[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE PROPOSED WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE POLICY
PROHIBITING MINING IN AREAS SURROUNDING WORLD HERITAGE SITES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND MINERAL RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 28, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC.
__________
Serial No. 106-80
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-727 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada JAY INSLEE, Washington
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
KEVIN BRADY, Texas Samoa
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JAY INSLEE, Washington
Bill Condit, Professional Staff
Mike Henry, Professional Staff
Deborah Lanzone, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held October 28, 1999.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Chenoweth-Hage, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Idaho......................................... 7
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming........................................... 1
Prepared Statment of..................................... 3
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of Guam.......................................... 4
Prepared Statment of..................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Barry, Honorable Don, Assistant Secretary of Interior for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 45
Prepared Statement of.................................... 48
Lawson, General Richard L., President, National Mining
Association................................................ 56
Prepared Statment of..................................... 58
Phillips, Adrian, Chair, World Commission on Protected Areas
(IUCN), Evesham, United Kingdom............................ 8
Prepared Statement of.................................... 11
Wallop, Honorable Malcolm, Chairman, Frontiers of Freedom
Institute.................................................. 51
Prepared Statment of..................................... 53
Additional Material Supplied:
Agenda:...................................................... 81
Briefing Paper:.............................................. 82
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE PROPOSED WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE POLICY
PROHIBITING MINING IN AREAS SURROUNDING WORLD HERITAGE SITES
----------
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
and Mineral Resources,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:23 p.m. In
Room 1334, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barbara Cubin
[chairman of the subcommittee] Presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Mrs. Cubin. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources will come to order.
The subcommittee meets today in its oversight capacity to
review a draft policy announced at the 23rd annual meeting of
the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organizations Bureau of the World Heritage Committee last year
in July.
This policy proposes to ban mining in areas around World
Heritage sites. I understand that it has been placed on the
agenda for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its
next meeting in early December in Marrakesh, Morocco. As used
in this proposal, the term ``mining'' describes all forms of
mineral, salt, and hydrocarbon extraction. The policy forbids
mining in land classified as International Union for the
Conservation of Nature-protected area management Categories I
through IV, and states that in Categories V through VI
exploration, minimal and localized extraction is acceptable
only where this is compatible with the objectives of that
protected area.
I have no idea how to determine in which of these
categories any given area is located, nor do I know how one
determines how a particular property in the United States is
classified under this system. This policy has not been
discussed with Congress. I have never heard of the IUCN, nor
the World Commission on Protected Areas. Who are these groups
and who has a voice in determining the policies they endorse?
Congress has the constitutional role, Article 4, section 3,
clause 2, in the making of rules and regulations governing
lands belonging to the United States. Congress is accountable
to the people.
I am concerned about the World Heritage Committee's
interference with Congress' exercise of its constitutional
responsibilities to govern lands owned by the United States.
Ordinary citizens have no choice in making a policy that may
well affect them and their communities. The unelected
bureaucrats on the World Heritage Committee have no
accountability to the American people, the ultimate sovereign
authority in our system of government. People who must satisfy
the concerns of outsiders before they act are not sovereign. I
believe decisions addressed in the mining policy are purely
domestic matters and would like to know why this policy is
being considered as a part of an international agreement
without consulting American citizens or our domestic mineral
business industries.
At a minimum, adoption of this policy will complicate
mineral development in the United States since there are 67
World Heritage sites and biosphere reserves in the United
States. At worst, the policy becomes a treaty provision that
can be used by those opposed to learning to stop development of
U.S. mines located near these sites.
I also fear the executive branch will invoke this policy as
part of an international agreement in an attempt to
administratively achieve an action within the jurisdiction of
Congress but without consulting Congress. International
commitments must not interfere with the American system of
government by denying American citizens participation in the
legislative and rulemaking process. A treaty should not be used
to change domestic law in a way that has not been approved by
Congress.
Today's hearing will focus on the role of the United States
Government in advocating the ban on mining around World
Heritage sites. We are particularly interested in gaining
insights in the following areas: (1) the role the U.S.
Government played in drafting the mining policy; (2) the reason
Congress was not informed of a policy that is clearly within an
area of its constitutional responsibility; (3) why American
mineral extraction companies were not consulted about the
proposed policy; and (4) the reason that the American people
were not included in the process of developing a policy that
clearly affects them.
I am sorry that the State Department declined to
participate in this oversight function of the U.S. Congress. On
October 8, 1999, my subcommittee faxed a letter to the State
Department, officially inviting them to testify at this
hearing. Amazingly, 3 days before the October 28 hearing, my
staff was called by the State Department and informed that they
were unable to provide a witness at this hearing. The reason
given was that they had only one employee intimately involved
with the hearing topic and he was travelling abroad.
I have to point out that the State Department has 25,067
employees of which only one, who has been employed by the State
Department less than a year, is the only expert in this area on
such a matter of huge importance to the United States. Let me
point out that 17 of Wyoming's 22 counties have fewer people
than the State Department has employees. Needless to say, I am
astonished that given this vast pool of talented employees,
only one person had sufficient knowledge to testify about this
important issue.
I now recognize our ranking member, the gentleman from
Guam, Mr. Underwood, for any statement that he might have.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Cubin follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Barbara Cubin Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy & Mineral Resources
Oversight Hearing on the ``The Proposed World Heritage
Committee PolicyProhibiting Mining in Areas Surrounding World
Heritage Sites''
October 28, 1999
The Subcommittee meets today in its oversight capacity to
review a draft policy announced at the 23rd annual meeting of
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization's (UNESCO) Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
(the Bureau) in Paris last July. This policy proposes to ban
mining in areas surrounding World Heritage Sites. I understand
that it has been placed on the agenda for consideration by the
World Heritage Committee at its next meeting in early December
in Marrakech, Morocco. As used in this proposal, the term
``mining'' describes all forms of mineral, salt and hydrocarbon
extraction.
The policy prohibits mining in land classified as
International Union for the Conservation of Nature JUCN)
Protected Area Management Categories I-IV and states that in
Categories V and VI, ``exploration and minimal and localized
extraction is acceptable only where this is compatible with the
objectives of the protected area. . .'' I have no idea how to
determine in which of these categories any given area is
located. Nor do I know how one determines howw a particular
property in the United States is classified under this system.
This policy has not been discussed with Congress. I have
never heard of the IUCN or the or the World Commission on
Protected Areas. Who are these groups and who has a voice In
determining the policies they endorse? Congress has the
Constitutional role (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2) in the
making of rules and regulations governing lands belonging to
the United States. Congress is accountable to the people. I am
concerned about the World Heritage Committee's interference
with Congress' exercise of its constitutional responsibility to
govern lands owned by the United States.
Ordinary citizens had no voice in making a policy that may
well affect them and their communities. The unelected
bureaucrats on the World Heritage Committee have no
accountability to the American people, the ultimate sovereign
authority in our system of government. A people who must
satisfy the concerns of outsiders before they act are not
sovereign. I believe decisions addressed in the mining policy
are purely domestic matters and would like to know why this
policy is being considered as part of an international
agreement without consulting American citizens or our domestic
mining industry.
At a minimum, adoption of this policy will complicate
mineral development in the United States since there are 67
World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves in the U.S. At
worst, the policy becomes a treaty provision that can be used
by those opposed to mining to stop development of U.S. mines
located near these sites.
