April 16, 2013

Barrick corrects further false claims concerning Remediation Program at Porgera Barrick has been made aware of further correspondence sent to the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights by Mining Watch Canada (MWC) on 2 April 2013 concerning the Framework for remediation initiatives for the Porgera Joint Venture (the Framework). MWC’s 2 April letter largely restates positions and views posited in its letter to the UN High Commissioner on 19 March 2013, and ignores almost entirely Barrick’s 22 March response that explained why MWC’s positions and views are misplaced. Barrick remains confident that, after having conducted 18 months of research, analysis, and consultation with leading national and international experts, the Framework meets the guidelines concerning operational grievance mechanisms as set out in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Rather than repeat why many of the views expressed by MWC are erroneous, we attach: 1) our 22 March letter; 2) a letter from Human Rights Watch responding to MWC’s 19 March letter; and 3) letters from Dame Carol Kidu and Ume Wainetti, leaders in women’s rights and gender violence within Papua New Guinea and key advisors and participants in the Framework, also responding to MWC’s 19 March letter. In addition, we briefly note three matters raised in MWC’s 2 April letter, each previously addressed in our 22 March letter.

1) Resolution of claims: Contrary to MWC’s concerns, claimants are not asked to waive any rights upon filing a grievance and are provided with independent legal advice before entering into any such agreement to ensure they fully understand the agreement and its consequences. Further, the language MWC purports to quote from the model agreement derives from an early draft; the present version contains much narrower terms.

2) Translation: Contrary to MWC’s concerns about translation services, all claimants have access to translation services; enhancements have been made to verify and audit these services.

3) Remedy package: MWC incorrectly states that the core remedy package offerings consist of “development or income generation projects.” No claim has yet proceeded to finalization under the Framework. When they do, each remedy package will be individually determined by independent experts, in conjunction with the claimant, who in determining the overall value of the package will consider the range of awards that have rendered in the Papua New Guinea civil justice system for rape and sexual assault. It is contemplated that a range and mix of remedial measures, including financial compensation, will be included.

We reiterate our commitment to engage in substantial and meaningful efforts to eliminate and remediate gender-based violence and human rights violations. We appreciate substantive feedback, including from MWC, which may lead to improvements in the Framework. However, we are disappointed MWC has chosen to withdraw from the mediated process it initiated under the OECD Guidelines, and ignored a further request for engagement, choosing instead to pursue a public campaign substantially reliant on misinformation.

