Norges Bank Excludes Eramet SA from Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) Investment Universe

Pix credit here

Following a recommendation from the Council on Ethics, Norges Bank has announced its decision to exclude Eramet SA from investment by the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG). The basis was a conclusion of the Ethics Council acepted by Norges Bank that the entity's operations posed an unacceptable risk that they were contributing to, or that the entity was itself responsible for, severe environmental damage and also of serious violation of the human rights of uncontacted indigenous people. The Council’s recommendation is based on Eramet’s participation in the PT Weda Bay Nickel Joint venture, which is extracting nickel on the island of Halmahera, Indonesia. Eramet is the operator of the mine.

In its recommendation, the Ethics Council noted: 

The Council finds that WBN and Eramet are failing to exercise the due diligence needed to reduce the risk that mining operations could severely harm an extremely vulnerable group of indigenous people. The Council attaches importance to the fact that the isolated indigenous groups have nowhere else to live and that they are among the most vulnerable population groups in the world. The Council cannot see how mining operations here may be undertaken without infringing indigenous peoples’ rights, particularly when no measures are being implemented to protect their living spaces. (Ethics Council Recommendation, p. 26).

In this way the Council, at least in the  casde of human societies that prefer tp detach themselves from others, moves closer to a rule that finds that any impac on isolation that raises risk of contact will trigger a finding if unacceptable risk. That is not unreasonable in the cases like this. But it suggests that the balancing in favor of indigenous people tends to skew more favorably against economic operaiotns than that of other activities that may have an advers eimpact on bio-diversity and other enironmental effects.  Perhaps that is as it should be.  But it is worth noting. Worth noting as well is the intensely human element in the calculus.  One relies here on a deeply personal or culturally contigent  balancing in which values are translated into and through the medium of the cultures and individuals teasked with that balancing.  Perhaps, when such tasks are delegated to and undertaken within descriptive and predictive analytics run through generative intelligence mechanisms, the balancing and values infused balancing decisions will skew differenty. Not yet, though; but at some point one might wonder whether indeed that is a path worth taking.

Please find the Council’s recommendation may be accessed here and below. 

 