I also fear the Executive Branch will invoke this policy as
part of an international agreement in an attempt to
administratively achieve an action within the jurisdiction of
Congress, but without consulting Congress. International
commitments must not interfere with the American system of
government by denying American citizens participation in the
legislative and rule-making process. A treaty should not be
used to change domestic law in a way that has not been approved
by Congress.
Today's hearing will focus on the role of the U.S.
Government in advocating the ban on mining around World
Heritage Sites. We are particularly interested in gaining
insights in the following areas: (1) the role the U.S.
Government played in drafting the mining policy, (2) the reason
Congress wasn't informed of a policy that is clearly within an
area of its Constitutional responsibility, (3) why American
mineral extraction companies weren't consulted about the
proposed policy, (4) the reason the American people were not
included in the process of developing a policy that clearly
affects them.
I am sorry that the State Department declined to
participate in this oversight function of the U.S. Congress. On
October 8, 1999 my subcommittee faxed a letter to the State
Department officially inviting them to testify at this hearing.
Amazingly, three days before the October 28 hearing my staff
was called by the State Department and informed that they were
unable to provide a witness at this hearing. The reason given
was that the only employee intimately involved with the hearing
topic was traveling abroad. I might add that this employee has
been at State for less than a year. According to the Office of
Personnel Management's May 1999 statistics, the State
Department has 25,067 employees of which 8,940 are located in
the United States. Let me point out that 17 of Wyoming's 22
counties have less people than the State Department has
employees. Needless to say, I am astonished that given this
vast pool of talented employees, only one person had sufficient
knowledge to testify about this important issue.
I now recognize our Ranking Member, the gentleman from
Guam, Mr. Underwood.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am pleased to
welcome our esteemed witnesses to the subcommittee today to
discuss the draft World Heritage Committee policy regarding
mining in areas surrounding World Heritage sites.
First, let me note, for the record, that the subject
document this hearing was called to address has been
inaccurately described as a ``proposed policy banning mining''
in areas surrounding World Heritage sites. The draft policy
which we will discuss today is a planning document that sets
out guidelines and recommendations toward mining in adjacent
and protected areas such as national parks. It does not propose
a ban on mining around national parks and other protected
areas.
This draft document evolved out of the United States
participation in the World Heritage Convention which was
established to recognize natural and cultural sites of
outstanding value around the world. Since last year, a small
and informal group of this organization has met periodically to
discuss ways to reconcile environment and development needs and
to provide guidance on World Heritage sites whose integrity may
be threatened by potential mining projects. The ``draft policy
on mining and protected areas'' document that we are here to
discuss is the result of these discussions.
The World Conservation Union draft policy provides a global
framework statement that recognizes that clear rules are easier
to understand and defend than ones which depend on too much
interpretation. As the draft policy notes, while they have
provided clear guidance in the draft statement, they leave it
to individual countries to consider whether adaptations are
needed in local circumstances, and indeed, countries may decide
to ignore any recommendations at all.
Their draft policy defines their position towards mining
and associated activities in and adjacent to protected areas.
It does not and indeed cannot ban mining in areas surrounding
World Heritage sites. Any action that the United States might
choose to take as a result of this draft mining policy would be
taken at our initiative, locally, within the country and within
our constitutional processes and under our own system of
jurisprudence.
In conclusion, while I welcome the opportunity to review
the World Heritage Convention's thoughts on how mining affects
our national parks and other protected areas, it is clear that
any policy this organization may adopt will not supplant or
replace our own laws.
As the National Academy of Sciences recently noted in its
report on the adequacy of Federal surface management
regulations, mining inevitably affects other resources in the
areas in which it occurs. The consequences of this activity can
to some extent be mitigated through a balanced and reasonable
approach that includes planning, compliance with legal and
regulatory requirements, and an appreciation of the potentially
competing interests of the environment, production of metal and
minerals for the society, and employment. The draft policy
before us today seems to be consistent with this sound approach
and should be seen as reassuring rather than alarming.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.
I would like to add as well, Madam Chairwoman, I do
associate myself with the remarks regarding the State
Department's lack of participation in this hearing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.001
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
I would like to welcome Representative Helen Chenoweth-Hage
of Idaho, chairman of our committee's Forest and Forest Health
Subcommittee and ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to
participate in our hearing today. Moreover, because she
recently attended a World Heritage Committee meeting in Paris,
I understand that she would like to make an opening statement
regarding her participation at the Paris meeting.
Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. I thank the chairman for allowing me
the privilege to participate in today's meeting.
During my tenure in Congress, I have been very involved in
the development of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act
which requires strong congressional oversight of the United
Nations designations such as biosphere reserves and the World
Heritage sites. Right now we don't have that kind of oversight.
Congress' concern on this issue largely arose from the
Clinton-Gore administration's using the Yellowstone National
Park's World Heritage site status as a political weapon to stop
gold mining on private property outside the park. American
taxpayers paid an astounding $64 million to a Canadian
leasehold mining company to stop this mine.
Because of my interest and learning more about using World
Heritage site designations as a political tool, I attended the
World Heritage Committee's meeting at UNESCO's headquarters in
Paris last July. That meeting was entirely devoted to the
attempt by international and environmental groups to stop
construction of a uranium mine in Australia adjacent to the
Kakadu National Park. It defied the imagination how mining
opponents, after exhausting all of their administrative and
legal remedies in Australia, were given standing before the
World Heritage Committee to make their case to stop the mine.
Several days before I arrived at the Paris meeting,
UNESCO's World Heritage Committee briefly discussed the World
Commission on Protected Area's position paper on mining and
associated activities in relation to protected areas. After
spending the last several weeks devoted to stopping the
Clinton-Gore plan to stop development and access to 40 million
acres of American's national forests, I am astounded that an
organization of unelected international academics and
bureaucrats has drafted a document setting guidelines for
mining on private and public lands in the United States.
Madam Chairman, I hope today's hearing helps answer some of
the questions that you have expressed, such as what has been
the role of the United States Government in drafting this
mining policy; and in addition to that, what American mining
companies, large and small, have been consulted about this
mining policy. And further, how much money does the United
States Government transfer to the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature, IUCN, which oversees the World
Commission on Protected Areas, and finally what assurance can
Assistant Secretary Barry give us in the subcommittee that the
Pittman-Robertson Federal aid to wildlife slush funds have not
been used for foreign travel or other expenses associated with
this mining policy statement.
Miners in Idaho are already overwhelmed by the Clinton-Gore
administration's strong antimining policies and all of the
meetings and public comment periods associated with them. How
can this Congress subject them now to the whim of a World
Heritage Committee that is dominated by unelected people from
outside the United States?
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for allowing me to sit in on
this hearing.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you. I will now introduce the witnesses
for today's hearing.
Our first witness will testify by way of video conference
from the United Kingdom. I would like to welcome Mr. Adrian
Phillips, Chair of the World Commission on Protected Areas of
the IUCN.
Our second witness is the Honorable Don Barry, Assistant
Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of
the U.S. Department of the Interior; followed by the Honorable
Malcolm Wallop, chairman of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute;
and General Richard L. Lawson, Chairman of the National Mining
Association.
Let me remind the witnesses that they must limit their oral
statements to 5 minutes, but that their entire statements will
appear in the record. We will allow the entire panel to testify
before questioning the witnesses.
Also, let me mention that these hearings are now broadcast
live over the Internet. And there are on an off switches on the
microphones for your use in controlling the privacy of your
conversations.