Kenneth Roth, Executive Director

Michele Alexander, Deputy Executive Director, Development

and Global initiatives

Carroll Bogert, Deputy Executive Director, External

Relations

Jan Egeland, Europe Director and Deputy Executive

Director

Iain Levine, Deputy Executive Director, Program

Chuck Lustig, Deputy Executive Director, Operations

Walid Ayoub, Information Technology Director

Emma Daly, Communications Director

Barbara Guglielmo, Finance and Administration Director

Peggy Hicks, Global Advocacy Director

Babatunde Olugboji, Deputy Program Director

Dinah PoKempner, General Counsel

Tom Porteous, Deputy Program Director

James Ross, Legal and Policy Director

Joe Saunders, Deputy Program Director

Frances Sinha, Human Resources Director

P r o g r a m D i r e c t o r s

Brad Adams, Asia

Joseph Amon, Health and Human Rights

Daniel Bekele, Africa

John Biaggi, International Film Festival

Peter Bouckaert, Emergencies

Zama Coursen-Neff, Children’s Rights

Richard Dicker, International Justice

Bill Frelick, Refugee Policy

Arvind Ganesan, Business and Human Rights

Liesl Gerntholtz, Women’s Rights

Steve Goose, Arms

Alison Parker, United States

Graeme Reid, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights

José Miguel Vivanco, Americas

Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa

Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia

A d v o c a c y D i r e c t o r s

Philippe Bolopion, United Nations

Kanae Doi, Japan

Jean-Marie Fardeau, France

Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia

Cameron Jacobs, South Africa

Lotte Leicht, European Union

Tom Malinowski, Washington DC

David Mepham, United Kingdom

Wenzel Michalski, Germany

Juliette de Rivero, Geneva

B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s

James F. Hoge, Jr., Chair

Susan Manilow, Vice-Chair

Joel Motley, Vice-Chair Sid Sheinberg, Vice-Chair

John J. Studzinski, Vice-Chair

Hassan Elmasry, Treasurer

Bruce Rabb, Secretary

Karen Ackman

Jorge Castañeda

Tony Elliott

Michael G. Fisch

Michael E. Gellert

Hina Jilani

Betsy Karel

Wendy Keys

Robert Kissane

Kimberly Marteau Emerson

Oki Matsumoto

Barry Meyer

Aoife O’Brien

Joan R. Platt

Amy Rao

Neil Rimer

Victoria Riskin

Amy L. Robbins

Graham Robeson

Shelley Rubin

Kevin P. Ryan

Ambassador Robin Sanders

Jean-Louis Servan-Schreiber

Javier Solana

Siri Stolt-Nielsen

Darian W. Swig

John R. Taylor

Marie Warburg

Catherine Zennström

Jane Olson, Chair (2004-2010)

Jonathan F. Fanton, Chair (1998-2003)

AMSTERDAM · BEIRUT · BERLIN · BRUSSELS · CHICAGO · GENEVA · JOHANNESBURG · LONDON · LOS ANGELES · MOSCOW · NAIROBI · NEW YORK · PARIS · SAN FRANCISCO - TOKYO · TORONTO · WASHINGTON - ZURICH

350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118-3299 Tel: 212-290-4700 Fax: 212-736-1300 ; 917-591-3452

DAME Carol Anne KIDU, Dr (Hon)

P.O Box 179, Konedobu,

National Capital District

Papua New Guinea

24 March 2013

Ms. Navanethem Pillay

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

Palais Wilson

52 rue des Paquis

CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland

Dear Commissioner Pillay:

I am a member of the review panel for the Porgera Remediation program that was put in place by Barrick Gold

in response to the violence against and rapes of women by company security personnel. The review panel’s task

is to deliberate on any Appeals that are lodged against the decisions made by the Independent Expert (a former

Chief Magistrate in Papua New Guinea). I am also involved in preparation of the community programming

component of the reparation package that will follow the assessment of claims by individual victims.

In these capacities and as a human rights advocate myself, I am supportive of the program and believe that the

approach adopted is a positive one that is appropriate given the complex nature of the issues and location.

Confidentiality for the victims has been paramount in the approach for the first stage of the program which is

dealing with individual victims. The second stage is community engagement involving personal empowerment

programs and human rights/women’s rights community conversations. It appears that this has been interpreted

as lack of transparency by outside observers. It was in fact the group of internal expert advisers at program

design stage and the Claims Assessment Team (mature, highly experienced Papua New Guinean women) who

insisted on confidentiality and opposed any media/public announcements at the commencement of the program

by Barrick. This decision was made in consultation with women on the ground in Porgera.

The second stage is a community program involving personal empowerment programs and human

rights/women’s rights community conversations.

I am concerned that his matter is being treated as a publicity issues by people oversees who have limited

understanding of the local context and have chosen to impose their interpretation of events on the ground. No-

one in the Porgera Remediation Program team has ever claimed to have a perfect solution but everyone in the

team has deep concern for the victims and their communities.

I fear that the strict legal response could result in the victims becoming pawns in other people’s and

organisation’s agendas and the “culturally appropriate” response as also advocated by Mine Watch Canada

contravenes evolving PNG Government policy and also the recommendations of the recent global Commission

on the Status of Women (CSW) recommendations on gender based violence. In a “culturally appropriate”

response the victims’ rights are rarely paramount. Male relatives are often the beneficiaries.