 Summary
The Council on Ethics recommends that Eramet SA be excluded from investment
by the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) due to an
unacceptable risk that the company is contributing to, or is itself responsible for,
serious environmental damage and gross violation of the human rights of
uncontacted indigenous people.
The Council’s assessment relates to Eramet’s participation in the joint venture PT
Weda Bay Nickel (WBN), which extracts nickel on the island of Halmahera in
Indonesia.
Eramet is an international mining and metals processing company which is listed
on the Euronext Paris stock exchange. At the close of 2024, the GPFG owned 0.74
per cent of the company’s shares, worth NOK 134 million.
Eramet acquired a stake in WBN in 2006 and currently holds a 38.9 per cent
indirect shareholding in the joint venture. Development of the mine commenced
in 2017 and it went into operation in 2019. The concession area extends across
450 km2. So far, 27 km2 has been developed. The mine has an expected lifespan
of 25 years. Eramet is its operator.
Mining operations will result in the deforestation of large areas of intact
rainforest. The concession area is part of a biodiversity hotspot and overlaps
with both a Key Biodiversity Area and an Endemic Bird Area. WBN’s own surveys
have identified the entire concession area as a critical habitat, in other words, an
area of high conservation value and importance for biodiversity, with many
endemic species. The Council attaches importance to the fact that each one of
these different classifications emphasises the area’s material contribution to
global biodiversity and the importance of its preservation.
WBN will implement measures to reduce the environmental impact of its
operations. The measures include, for example, “avoidance zones” and “offset
areas” both inside and outside of the concession area. WBN states that the goal
of these measures is to achieve a net positive outcome – in other words, a
measurably positive impact on biodiversity. Given that the area to be cleared of
forest has a high conservation value, it is not clear to the Council how a net gain
in biodiversity may be achieved in connection this project.
In this case, the risk of serious environmental damage is closely linked to the
rights of indigenous people. The deforestation and environmental damage
associated with to the mining operation could threaten the survival of the
O’Hongana Manyawa people, who are one of the last uncontacted indigenous
peoples in Indonesia.
Uncontacted indigenous people have themselves decided to live isolated from
the outside world. Contact with outsiders may have fatal consequences for the
group because they do not have immunity to diseases that are common in other
communities. The O’Hongana Manyawa people’s livelihood, way of life and
culture are based on the resources contained in the Halmahera Forest. Surveys
show that the territory of this group of indigenous people lies both inside and
outside of WBN’s concession area.
A decisive factor for the Council has been that deforestation and the
fragmentation of forest land as a result of mining operations will increase
substantially in the years ahead and that it will result in a corresponding
reduction in the O’Hongana Manyawa people’s territory. This encroachment on
the land they occupy could increase the risk of their coming into contact with
outsiders.
Eramet denies that uncontacted indigenous people live in or near its concession
area. The company points out that the latest investigations to which it has
contributed have found no evidence of this. The Council attaches greater weight
to the environmental impact assessment carried out in 2010, which found that
such groups were present in and around the concession area and that more
recent surveys have confirmed this. The Council would also like to point out that
mining operations will affect these groups even though they remain exclusively
outside the concession area.
The Council considers that WBN and Eramet are failing to exercise the necessary
due diligence to prevent their mining operations from causing significant and
irreversible harm to the environment and to people. The Council attaches
importance to the fact that isolated indigenous groups are among the most
vulnerable populations in the world, and that the O’Hongana Manyawa do not
have anywhere else to live than Halmahera’s rainforest. The Council considers
that the risk of Eramet contributing to serious environmental damage and gross
human rights violations will remain unacceptable for as long as the joint
venture’s activities lead to the loss of large swathes of intact rainforest and the
territory of uncontacted indigenous people is not protected.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Matters considered by the Council 1
1.1.1Environmental damage 3
1.1.2The rights of indigenous peoples 4
1.2 Sources 6
2 Background 6
2.1 About Weda Bay Nickel (WBN) 6
2.2 The ecology of the concession area 11
2.2.1Cumulative environmental damage 12
2.3 Indigenous people living in voluntary isolation 12
3 The Council’s findings 14
3.1 Environmental damage 14
3.1.1Deforestation 15
3.1.2Impact on biodiversity 15
3.2 Impact on indigenous people 17
4 Information provided by the company 21
5 The Council’s assessment 24
6 Recommendation 26
1
1 Introduction
The Council on Ethics for the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global
(GPFG) has assessed the Fund’s investment in Eramet SA1 against both the
human rights and the environmental criteria in the Guidelines for Observation
and Exclusion of Companies from the Government Pension Fund Global (the
ethical guidelines).2 The Council’s assessment relates to the Weda Bay Nickel
mine in Indonesia, its deforestation of intact rainforest and the consequences
this will have for biodiversity and uncontacted indigenous people.
Eramet is a multinational mining and metal processing company that is listed on