STATEMENTS OF ADRIAN PHILLIPS, CHAIR, WORLD COMMISSION ON
PROTECTED AREAS (IUCN), EVESHAM, UNITED KINGDOM; HONORABLE DON
BARRY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF INTERIOR FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE
AND PARKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; HONORABLE MALCOLM
WALLOP, CHAIRMAN, FRONTIERS OF FREEDOM INSTITUTE; AND GENERAL
RICHARD L. LAWSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION
Mrs. Cubin. The Chair now recognizes Adrian Phillips.
STATEMENT OF ADRIAN PHILLIPS
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and good
afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I want to begin by saying that only a very small part of
your opening statements and those of your two colleagues, were
audible here, so I am afraid that we only picked up a little of
what you said.
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in your
hearing on mining, protected areas and the world heritage
convention. The topic is timely and often controversial, It
would be good if more light can be thrown on the facts.
Let me introduce myself first. I am a geographer and
regional planner by background. I have worked at the National
and International level in the environmental field since the
early 1960's. For 11 years I headed up a U.K. Government agency
on the countryside. Among my current jobs in the U.K. is advice
to one of the largest aggregate (i.e. hard rock) companies in
Europe.
Since 1994, I have been the elected, volunteer (i.e.
unpaid) chair of the World Commission on Protected Areas of
IUCN, about which I will say more in a moment. It is in that
capacity and as a member of IUCN's council that I appear today.
I want at the outset to say how appropriate it is that this
hearing should be undertaken by a Congressional Committee from
the United States. Why so?
Well, the U.S. is where the idea of National Parks began.
It was such a good idea that it travelled around the world.
Then it was with vision and President Nixon's enthusiastic
support that the World Heritage Convention was launched in
1972.
IUCN itself came into being with the help of distinguished
Americans, notably Hal Coolidge, a member of the Coolidge
family. Within IUCN, Coolidge was a passionate advocate of the
idea of National Parks and set up what is now the World
Commission on Protected Areas which I chair.
More recently, under President Reagan, the United States
initiated the process of joining IUCN. This process was
completed in 1990 under President Bush.
The United States' contribution to National parks, the
World Heritage and IUCN is held in high regard around the world
even if we find some areas where we disagree today. I hope you
will recognize and support the leadership role that the U.S.
has played in these fields over the years.
You have our written testimony. I may well need to refer to
it in answering specific questions. But rather than repeat it
now, I want to stress just three points:
First: The alphabet soup: What are IUCN and WCPA?
IUCN--The World Conservation Union, is a truly unique body.
It brings together governments and non-governmental
organizations in a union or partnership to tackle the big
issues of conservation and sustainable development. No other
organization does that.
IUCN's members currently number 933. There are 76 state
(i.e. country) members (of which the U.S.A. is one) and 111
Government agencies. The rest are National and International
NGO's. They meet every few years in a global World Conservation
Congress. This is the highest policy-making body for the union.
The next such meeting will be in Amman, Jordan in a year's
time.
IUCN is also unique because it includes expert networks, or
commissions, in its structure, there are six of these. One of
them is the World Commission on Protected Areas, or WCPA for
short.
Thus WCPA is part of IUCN, but with a distinct identity. It
is a volunteer network of individual protected area experts
from around the world. We have a number of leading North
American experts among our members. A key task for us is to
advise on how to plan and manage protected areas.
And so, secondly, our position statement. You have no doubt
read this. It contains no surprises. It is in fact based on
common-sense and good practice.
``Common-sense'' because if an area has been ``protected''
for nature in natural law as a National Park, nature reserve or
so on, you would be surprised if large scale mining were
allowed within it.
And ``good practice'' because what we recommend is in fact
what many countries already do.
The statement is an opinion and advice from a network of
experts, many of whom have experience in dealing with mining
issues in respect of protected areas. It gives a clear message
about the importance of such areas and their protection. It
also recognizes the value of cooperation between protected area
agencies and the mining industry.
Thirdly, the title of this hearing seems to be based on a
misconception. It is ``the proposed world Heritage Committee
policy prohibiting mining in areas surrounding world heritage
sites''. Well, to the best of our knowledge, no such policy has
been proposed moreover, the invitation letter to the hearing
says that this alleged policy has been developed by IUCN. IUCN
has never developed such a policy and the WCPA position
statement of mining activities in relation to protected areas
could not possibly be construed in this way.
To conclude, WCPA is a global volunteer network. We are
committed to IUCN's values: respecting science and technical
quality; providing informed advice, encouraging dialogue; and
seeking to link protection with finding sustainable livelihood
for local people.
That concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.035
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you for your testimony. The Chair now
recognizes the Honorable Don Barry, Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DONALD J. BARRY
Mr. Barry. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to thank
the committee for the opportunity to appear today to discuss
the Department of the Interior's views regarding the proposed
policy to prohibit mining in areas surrounding World Heritage
sites. At the outset of this discussion it is important to
clarify exactly what is at issue today and what is not.
First, I note that the invitation the Department received
to testify references, quote, ``the proposed World Heritage
Committee policy prohibiting mining in areas surrounding World
Heritage sites,'' end of quote, which is an understandable, but
incorrect characterization of the document that you invited us
here today to discuss. The document entitled, quote, ``a
position statement on mining and associated activities in
relation to protected areas,'' end of quote, a copy of which is
attached to my testimony, has been drafted by one of the six
subgroups or commissions of the IUCN.
This statement does not propose an all-out ban on mining in
parks or protected areas. Moreover, this statement has not been
formally proposed for adoption by the World Heritage Committee;
there is no indication that it will be proposed for adoption.
It was provided to the World Heritage Committee as an
information document only.
Furthermore, even if such a statement of policy were
adopted by the World Heritage Committee, it would not bind the
United States in any way. The World Heritage Convention
explicitly recognizes the sovereignty of parties' oversights in
their territories on the World Heritage list.
Actions taken in the United States to protect World
Heritage sites are taken pursuant to our own domestic laws.
Further background on the mining position statement and on the
United States participation of the World Heritage Convention
was offered in the interests of putting concerns surrounding
this document to rest.
The World Heritage Committee was established under the 1972
Heritage Convention to place natural and cultural sites of
outstanding universal value on the World Heritage list. The
committee also identifies sites for inclusion on the list of
World Heritage in danger. The United States has had a
longstanding and leading role in all aspects of the World
Heritage Convention. To begin with, the idea of negotiating the
convention was an environmental initiative of the Nixon
administration. Following the ratification of the convention by
the United States Senate in 1973 with a 95 to 0 vote, the
United States has been active in the work of the World Heritage
Committee. The first meeting of the convention, for example,
took place in Washington, D.C. In 1978.
The World Heritage list currently includes 20 of America's
most outstanding natural wonders and cultural sites and are
recognized as of world importance: Mesa Verde, Grand Canyon,
the Hawaii volcanoes national parks, and the Statue of Liberty
are some of the United States sites on the World Heritage
lists. These United States World Heritage sites are beloved by
the American public; they also attract tourists from all over
the world.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature,
IUCN, also known as the World Conservation Union, is an
international organization comprised of governmental entities
and nongovernmental organizations. Established in 1948, it is
one of the world's oldest international conservation
organizations. IUCN is a union of government agencies and
nongovernmental organizations who work with scientists and
experts to protect nature in cultural areas. The State
Department, NOAA, EPA, USAID, the National Park Service are
some of the U.S. Government agency members.
In addition to bringing together the governments and
nongovernment organizations, IUCN has set up international
networks of volunteer experts grouped together and six global
commissions that perform specialized work. The World Commission
on Protected Areas is one of these commissions. It is concerned
with parks and nature reserves generally, and drafted the
document on mining that we are discussing at this hearing
today.