I submit this statement because of my concern about Mine Watch Canada’s letter to the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights.

CAROL KIDU DBE Dr (Hons)

Recipient 2012 Pacific Regional Rights Award

Recipient Republic of France Legion D’Honeur for commitment to rights of marginalised peoples

Ume Wainetti

PO Box 1501,

Port Moresby, NCD,

Papua New Guinea

Ms. Navanethem Pillay

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

Palais Wilson

52 rue des Paquis

CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland

Dear Commissioner Pillay:

Abuse by Barrick Gold of non-judicial grievance mechanism for victims of rape by security

guards at Porgera Joint Venture mine in Papua New Guinea.

I am Ume Wainetti, the National Convenor of the Papua New Guinea Family And Sexual Violence

Action Committee (FSVAC), and I have worked in the field of violence against women in Papua New

Guinea for many years. I have participated in the process that developed the Porgera remedial

framework and was later invited to be a member of the Review Panel of the OLGETA MERI IGAT

RAITS program.

It is unfortunate that Human Rights Activists like Dr Catherine Coumans whom I met in Port

Moresby at Holiday Inn Hotel on 11 March 2013, talked about the rights of women at Porgera Valley

knowing full-well that such rights cannot be fully realized at present because of cultural issues and the

attitudes of men.

The Survivors of the Porgera abuses had maintained a silence on the abuses, because in PNG women

are blamed for whatever happens to them, they are told that they should be more careful and also in

PNG communal rights are more important than individual rights, so these women maintain their

silence to avoid tribal fights and other conflicts that would eventuate should their families, especially

if they were married to avoid husbands knowing. The fear that was expressed to us at the time in by

senior women on the ground was evident enough that we either go along with local womens’ advice

or we forget the remedial program.

We, the Papua New Guinea women who are involved in the implementation of the remedial

framework, decided this and advised Barrick accordingly, that it was in the best interest of the

survivors’, the CAT Team and the leaders of the Porgera Women’s Association not to advertise the

program. Maria Kensary, the leader of the Porgera District Womens Association, who speaks both

Ipili and Engan, was asked to interpret. She was also the woman leader who privately organized

women to have the first consultations meetings with the international human rights advocates. Flyers,

reports and documents were not to be given out to to women because of literacy problems, and the

risk they would be seen by their men. These things were all done to maintain confidentiality and to

safe guard the survivors.

There are men’s landowners associations such as Akali Tange Association and Porgera Landowners

Associations who want to get involved. These associations are male dominated and would not reflect

the interest of the women. I am glad that these men reported the abuses inflicted by Porgera mine

employees to but who holds the land owners responsible for the abuses that they commit in their

communities to women and girls and especially in their families? This is seen all over PNG in major

project areas. Women in Papua New Guinea generally do not trust landowners as they are worse

perpetrators of abuse against women in this country. I have yet to come across a landowner

association that has consciously provided for women and children. This is Papua New Guinea and

especially when the women are from Porgera - If cash or pigs were given to women, this will be taken

and shared by their families, especially by male relatives. We would also witness a lot more abuse of

the women so that men get access to the cash. It is not wise in this particular situation to just hand

cash to survivors. That is why other options were considered. Women will always be at risks from the

security men at the mine if they go there, so when we considered the remedies it was with the hope

that the women would be encouraged to go into income generating activities and to empower them to

improve not just their own lives but that of their families and stay away from doing illegal mining and

keep away from that place. We hope that women can be encouraged to come forward to participate

instead of going to court because in this country court fees are quite high and it takes forever even if

you do have the resources.

I believe that for all concerned we should give this process a chance to run over a period of 18-24

months before assessing its success and failures.

I would be happy to talk to you about any of this as well.

Kind regards,

Ume Wainetti

National Convenor

Family Sexual Violence Action Committee

Papua New Guinea