the Euronext Paris stock exchange. Eramet’s products include nickel, lithium,
manganese and mineral salt.3 The company has operations in 15 countries,
including Norway, the USA and Indonesia.
At the close of 2024, the GPFG owned 0.74 per cent of the company’s shares,
worth NOK 134 million.
1.1 Matters considered by the Council
The Council has assessed the GPFG’s investment in Eramet SA against two
criteria set out in section 4 of the ethical guidelines, which states that:
“Companies may be excluded or placed under observation if there is an
unacceptable risk that the company contributes to or is responsible for:
a) serious or systematic human rights violations
[…]
e) severe environmental damage
[…]”
The Council’s assessment relates to Eramet’s participation in the nickel mine
located in Weda Bay on the island of Halmahera in Indonesia (see Fig. 1) 4, which
is owned and operated by PT Weda Bay Nickel (WBN). WBN’s concession area
1 Issuer ID: 153771
2 Guidelines for Observation and Exclusion of Companies from the Government Pension
Fund Global:
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/9d68c55c272c41e99f0bf45d24397d8c/2022.
09.05_gpfg_guidelines_observation_exclusion.pdf.
3 Eramet’s website: https://www.eramet.com/en/group/.
4 WBN’s website: About us - Weda Bay Nickel
2
consists primarily of intact rainforest, which is also inhabited by indigenous
people living in voluntary isolation.5
In previous cases,6 the Council has taken the view that companies may be said to
contribute to norm violations covered by the GPFG’s ethical guidelines if they
clear areas of intact rainforest or impact the survival of uncontacted indigenous
people.7
Pursuant to the ethical guidelines, the norm violations must be ongoing or there
must be an unacceptable risk of future norm violations. When assessing the risk
of future norm violations, the Council accords weight to the way a company has
responded when norm violations have been discovered, and what the company
has done to prevent their reoccurrence.
The Council is aware that WBN has been accused of impairing the livelihoods and
infringing the land rights of local communities around Weda Bay, and of failing to
pay adequate compensation. The Council has not assessed these allegations in
further detail.
5 Subsequently also referred to as uncontacted indigenous people or isolated
indigenous people.
6 See, the Council’s recommendations to exclude Halcyon Agri Corp Ltd:
https://etikkradet.no/halcyon-agri-corp-ltd-2/; as well as Repsol S.A. and Reliance
Industries Ltd: https://etikkradet.no/repsol-s-a-and-reliance-industries-limited/.
7 In this recommendation, the terms indigenous people living in voluntary isolation,
uncontacted indigenous people and isolated indigenous people are used
synonymously.
3
Fig. 1 The North Maluku islands and the Central Halmahera Regency are marked in red. Weda Bay
Nickel is located in the Central Halmahera Regency.
1.1.1 Environmental damage
In previous recommendations relating to serious environmental damage, the
Council has attached importance to the scale of the damage, whether it causes
irreversible or long-term harm, whether national laws or international norms
have been violated, and what the company has done to prevent or rectify the
damage.
The Council refers to the fact that in its summary of what is known about the
global status of biodiversity, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) reports that 25 per cent of known
plant and animal species are threatened with extinction.8 If we continue with
‘business as usual’, this figure will rise increasingly rapidly in the years ahead. The
Council further refers to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
(GBF) from 2022,9 and attaches importance to the goal of halting the human-
8 IPBES (2019): Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E.
S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (editors). IPBES secretariat, Bonn,
Germany. 1148 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673
9 The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF): https://www.cbd.int/gbf
4
caused extinction of species known to be endangered and reducing to near zero
the loss of important areas of nature and ecosystems by 2030.10 The GBF also
establishes an expectation that financial institutions will take responsibility for
helping to reduce the loss of nature.11
Also of relevance for this assessment is the recognition by the 2024 United
Nations Biodiversity Conference (CBD COP16) of the role of indigenous people
and local communities in preserving biodiversity and contributing to its
sustainable use, and the establishment of a new, permanent body which aims to
ensure that indigenous people are seen and heard in the effort to achieve all the
goals set out in the GBF.12
International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard for Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources (PS6)
The IFC’s Environmental and Social Performance Standards are internationally
recognised norms for how companies should manage environmental and social
risks relating to their business operations.13 The IFC standard for biodiversity
conservation (PS6) provides guidelines for how companies can manage and
mitigate the adverse impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services that their
operations cause. Among other things, companies must apply a hierarchy of
mitigation measures when planning projects, in order to minimise their harm to
biodiversity. This mitigation hierarchy involves a stepwise approach, which is
used when planning activities that may harm nature. First and foremost, efforts
must be made to avoid damage, then limit it where possible. Where damage is
unavoidable, nature must be restored. As a last resort, any residual damage
must be offset. This latter may, for example, mean deliberately setting aside
areas for the preservation of biodiversity (biodiversity offsets).