The World Heritage Convention designated IUCN as an
official advisor on natural site issues. The World Heritage
Bureau, a subcommittee of the World Heritage Committee, was
informed in December of 1998 that a position statement on
mining and associated activities was being prepared by the
World Commission on Protected Areas under the auspices of IUCN.
The bureau requested that the document be made available for
information purposes at the bureau's July 1999 meeting. To the
best of our knowledge, it would be nothing more than an
information document for the full committee meeting in
December.
I would like to emphasize again that the statement is not
being proposed for adoption by the committee as a policy to be
applied to World Heritage sites. Insofar as the content of the
mining statement is concerned, it defines positions towards
mining and associated activities in and adjacent to protected
areas.
The statement recommends that mining be considered an
incompatible activity within national parks and equivalent
reserves that are managed mainly for science, wilderness
protection, ecosystem protection or the protection of some
specific natural features or species. In protected areas
managed for mixed uses, the statement suggests that mining
could be permitted under controlled circumstances and
conditions. Regarding mining outside parks, it concerns itself
only with the indirect impacts that mining may have on parks.
In summary, the Department receives advice all the time
from many quarters on how to manage and operate national parks
and wildlife areas in the United States. These suggestions are
considered, but they do not control us nor do they dictate in
any way United States park policy.
We protect parks because they are America's national
treasures, and it is our responsibility under United States
domestic law, not because IUCN documents or World Commission on
Protected Areas documents suggest that we should. We are sworn
to protect the parks, and the American people and your
constituents expect us to do so.
In conclusion, let me emphasize that there would be no
occasion for the United States to either endorse or adopt this
mining policy statement inasmuch as such informational policies
by organizations like the World Commission on Protected Areas,
or IUCN, or the World Heritage Committee do not supersede U.S.
law under any circumstance.
That concludes my statement. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barry follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.038
Mrs. Cubin. The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Malcolm
Wallop, chairman of Frontiers of Freedom
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE MALCOLM WALLOP
Senator Wallop. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you
for holding the hearing.
I am here as a representative of my group called the
Frontiers of Freedom, which has been a strong supporter of
Chairman Don Young's American Lands Sovereignty Protection Act
since it was first introduced in the 104th Congress, and we are
grateful for your strong support. We are pleased that it has
once again passed the House, and it is now awaiting action in
the Senate; but it is crucial that this important legislation
be passed and enacted into law as soon as possible.
The latest actions of the IUCN and the proposed action of
the World Heritage Committee are troubling validation for
supporters of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act.
Nearly 3 years ago Frontiers of Freedom was invited to testify
at a hearing of an earlier version of this legislation, and
testifying on the same panel on behalf of the United Nations
was Nina Sibal, the Director of the New York and Washington
offices of UNESCO. Director Sibal testified that, quote, ``The
United Nations and its specialized agencies, such as UNESCO,
have absolutely no jurisdiction over the territories designated
as biosphere reserves or World Heritage sites which remain
totally under national jurisdiction.''
Madam Chairman, you would agree that this is a good and
clear statement and would be reassuring if it were only true in
practice. But in fact the World Heritage Committee, while
protesting that it in no way threatens to infringe on national
sovereignty, does just that. The intervention of the World
Heritage Committee over the New World Mine and mentionied by
Representative Chenoweth north of Yellowstone Park, one of the
original 12 World Heritage sites, is the best known example in
this country. And one of the great effects of that was to stop
a mining company which was engaged in reclamation of former
mining waste, and disposal was stopped in that. So not only did
the park receive no protection, it in fact exacerbated the
problems that already existed at that site. There is an
expanding list of others.
On December 1, as mentioned again by Representative
Chenoweth-Hage, the Jabiluka uranium mine constituted a threat
to Australia's Kakadu National Park, despite an official
finding of the Australian Government that it did not constitute
a threat. The Australian Government made this finding after an
exhaustive environmental review process over many years as
prescribed by their own environmental laws. The World Heritage
Committee made its finding after a brief visit, such as the one
visited upon us, by a special investigation team from outside
the country; and they generated a huge amount of hysteria,
called by my friend, Assistant Secretary Barry, ``dialogue by
environmental pressure groups.'' The World Heritage Committee
and the UN may not yet have the power to enforce any findings,
but it is clearly an attempt to assert authority over
management of Kakadu National Park.
In December, in Morocco, the committee will consider the
recommendations to ban mining near World Heritage sites. This
is outrageous on three counts. First, it is a blatant attempt
to establish management jurisdiction over buffer areas or zones
around the sites. The intention to assert buffer zones has been
repeatedly and expressly denied by UN officials.
Secondly, the World Heritage Committee has no authority and
should have no role. Those decisions should be left, as you
mentioned, to the elected representatives of the United States.
Third, the behavior of our own administration is equally
outrageous. Secretary Barry was saying that everything would be
followed by U.S. laws, but we have come to find that U.S. laws
can be superseded by executive orders, and we are worried that
executive orders would do just this.
It appears that the administration thinks little of our
Nation's tradition of conducting the people's business in the
open, and in a way to involve the very people and businesses
most impacted by these proposed policies. How else can they
explain their attempt to use the U.N. to slip this proposed
policy by the American public without involving the people's
representatives and the people in the industry that have the
most at stake? The result would be a disaster for American
sovereignty, for private property rights, Federal land
management, and environmental protection and to the industries
affected.
Surely such a policy should not be pursued in secret nor
should such authority be ceded to international bureaucrats. It
is for Congress to decide such policies and not the Clinton
Administration.
Another issue is the fact that this policy, whether it has
any authority or not, will be another weapon in the arsenal of
environmental pressure groups to stop economic development all
around the world. Just as in the case of the New World Mine,
north of Yellowstone, pressure groups will use this policy to
have World Heritage sites declared as in peril and will use the
publicity to whip up public opinion against proposed oil, gas,
and mining activity.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I would be
happy to answer any questions that you or the committee may
have.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Senator Wallop.
[The prepared statement of Senator Wallop follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.041
Mrs. Cubin. The Chair now recognizes General Richard
Lawson, the President of the National Mining Association.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. LAWSON
Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am Richard Lawson,
the President of the National Mining Association, and our
association represents those enterprises that deliver to public
use most of the metals, minerals and coal that are required to
uphold and strengthen America in daily life. This hearing is a
public service of the first order, the first open and public
discussion of an international proposal of national and global
importance.
The governing apparatus of the World Heritage Convention of
the United Nations appears poised to initiate a no-mining
policy. Yet, until now, it scarcely could have moved forward
with less notice had stealth and stratagem been their principal
implementing strategy. The United States and other signatories
will be pressured intensely to use this policy vigorously in
the guise of expanding control over already-designated areas.
Indeed, some recent mine-related interpretations of policy at
the Department of the Interior, including the new policy
directive on millsites, seems to have this no-mining policy
already in mind. Yet the scope, intent and origins of this
policy have yet to be offered for public examination. They have
not been explained or justified as representative democracy
requires, not so much as even mentioned by the participating
agencies in the U.S. Government to the mining industry.
The U.S. contains a major portion of the world's minable
resources, a major share of the world's natural sites with the
Heritage designation, and a major number of the areas
categorized for protection in the world, well over 18 Heritage
sites in all. U.N. Documents list about 426,000 square miles of
the United States as so protected. Just for your information,
that is equal to Germany and the United Kingdom and Japan and
throwing in Bosnia and Croatia just to make an idea of the
amount of area that we are talking about.
