Indigenous Peoples and the Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative
“Mining remains one of the costliest sectors for human rights and life. Any expansion to the sector must avoid the mistakes of the past and follow a race to the top on standards and best practices to ensure that mining is done in a transparent way that respects the rights, health, environment, and livelihoods of the people living in front line mining communities.” –Oxfam
In October 2024, four mining industry standards–The Copper Mark, Mining Association of Canada’s Towards Sustainable Mining, World Gold Council’s Responsible Gold Mining Principles, and the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM)–proposed consolidating into a single framework. Led by ICMM, the Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative (CMSI) was created as one standard that “reduces complexity and clarifies responsible practices for mining companies of all sizes, across all locations and commodities.”
The CMSI establishes three levels of compliance requirements for mining companies:
- “Foundational” – baseline requirements that represent the minimum acceptable level of performance for responsible mining operations.
- “Good” – performance aligned with international norms that all responsible mining companies should eventually achieve.
- “Leading” – approaches that go beyond current industry norms and demonstrate leadership in responsible mining.
These levels are more specifically articulated in 24 performance areas, which CMSI uses to address distinct impacts and issues related to mining practices. Performance Area 14 is dedicated exclusively to Indigenous Peoples' rights.
As initially proposed (draft documents and early consultation outcomes here), Indigenous Peoples’ organizations and civil society organizations, among others, have raised concerns about how CSMI integrates Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including a low threshold for free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and lack of required participation by Indigenous Peoples in the governance structure. The assurance mechanism, or the process by which a facility’s performance is evaluated against CMSI’s criteria, also lacks a strong and independent method for including affected Indigenous Peoples’ input and review.
Considering many mining companies are already engaged with the four existing standards comprising CMSI–about 100 across 600 facilities in 60 countries, according to CMSI–widespread adoption could position it as a significant benchmark for responsible mining practices. Therefore, ensuring CMSI meets or exceeds international best practices is crucial for responsible sourcing credibility.
What is a Voluntary Standard
Like its constituent standards, CMSI is a voluntary standard, meaning companies opt in to the framework and are not legally bound as they would be with government regulations.
While voluntary standards have the potential to improve industry practices, their effectiveness depends on the clarity of their requirements and the mechanisms in place to ensure company accountability. A well-designed voluntary standard should:
- Set clear expectations on all impact issues,
- Establish strong disclosure requirements to ensure transparency and measurable accountability,
- Include independent monitoring to verify company compliance, and
- Articulate mechanisms to ensure accountability, such as independent monitoring, third-party audits, and public reporting.
Without meeting these threshold criteria, voluntary standards could lower important benchmarks and significantly reduce their reliability as a means to understand company commitments to safeguard human rights and to protect the environment. Thus, to be credible, CMSI must set clear and measurable criteria for member companies that allows investors, NGOs, and rights holders the ability to know how a company is performing and whether company behavior is improving based on the incentives within the standard.
Indigenous Peoples’ FPIC in CMSI
FPIC is recognized in international law and ensures Indigenous Peoples have decision-making authority regarding projects affecting their lands, territories, and resources without coercion or external pressure. Mining companies operating with alignment to the UNGPs must demonstrate adherence to FPIC in their practices operations.
Although CMSI recognizes the existence of FPIC in two of its three compliance tiers, it does not mandate that companies obtain FPIC before project approval in any tier.
Without making FPIC a requirement at the “Foundational” level, CMSI risks treating consent as optional rather than as a safeguard against rights violations. Further, it allows companies to decide when and to what extent they allow harmful impacts to occur rather than integrating Indigenous People’s input and decisions.
Within the three tiers, the “Foundational” tier does not require FPIC at all. At the next level, “Good”, FPIC is encouraged through agreement, qualifying that situations where full agreement may not be reached require companies to “manage impacts responsibly”. The “Leading” tier discusses the need for collaboration and proactive measures to respect and integrate Indigenous Peoples perspectives. Each of these levels rely on engagement and consultation as a process, but they do not require operational respect for Indigenous Peoples’ decisions regarding the project. This falls well below other standards such as IFC Performance Standard 7 and IRMA, for example.
Additionally, CMSI does not establish clear guidelines for how FPIC should be implemented or verified, leading to uncertainty about compliance. The framework lacks specific benchmarks or oversight mechanisms to ensure meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in Governance and Assurance
For a mining standard to be effective, it must not only set strong expectations but also ensure companies are credible via their governance structures and assurance processes. This includes:
- A governance model where all rightsholders and stakeholders—including Indigenous Peoples—have meaningful participation in implementation and design of the standard; and,
- An assurance process that independently verifies company performance.
CMSI’s governance structure does not guarantee dedicated Indigenous Peoples representation in a formal way. Additionally, its assurance process does not require direct engagement with Indigenous Peoples’ communities to verify processes, raising concerns about how compliance is measured.
Why CMSI Matters for Indigenous Peoples
Indigenous Peoples have long advocated for stronger protections in the mining sector, emphasizing the need for standards that uphold their rights, governance systems, and cultural heritage. Historically, Indigenous Peoples have been disproportionately affected by mining, facing displacement, environmental degradation, and threats to their cultural and sacred sites – impacts that persist with the expansion of mining for energy transition minerals.
As drafted, the CMSI acknowledges Indigenous Peoples’ rights but does not guarantee participation or provide dedicated mechanisms to ensure Indigenous Peoples’ leadership in shaping mining standards in perpetuity.
To align with global human rights standards, CMSI must integrate requests for full protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including self-determination and FPIC as enumerated by the UNDRIP, as well as embed Indigenous-led governance, recognize FPIC as a “Foundational” requirement, and establish stronger grievance mechanisms. These improvements would ensure that mining projects do more than minimize harm—they would affirm Indigenous sovereignty and decision-making authority.
Learn More: