about Rio Tinto’s response:

Note 12: Since May 2020ALT UK/PWYP MG/UK group repeatedly requested a meeting to follow up on outstanding water data and radioactivity questions with Rio Tinto that were raised in 2019. There was no response to these requests, nor to the group’s March 2020 correspondence or the two reports submitted to Rio Tinto in 2020 (community perceptions and analysis of the JBS&G water report) for the company’s engagement and discussion. QMM failed to provide a representative to attend a Tana meeting in December 2020 with PWYP MG about community concerns. Our group finally received an invite to meet with the CEO of Minerals only after PWYP UK raised the QMM issues at Rio Tinto’s annual Sustainability meeting in February 2021, in front of other international NGOs. Other invitations started to arrive, just weeks ahead of Rio Tinto’s April AGM. 

Note 13: During all these delays and absences, QMM continues to contaminate waterways and local people have arguably experienced more than a decade of detrimental impact on their local natural water supplies.

DEMANDS AND EXPECTATIONS

Andrew Lees Trust (ALT UK) Publish What You Pay Madagascar (PWYP MG) are part of a group which also includes Publish What You Pay UK, and in which Friends of the Earth (England, Wales & N Ireland) has participated. Friends of the Earth’s ex-CEO continues his involvement in the group. The group has raised questions about water contamination and radioactivity around Rio Tinto’s QMM mine in southern Madagascar, as well as related environmental governance issues in the Anosy region, since 2018. This group has been advocating the provision of safe drinking water to affected communities for the last two years.

Given the unsatisfactory statements made at the Rio Tinto 2021 AGM (April 2021), there is very low expectation for any shift in the company’s position, which has remained steadfastly in denial of any impact of the QMM mine on water quality and a consistent refusal to address safe drinking water needs for the mine affected communities in Mandena.

---

[1] The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) dose limit for the general public is 1 mSv in a year above the natural background (IAEA 2018).