The United States mining industry is a major producer and
major participant in world markets for most of the material
resources and energy needed to uphold modern life. It is the
world's most efficient and the world's most technologically
adept at environmental protection and remediation. Such a
policy would affect present and future output of our mining
industry. Yet the industry has neither been advised nor
consulted, not by the convention or the governing committee,
not by the committee bureau of the affiliate from which the
policy comes, the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature, not by the U.S. Department of State and not by the U.S.
Department of the Interior as part of the U.S. participation in
the convention or its like participation in the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature, the IUCN.
Indeed, IUCN policy excludes from membership and
participation any that it finds not in accord with its beliefs
and objectives. Members include such organizations as the World
Resources Institute, the National Resources Defense Council,
the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, Defenders of
Wildlife and the World Wildlife Fund, but no mining
organization.
It is true that the World Heritage Convention cannot
require compliance. It is equally true that these organizations
are likely to wage campaigns of pressure and possibly
litigation to make no-mining a formal policy. That would be
wielded as a weapon whenever and wherever a mine is proposed.
The danger is that a no-mining policy quickly will be made to
function as the following:
As a de facto obligation of the United States of America;
As a policy, even though it has not been authorized by any
act of the Congress;
As a sanctioned regulatory practice, even though imposed in
defiance of the Administrative Procedures Act;
As the regulatory equivalent of a law even though there can
be no proper judicial review or appeal as provided for by the
Constitution; and
Finally, it will certainly be used and abused in the
campaigns of intimidation to nullify and override proper
decisions of representative governments--local, State, and
Federal.
The ultimate results of a no-mining policy may well
include:
The removal of vast resources from public use and benefit,
a crude form of rationing;
Higher prices than necessary for energy goods and services;
The distortion of world markets for energy and material
resources;
Strains on national and global economic security; and
Increased demands for the commitment of U.S. national
security forces to keep world affairs stable.
In sum, the World Heritage Committee's no-mining policy is
an instrument of manipulation, mischief and maladministration.
I urge you to do all in your power to ensure it falls back into
the mists of vagueness and obscurity from which it arose.
It shows cause for the enactment of the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act in the 106th Congress; and it
suggests that Congress could constructively inquire into the
functions and relationships of the organizations and groups
involved.
Written testimony that I have attached goes into further
detail. Thank you for your attention and this opportunity.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, General Lawson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.053
Mrs. Cubin. I thank all of the witnesses for their
testimony. Can you hear better now, Mr. Phillips?
Mr. Phillips. Yes, I can hear better now.
Mrs. Cubin. I do thank all of the witnesses for their
testimony and the members for their attention. The Chair will
now recognize members for questions of the panel, and I will
begin by asking Chairman Chenoweth to begin.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am
directing my questions to Mr. Phillips.
I am sure that you are aware of a document entitled, Metals
from the Forest, which is published jointly by IUCN and the
World Wildlife Fund. This publication was issued in January of
1999. Mr. Phillips, it appears to have a very strong bias
against mineral protection by making some very outrageous
claims. Let me read to you some of those claims in part of the
article entitled ``Social Impacts''; that section is found on
page 24.
One of the statements that they make is, ``Large-scale
mines displace local communities.'' I find that astonishing.
This statement and the rest of this fails to mention
communities that are being created throughout the world where
mining companies are building housing and schools and other
facilities to actually improve people's lives.
Another statement that is made in this document states,
``State or private armies are sometimes used to secure mines.''
now, the document cites the Grasberg-Ertsberg mine in Indonesia
as an example, but armies in Indonesia have done many heinous
acts in East Timor and have no relationship whatsoever with
mining.
This is obviously an outrageous example intended to promote
an antimining agenda, sir.
Furthermore, this article states, ``Life expectancies of
people living near mining sites can be substantially reduced,''
end quote. Let me assure you that life expectancies can be
reduced by living near a high-crime area like within 1 mile of
this hearing room. Needless to say, this is another bizarre
statement in this document.
And they state that mineral wealth can actually depress
social conditions in developing countries. Is this not why the
Congressional Black Caucus earlier this year urged the
International Monetary Fund not to depress world gold prices
and devastate black mine workers in South Africa by conducting
large gold sales?
And finally, sir, in this article it ends by saying, ``In
fact, the superior resources base of a mineral economy has been
more of a curse than a blessing.'' .
Now, these are shocking statements. Let me ask you, did
IUCN have a peer review process before this publication went
out?
Mr. Phillips. Well, thank you for drawing my attention to
that, and obviously I am aware of the document. I have a copy
here. I would like to make two points by way of reply.
The first is to completely refute the idea that IUCN has,
as you put it, an antimining agenda. That is wholly wrong. We
recognize that mining companies make a very significant
contribution to national economies and indeed to the
development of society as a whole. It would be our wish to have
more contact with mining companies. I would like to come back
to this issue in a moment when I address some of the specific
points that you just made about the publication.
The publication is, I think, a well-documented and well-
researched effort to establish some of the problems associated
with mining. We have received one letter which has pointed out
some apparent errors, a very constructive letter from Freeport
which relates to the mining in Irian Jaya, Indonesia. If there
are other shortcomings in the text, we would be very pleased to
receive information about these and comment on them, but I want
to come back to the first point.
The view of IUCN towards the mining industry is that there
are important environmental responsibilities that they should
take on, and many of the best companies do. But we would like
to get into a much more constructive dialogue with the mining
industry. There is fortunately a possibility of that being
developed at the global level through a current initiative of
the major mining companies under the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development. I would like it to be known, and put
on record, that IUCN would like to participate with the major
mining companies in that discussion. I believe that is a
constructive way forward.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Will there be a peer review process
before documents such as this are issued in the future? And
what would the peer review process consist of?
Mr. Phillips. Well, as I said, I think that we now need to
move into a process of dialogue with the mining companies and
work on this issue together. I have got here beside me a number
of examples where IUCN has worked with different sectors of
industry and, in fact, produced guidance that has the support
of both the IUCN network and the mining sectors concerned. (I
am using the word ``mining'' in the broader context).
I think peer review for publications on mining and the
environment can best be done by bringing together the
conservation world and the mining or developmental world. That
is a healthy approach, and an appropriate desire for
publications issued by IUCN.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Thank you, Professor.
I am now looking at your statement that you have submitted
to this committee where you state that this document in
question before the committee is not a policy statement, but
rather a position paper--I don't feel very sanguine about that
because of what happened to us in the New World Mine--but that
these positions are arrived at through recommendations through
the governmental and nongovernmental members of the World
Conservation Congress, and the statement comes in the form of
an opinion. It does not purport to be a negotiated text, but
they do take care to try to consider the views of the mining
industry and to encourage dialogue.
I also note in your testimony that the protected area
management categories are referred to back here on page 7, and
that there is also a quote here from the 1999 Paris meeting
where the bureau took note of the position paper that came out
of the 1998 Kyoto meeting. And the final sentence that is
quoted here indicates that mining companies don't seem to fall
into any one of the six categories that are under consideration
for management.
So, in essence, Professor, it appears you have, through
this statement, defined mining out of the argument by
definition. And so this does not assure us very much of, first
of all, our own sovereign ability to control our resources; and
secondly, that mining is considered a category for management.
Let me read to you what your statement says. It says,
``Finally, it has to be noted that mining is not considered to
be compatible with any of the Categories I through IV and, for
V and VI, only under certain conditions. IUCN is prepared to
continue consultations on this issue including with the mining
industry and its International Council on Metals and the
Environment.''