 1.1.2 The rights of indigenous peoples
When assessing what qualifies as serious or systematic human rights abuses, the
Council relies on internationally recognised conventions and authoritative
interpretations thereof.
Although international human rights conventions are binding on states not
companies, companies may be said to contribute to human rights abuses. When
assessing companies’ contributions to such abuses, the Council presumes that
10 The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) target 1.
11 The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) target 15.
12 Biodiversity COP 16: Important Agreements Reached Towards making "Peace with
Nature” | Convention on Biological Diversity: https://www.cbd.int/article/agreement-
reached-cop-16.
13 IFC PS6, 2012: https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2010/2012-ifc-performance-
standard-6-en.pdf.
5
there must be a link between the company’s business operations and the norm
violations concerned. The Council also presumes that the company must have
either actively contributed to the norm violations or known about them without
having taken steps to prevent them.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples from 200714
and ILO Convention No. 16915 concern the fundamental rights of the world’s
indigenous and tribal peoples (in the following referred to collectively as
indigenous people) and establish minimum standards for safeguarding the
survival of the world’s indigenous peoples and their dignity, welfare and cultural
practices. Indigenous people’s rights build on existing universal human rights, as
laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).16
ILO Convention No. 169 establishes the collective right of indigenous peoples to
determine their cultural and economic development. It establishes indigenous
people’s right to decide their own developmental priorities (Article 7), recognises
indigenous people’s collective cultural, spiritual and economic ties to their lands
(Article 13) and establishes indigenous people’s rights of ownership and
possession of lands which they have traditionally occupied in pursuit of their
livelihoods and traditional activities (Article 14).17 The right to self-determination
also implies the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation, and “any action
which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or
resources.”18
Indonesia has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169.
In this case, the Council has also found guidance in UN guidelines for the
protection of indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation and recently
contacted indigenous peoples.19 For indigenous people living in isolation, the
14 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.
15 ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples:
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_COD
E:C169.
16 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.
17 CIDH (2013), Pueblos indígenas en aislamiento voluntário y contacto inicial en las
Americas, p. 19, para 58: https://www.oas.org/es/cidh/indigenas/docs/pdf/informe-
pueblos-indigenas-aislamiento-voluntario.pdf.
18 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Article 8.2 and 8.2 b).
19 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 2012, Directrices de Protección
para los Pueblos Indígenas en Aislamiento y en Contacto Inicial de la Región
Amazónica, el Gran Chaco y la Región Oriental de Paraguay : resultado de las consultas
6
right to self-determination means absolute respect for their decision to remain
isolated. Activities linked to the extraction of natural resources should not take
place in areas in which uncontacted indigenous people live, or should be
modified to safeguard their rights to their own lands. Isolated indigenous
peoples are especially vulnerable groups which companies are expected to treat
with extraordinary care and due diligence.
1.2 Sources
This recommendation is based on publicly available information concerning
WBN’s activities on the island of Halmahera, Indonesia. For example, the
organisation Survival International has conducted extensive studies of the
indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation, and how they are impacted by
resource extraction. A published version of the environmental impact
assessment for Weda Bay Nickel (ANDAL) has also been consulted.
For a period in February/March 2024, Eramet gave the Council on Ethics time-
limited, eyes-only access to documents relating to biodiversity and social
conditions. The Council has also held several meetings with company
representatives, and Eramet has provided some information relating to this
matter. Eramet has also commented on two separate draft recommendations to
exclude it from investment by the GPFG.
2 Background
2.1 About Weda Bay Nickel (WBN)
Eramet and the Chinese company Tsingshan Holding Group have established the
joint venture Strand Minerals in Indonesia. 20 Strand Minerals owns 90 per cent
of PT Weda Bay Nickel (WBN). Indonesia’s state-owned company PT Andam owns
the remaining 10 per cent. Eramet owns 43 per cent of Strand Minerals, while
Tsingshan Holding Group owns 57 per cent. Eramet therefore has an indirect
shareholding in WBN of 38.7 per cent. The GPFG has no investments in
Tsingshan Holding Group.
realizadas por ACNUDH en la region : Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Perú
y Venezuela:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wF4Z0tWMALkGvn5GAonZHHv4oqkp8cTb/view?pli=1.
20 Eramet, 2023 Annual Report: https://www.eramet.com/en/news/2024/04/eramet-
rapport-integre-2023/.
7
WBN’s business operations include a ferro-nickel smelting works and associated
infrastructure, and a nickel mine. WBN is currently the world’s largest nickel
mine, producing 36,300 tonnes of nickel ore in 2023.21
Eramet began prospecting for nickel in Halmahera in the late 1990s. 22 The
company acquired a stake in WBN in 2006, although mine development did not
begin until 2017. The mine went into operation in 2019.23 With respect to
operational accountability, Weda Bay Nickel states on its website that “Under a
partnership agreement established in 2017, Eramet oversees PT Weda Bay Nickel’s
operations, focusing on implementing mining and ESG best practices in collaboration
with Tsingshan, which manages the metallurgical activities and infrastructure
development.”24 According to the company’s annual report, Eramet is the mine’s
operator.25
WBN’s concession area extends over 450 km2 (see Fig. 2). 26 The mine is expected
to have a total lifespan of 25 years. Since mining commenced in 2019, around 27
km2 have been developed.27
According to WBN’s environmental impact assessment (EIA), eight different
deposits (pits) will be mined during the project period (see Fig. 3).28 This includes
several smaller deposits located in the lowland area (250–500 m above sea level),
close to the processing plant on the coast, and several larger deposits located
further inside the forest (800–1,000 m above sea level).
21 Weda Bay Nickel’s website: https://www.wedabaynickel.com/en/weda-bay-nickel/our-
business/operations/.
22 Eramet: The success story of Weda Bay Nickel. The website is no longer available on
Eramet’s website, but may be found at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230901180755/https://www.eramet.com/en/group/the-
success-story-of-weda-bay-nickel/.
23 Eramet’s website: https://www.eramet.com/en/group/the-success-story-of-weda-bay-
nickel/.
24 Weda Bay Nickel’s website: About us - Weda Bay Nickel.
25 Eramet Integrated Report 2023, p. 4: https://www.eramet.com/en/investors/annual-
report/ . Here, Eramet discloses that it “operates the two largest mines in the world”, in
Gabon and Indonesia.
26 Also referred to as the Contract of Work.
27 Letter from Eramet to the Council on Ethics, dated 24 January 2025.
28 Weda Bay Nickel, ANDAL, 2009, Chapter 2, p. 32.
8
Fig. 2: Map showing Weda Bay Nickel’s location in Halmahera. The concession area is indicated by a
dark-blue line. The map was sourced from the ANDAL EIA.
9
Fig. 3a is from the ANDAL EIA and shows the various areas (marked as coloured fields9 which may be
exploited in the concession area (bounded by the dark-blue line).29 The map is from 2008 and provides
a conservative estimate of the nickel deposits in the concession area. See Fig. 3b for an updated
version.
29 Weda Bay Nickel ANDAL 2009, Chapter 2, p. 25:
https://www.miga.org/sites/default/files/archive/Documents/WedaBay_EIA_ANDAL.pdf.
10
Fig. 3b shows WBN’s concession area, as in Fig. 3a. However, the image at the bottom right of the figure
shows updated information about the extent of its nickel reserves.30
30 Eramet’s website: https://www.eramet.com/en/eramet-group/sites/eramet-in-
indonesia/eramet-in-indonesia-facts-and-figure