I yield back the balance of my time which I see I don't
have any left.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Cubin. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chairman. There are two
ostensible issues that have been raised in concern of the
activities of the World Heritage Council and the IUCN. One
pertains to, as outlined by our colleague from Idaho, that
there is an existing antimining bias in the nature of your
work, Professor Phillips. The other is the concern that somehow
or other the work that you engage in erodes national
sovereignty and infringes upon the rights of independent states
to somehow manage their own resources.
I am interested in your reaction to the characterization of
your efforts regarding that perhaps you have a kind of stealth
agenda, not in terms of an antimining bias, but simply in terms
of how do you--what is the nature of your work? Do you have
something else in mind as you proceed?
If indeed you adopt these guidelines at the World Heritage
Committee--which I understand are not your guidelines; they are
being proposed to you and you are to address them sometime next
month. If you adopt these, what do you foresee in terms of the
interaction in the nature of your work that would conceivably
alter the capacity of independent states to manage their
resources?
Mr. Phillips. Thank you very much. I think it is important,
first, to make it clear that this position statement comes from
a body of experts in protected areas. It is not IUCN policy. If
that requires further explanation, I would be very pleased to
provide it.
It is a position adopted by experts and offered as advice,
in a sense, to anybody in the protected areas world who wishes
to listen. It clearly doesn't have the power to override or
even affect sovereignty. Governments, state governments and
others are entirely free, obviously, to determine what happens
in their national parks and other protected areas according to
national laws, and they are accountable to their national
populations for that purpose.
I think the most useful contribution that this position
statement can make is to illuminate the discussions that will
take place within countries it would help, for example, many
developing countries to decide whether or not to grant mining
licenses and where priority should be given to conservation. So
it is a technical contribution to an ongoing debate.
I don't see, as I said, anything in this which by any
stretch of the imagination could be said to affect, let alone
erode, sovereignty--not in the way in which it is written nor
given the origin of the organization responsible for it.
Because as I said, the World Commission on Protected Areas is a
network of experts operating in this field. We have no powers,
none whatsoever, to instruct other people. That is a totally
unreal representation of this work.
Mr. Underwood. Professor, wouldn't you concede that by--
since you are a world body of experts, wouldn't you concede
that by making sweeping statements or perhaps making
recommendations or adopting recommendations that you are, in
effect, interposing your considerable influence in what are
normally conceived of as internal debate?
Mr. Phillips. No, I don't think so. I don't think that I
would accept it as being sweeping. I would say that most of
this, as I said in my introductory oral statement, is really no
more than what many countries do in any case. So it is just a
statement of good practice.
Governments all around the world are on the receiving end
of a great deal of advice from different sources; there are
other sources, and some of that advice will be contrary. It
doesn't override sovereignty, it is just a piece of information
that governments and others could make use of when they have to
make decisions on land use planning and protected areas in the
future and so forth.
Mr. Underwood. I certainly thank you for your participation
today and your comments have been very illuminating.
I just wanted to ask Senator Wallop and perhaps General
Lawson just a quick question on how you see this issue, because
the issue of national sovereignty is, I think--I appreciate the
concern about mining, but I want to stick to the issue of
whether this in some way erodes--since both of your testimonies
make reference to that--it erodes or inhibits our capacity to
manage our own resources.
Is it the position of either of you that any kind of
participation in international agencies or activities of this
kind is undesirable, and we should withhold from that; or are
you just upset with the fact that they seem to be going in a
given direction?
Senator Wallop. That is sort of a magnificent
generalization of the position that we think any kind of
participation would be out of acceptable--.
Mr. Underwood. Is there some redeeming value to our
participation in World Heritage?
Senator Wallop. Not generally, as General Lawson would tell
you. There has been no dialogue with the mining industry. In
fact, they refused to allow them in. There have been no
dialogues with the administration, with any level of it, in any
participation.
I think you mentioned that the State Department, they
wouldn't even come to talk to your committee. Neither would the
Environmental Protection Agency, neither would Interior, before
going off and making these recommendations. Professor Phillips
says they don't have any intention of influencing national
policy; clearly they do. They did in Australia, they did in
Wyoming with the Noranda mine. And it was used by the Clinton
administration's Department of the Interior to generate and
whip up a public furor and to eliminate all chances of
dialogue.
A stereo is not dialogue; it requires a couple of people to
talk before you do that. There is not one group of people
shouting, and that is what it was used to do. The President,
taking his manly vacations, in Wyoming in those years managed
to take a little trip up there; and then we invited Canadians,
Norwegians, and some other people, French, to come and tell us
that we did not know how to take care of our own property and
that we were threatening a World Heritage site. So the fact of
it is, our experience tells us that they do have the intention
of and are very effective at influencing national policy.
Mr. Underwood. General Lawson.
Mr. Lawson. I think one of the aspects that concerns us
about the issue was, first of all, the reference to the mining
industry. And the representative has indicated that he has no
experts on his group that are experts in mining, that they are
only experts about the so-called Heritage areas. Then how could
he suggest, for example, as Congressman Chenoweth points out,
that mining is not appropriate in I, II, III and IV, and only
marginally appropriate in V and VI?
The minerals of this globe are not uniformly distributed.
They happen where they happen. This not only talks about
mining; it talks about the association, the exploration, all
aspects of the industry. This kind of action is used not just
where a mining activity would occur, but it wants to preclude
any examination at all. As I cited, this is not an
insignificant amount of the U.S. land. It is a very large
amount of area, 462 million acres.
Mr. Underwood. I thank you. And I thank the indulgence of
the Chair.
Just a brief comment. I wanted to point out that in the
categories as I understand them that Categories I through IV
include wilderness areas and national parks; we don't allow
mining in any of them.
But the concern that I want to--because the term
``hysteria'' has been used. To the extent that I understand how
sometimes statements are used by various advocacy groups and
the statement by the World Heritage Committee, I am sure, could
carry a great weight and sometimes could be used in a way that
may appear to elicit an overly emotional response.
I think when we start dealing with issues of national
sovereignty, I think we run into the same kind of problem. I
think characterizing some of these things as infringements on
national sovereignty, I think goes beyond the pale also in
terms of the debate about what we are confronting within terms
of the actions of the World Heritage Council.
Senator Wallop. If I may, yes, language does tend to run
upstream from reality in some of this, but we are operating
from experience.
We have in this country a well-tested procedure for
determining threat or danger of environmental or otherwise when
undertaking major national issues. It is called an
Environmental Impact Statement. This administration was
unwilling to wait for that result; they got a hold of the
foreign inspector--I don't know what they call them, but they
were--they were the ones that brought them down.
So testifying from experience, maybe not in every instance,
I am perfectly willing to concede that in every instance they
don't seek to influence national policy. But when they do, they
are very effective at it because they do whip up hysteria and
they do stop dialogue; and they did in this instance stop the
procedure that has been set down in law to determine threat.
Mr. Underwood. I think my point is, even in the short time
that I have been associated with this subcommittee, I have
received numerous messages about the activities of the World
Heritage Committee which I would consider hysterical in terms
of the fact that they are some way infringing upon our capacity
to do regular business. That is what I am saying. So I think
the use of the term ``hysteria'' or the introduction of it into
the debate could cut both ways.
Of course, we are free to ignore whatever the World
Heritage Committee says or whatever they point out. So I just
wanted to, in a sense, balance the books on that.
I also wanted to congratulate Mike there for his work on
this televideo conditions. We heard that trans-Atlantic sneeze
very clearly.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate your
leadership on this issue and the fact that you have taken the
time to bring a hearing together on this very troubling issue.
I want to follow on some of the comments of my colleague from
Guam, Mr. Underwood, with the sovereignty issue.
It seems only too clear that if we cede part of the power
of the United States Government over its own internal affairs,
its own internal property to an agency outside of the United
States without the concurrence of the Congress, then we have
yet conceded power of the United States Government. When you
concede power of the government, you then concede the rights of
people under the Constitution of the United States to those
properties as well.
I am concerned that we now have an agency with a
concurrence of this government that may very well, without
notice, without right of recourse, be able to have or give a
direction and influence property in the United States.
I would like to turn, if I could, to Mr. Barry and ask him,
what role did the Department of the Interior have or play in
inviting or bringing the World Heritage people--I presume it is
the World Heritage Committee--to the New World project? What
role did you play?
Mr. Barry. I was not the Assistant Secretary at the time,
and I had no personal involvement in the New World Mine
situation. But it is my recollection that George Frampton, my
predecessor, did indicate that it would be worthwhile to have
some experts come from the World Heritage Center to take a look
at the situation at New Mine.
Mr. Gibbons. So your testimony is that the Department of
the Interior invited the World Heritage Committee and its
experts on mining to view--come to the New World project; is
that correct?
Mr. Barry. That is correct.
Mr. Gibbons. Now, you testified in paragraph 4, the last
sentence of your testimony that you wrote here today, that
actions taken in the United States to protect World Heritage
sites are taken pursuant to our own domestic laws. According to
our U.S. domestic law--and may I cite to you 16 USC
470(A)(1)(c), ``No non-Federal property may be nominated by the
Secretary of Interior to the World Heritage Committee for
inclusion on the World Heritage list unless the owner of the
property concurs in writing to such nomination.''
Now, since the Interior Department invited the World
Heritage Committee to that property, how do you balance that
invitation with the laws that say that U.S. property is
protected according to our own domestic laws, when in fact it
ended up being a World Heritage nomination and excluded from
further operations?
Mr. Barry. The reference is to Yellowstone, not to the New
World Mine site. It was Yellowstone that was the World Heritage
site. Most of the sites that we have on the World Heritage list
are national parks. There are only about three or four examples
that are not national park units and they were all put on the
list with the concurrence of the owners. Monticello,
Jefferson's home, is an example.
Mr. Gibbons. Was the New World project put on the list with
the concurrence with the owners?
Mr. Barry. No, it's not on the list.
Mr. Gibbons. Did those experts go to the New World project?
Mr. Barry. It was Yellowstone--.
Mr. Gibbons. Did they go to the New World project?
Mr. Barry. They took a look at it, as I understood, but I
wasn't there at the time.
Mr. Gibbons. The point was just made by staff that they
were using a designation on private property outside of the
park, so it was an extension of what you have been testifying
in strong support of here today, that they used on private
property ultimately.
Let me ask another question. This IUCN mining statement
that you say is just a statement. Will the United States and
this administration oppose any adoption, any proposal of
adoption, of that statement if it is proposed in the World
Heritage Committee?
Mr. Barry. We will have no opportunity one way or the other
to vote for it or against it because the United States is not a
member of the bureau, will not be a member of the committee. We
are just going in as observer status for this particular
meeting, so we will have no opportunity to express our views
about it one way or the other.
I have to also let you know that we are not under any
impression that this document is going to be brought up by any
vote by anybody.
Mr. Gibbons. Will this administration use its influence
knowing the disastrous effect it is having on the United States
to oppose any adoption of this statement?
Mr. Barry. I would have to disagree with your
characterization of the effect of this document or the effect
of the World Heritage Convention on World Heritage sites in
this country. I should point out that it was a Republican-
controlled Congress that gave us $64 million to buy the New
World Mine. If this was such a disaster in the making, why did
the Republican-controlled Congress give us the money to buy
that out?
Mr. Gibbons. That is like saying once the horse is out of
the barn we are going to close the door and stop everything
from happening that is disastrous. What we were doing was
saving the lawsuit and the contract and the agreement that
these people had invested in that property before this
designation came along.
I yield back the balance of my time to the chairman.
Mrs. Cubin. I tell you, this stuff gets out of hand. Thank
you for your question, Mr. Gibbons.
I would like to start my questioning with Adrian Phillips.
Was the mining position endorsed by the IUCN Council?
Mr. Phillips. No, it was not. It was welcomed by the
Council. I could read you the text from the council minutes.
Would you like me to do that or--.
Mrs. Cubin. Well, I don't know exactly--I don't understand
your terminology, so I guess, yes, go ahead and read it.
Mr. Phillips. I will quote from the minutes first so that
we can be quite clear what the official record is:
``The Council welcomes the World Commission on Protected
Area's position statement on mining and associated activities
in relation to protected areas as an important contribution to
IUCN's work in protected areas and partnership with the private
sector.'' That is from the minutes of the Council of the IUCN
meeting in April of this year.
Mrs. Cubin. I don't think that that actually is what I
intended. I must not have made myself clear in the question.
I have a document in front of me that says ``The WCPA
Position Statement on Mining and Associated Activities in
Relation to Protected Areas,'' and it says, ``endorsed by the
IUCN Council on 27 April 1999.''.
Mr. Phillips. Which document is that, Madam Chairwoman?
Mrs. Cubin. It is one that was passed out in Paris. The
document is WHC-99/conference.201/INF.14.
Mr. Phillips. Yes. I know the document and what it states
is incorrect. When I learned about this, I informed the World
Heritage Center and I said, this is a misrepresentation of the
status of the position statement. And the document that goes to
the participants in the World Heritage Committee meeting in
Marrakesh, Morocco will make clear the status of this document,
and will correct that mistake in the cover note.
Mrs. Cubin. I would like to go back to the statements that
were in the document that Mrs. Chenoweth referred to. She asked
you if you agreed with these or if this was the position of the
IUCN, if it remains a position. I didn't understand your
answers, so if you could just respond to these, I will just
cover them.
``Large-scale mines displace local communities.'' The point
that I am getting at is while I think the statements made in
that document appear to have a very strong bias against mineral
production because these, what I consider to be outrageous
claims were made especially when there is no mention whatsoever
of the good that mining provides to the people of the world. I
think leaving that out terribly distorts the whole picture. You
do agree with this statement, ``large scale mines displace
local communities''? You do or you don't?
Mr. Phillips. Well, I am sure there are one or two cases
where that is correct. But I would have expected that in this
document and I believe there is a reference to it there should
also be a proper recognition of the positive role that mining
and minerals can play in the economy and the lives of people.
But the document also quite rightly points out there are
problems, too, environmental and social problems. It is not a
particularly dramatic thing to identify those. They are pretty
well-known and often referred to. To my mind, the most
constructive way forward now would be to focus on these
problems through a proper dialogue between the mining industry
and the principal conservation organizations, as I suggested
earlier.
Mrs. Cubin. So at this point in time do you or do you not
think that that statement is relevant and reflects reality?
Mr. Phillips. Well--.
Mrs. Cubin. Yes or no would be better.
Mr. Phillips. You are taking one line out of context.
Mrs. Cubin. No, I am not. It says after that--pardon me? I
am going to be taking these others, I am not taking them out of
context. These are statements that are made.
The next one is ``State or private armies are sometimes
used to secure mines.'' Do you think that is fair, accurate and
not misleading?
Mr. Phillips. I think it is misleading if one identifies a
particular issue without providing justification for it. The
particular reference goes on to quote a number of examples of
mines which have led to some displacement of people. And that
seems to me to be a perfectly fair thing to put in the social
impacts.
I also think that it would be helpful to put in some of the
positive things that mining contributes, and I am well aware
that the livelihoods of many people depend upon an effective
mining industry. But to deny there are problems seems to me to
be unreal.
Mrs. Cubin. Are you familiar with the term ``multiple use''
and what it means in the United States?
Mr. Phillips. Sorry?
Mrs. Cubin. Are you familiar with the term ``multiple use''
and what it means in the United States?
Mr. Phillips. I am familiar with the term. Please proceed,
and I will see if I understand its application in the United
States.
Mrs. Cubin. ``multiple use'' means the public lands can be
used for multiple purposes and that that is the policy by which
our public lands are used; we don't think that you necessarily
need to eliminate one use or another.
I am going to ask Mr. Barry this next question if can I
find it. In Wyoming--just a second. I just scribbled all over
it. Thank you.
In Wyoming there are Category III locations which your--
there are--two that I am going to speak specifically, of which
your policy says that mining should be prohibited by law or
other effective means; and these areas include Como Bluff near
the town of Medicine Bow and Lance Creek fossil area near the
town of Lusk. As I am--you know, both of these areas have
checkerboard ownership patterns with significant amounts of
private property.
In the United States, the Constitution provides strong
protections for private property rights. Why does your policy
recommend prohibiting mining on private property lands in my
State?
Mr. Barry. First of all, it is not my policy. The U.S.
Government has nothing to do with that statement.
Mrs. Cubin. I'm sorry?
Mr. Barry. The U.S. Government has had nothing to do with
the preparation of that statement that the subject of this
hearing is all about. So it is certainly not our policy.
Mrs. Cubin. The United States gives $1.5 million to IUCN. I
would think that --.
Mr. Barry. We have had nothing to do with the drafting of
that policy. Not a single Federal employee was involved with
the drafting of that policy. It has not been reviewed by us and
it has not been endorsed by us. I think it is inappropriate to
refer to it as our policy.
Mrs. Cubin. So you disagree with it?
Mr. Barry. I am saying that our policy on mining within
units of the national park system are directly covered by
statutes that this Congress has enacted. The Mining in the
Parks Act, the National Parks System Organic Act, and the
Redwoods amendment in 1978 are just three examples. That is
what controls mining in the parks and within units of the
national park system, like a national monument, but not this
statement that we have in front of us today.
Mrs. Cubin. I would like to turn my questioning to Senator
Wallop.
You were a member of the United States Senate during a
period when many international organizations, such as UNESCO,
were vehemently promoting policies that excoriated the United
States and democratic traditions like capitalism and the free
press. In fact, the United States pulled out of UNESCO during
the mid-1980s partially because of these excesses. Having heard
the quotes from the document that is before us, does this
remind you of the very attitude that caused the United States
to withdraw from UNESCO in the first place?
Senator Wallop. Madam Chairman, it is the mirror image.
Notwithstanding Professor Phillip's attempts at explanation of
it, the quotes which Representative Chenoweth and you have
cited are all isolated from any other accommodation to the
benefits of mining. And I would point out, in their
definitions, mining includes oil and gas exploration and other
kinds of mineral exploitation.
So the answer is, yes. Here they come. ``large-scale mines
displace local communities.'' there is nothing about large-
scale mines providing jobs nor, I might remind Professor
Phillips that we wouldn't have him in front of us if it were
not for mining. Neither the television sets nor the computers
nor the glass screens or anything else that bring him in front
of us would be possible without mining. These are typical of
the kinds of inflammatory statements that characterized UNESCO
during the 1980s and caused the United States to withdraw.
Mrs. Cubin. I want to go back to Mr. Barry and your adamant
belief that this policy will have no effect on decisions that
are made by your department.
You just told me you totally disavow almost any connection
with them. So I want to--I am going to make this statement and
ask you to respond to it if you want to.
When we look back at the New World Mine, I guess then that
you would say that it was entirely coincidental that the
labeling of Yellowstone Park as a World Heritage site in danger
preceded the President's negotiation to buy out the New World
Mine project, a promise which was made by the executive branch
before coming to Congress to seek the dollars to do so.
You would say that that is all coincidental, and it had
absolutely no effect on the result of what happened to people
who owned private property that were not allowed to develop
that?
Mr. Barry. First of all, I would have to say that the fact
that it was a World Heritage site in danger had nothing to do
with our desire to prevent a potentially significant adverse
impact on Yellowstone National Park. I should point out that
one of your own State's Senators, Craig Thomas, supported the
acquisition of the New World Mine. I am sure he didn't do it
because he was worried about its impact in the World
Heritage--.
Mrs. Cubin. I did not oppose it. The only thing that I
opposed in the whole process was the way the administration
went around the block and came in the back door to get their
policy done. I frankly wasn't really excited about that mine
being developed up there either. But I feel that it is my job
to protect the processes which protect the freedoms of the
people of the United States of America and my State of Wyoming.
And when the administration manipulates the information to, as
Senator Wallop said, create hysteria and have attitudes based
not on fact--I mean, we had scientists working on that EIS for
years and then the committee came in and in 3 days determined
what other scientists, American scientists, including some of
your colleagues, couldn't get done in years. They got it done
in 3 days and they were certain about it.
That judgment is what caused the buy-out of that mine. I am
not opposed to that. I am opposed to the sneaky, underhanded
way the administration got their agenda fulfilled.
Mr. Barry. Let me just correct one thing for the record or
add one thing for the record.
The people that came to visit the site on behalf of the
World Heritage Convention did so with the acceptance of--the
invitation of the company that owned the property. They did not
trespass on the property. The company allowed them to come on
the property to take a look at the site.
Mrs. Cubin. I don't think that anyone implied that they
trespassed.
Mr. Barry. No, but I just wanted to correct the record that
the company itself was willing to let them come to the site and
to view the site.
Mrs. Cubin. But the Department of the Interior invited
them.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. If the chairman would yield, I don't
believe that the company invited them in. I think they were
willing to let them in on the property. But they did not invite
them in unless we see documentation otherwise.
Mr. Barry. I didn't mean to create the impression that they
invited them in. What I did say was that they allowed them on
the property.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. But you did say that, sir. You need to
say what you mean and mean what you say.
Mrs. Cubin. So does your boss and so do I.
I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their
testimony and their time in answering the questions. I thank
the members of the subcommittee. If they have any additional
questions for the witnesses, we would ask you to respond to
these questions in writing, and the record will be held open
for these responses.
If there is no further business, the chairman again thanks
the members of the subcommittee and our witnesses. The
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Energy & Mineral
Resources, 1334 Longworth H.O.B., 2:00 p.m.
Thursday, October 28, 1999
Agenda
Oversight hearing on: ``The Proposed World Heritage Committee
Policy Prohibiting Mining in Areas Surrounding World Heritage
Sites.''
WITNESSES
Adrian Phillips, Chair [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE]World
Commission on Protected Areas (RJCN), Evesham, United Kingdom
Honorable Don Barry, Assistant Secretary of Interior for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks U.S. Department of the Interior
Honorable Malcolm Wallop, Chairman Frontiers of Freedom
Institute
General Richard L. Lawson, President National Mining
Association
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6727.067