 2.2 The ecology of the concession area
Halmahera is one of the Maluku islands, which is included in the Wallacea
Biodiversity Hotspot,31 one of 36 such “biodiversity hotspots” in the world.32
Biodiversity hotspots are considered to be among the most important areas for
biodiversity not only because they contain exceptional concentrations of
endemic species (species that are found nowhere else), but also because they
have lost more than 70 per cent of their original vegetation. In total, these areas
cover just 2.5 per cent of the Earth’s surface, yet contain a disproportionate
amount of the world’s species. The intact parts of these regions are therefore of
exceptionally high conservation value.
Halmahera is also included in the North Maluku Endemic Bird Area.33 Endemic bird
areas (EBA) are important for the conservation of bird species with a limited
range.34
Furthermore, WBN’s concession area overlaps the Dote - Kobe Key Biodiversity
Area.35 Key biodiversity areas (KBA) are extremely important for the conservation
of global biodiversity.36
A Critical Habitat Assessment (CHA)37 was performed in 2024 in connection with
the development of a Biodiversity Action Plan for WBN. The CHA identified the
31 Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund: https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-
hotspots/wallacea/species.
32 Myers, N., Mittermeier, R., Mittermeier, C. et al., Biodiversity hotspots for conservation
priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000): https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501; and
Mittermeier, Russell A., et al., "Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of
hotspots." Biodiversity hotspots: distribution and protection of conservation priority areas.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 3–22.
33 Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J. and Wege, D.C. 1998, Endemic Bird Areas of the
World. Priorities for biodiversity conservation. BirdLife Conservation Series 7. Cambridge:
BirdLife International.
34 BirdLife International’s definition of an EBA is: “an area of land that is important for
habitat based bird conservation because it contains habitats of restricted-range (ie. species
with the total historical ranges of less than 50,000 km2) bird species.” See:
https://datazone.birdlife.org/eba.
35 Dote - Kobe has been designated a KBA because it is the habitat of two endangered
species of bird. Factsheet for the Dote - Kobe Key Biodiversity Area:
https://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/site/factsheet/44870.
36 KBA: https://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/.
37 IFC PS6: “Critical habitats are areas with high biodiversity value, including (i) habitat of significant
importance to Critically Endangered and/or Endangered11 species; (ii) habitat of significant
importance to endemic and/or restricted-range species; (iii) habitat supporting globally significant
concentrations of migratory species and/or congregatory species; (iv) highly threatened and/or
12
entire concession area (also referred to as the Contract of Work) as a critical
habitat.38 Critical habitats are areas that are important for biodiversity. These
may be areas in which endemic or critically endangered species live. The IFC
standard for biodiversity provides guidelines for what companies must do when
they operate in areas considered to be critical habitats.
For example, projects in such areas must not harm the ecosystems which
underpin the area’s status as a critical habitat. They must not lead to a net
decrease in the global population of critically endangered or endangered species
over time, and a robust, systematic and long-term programme of biodiversity
monitoring and assessment must be integrated into the company’s environment
management system.
2.2.1 Cumulative environmental damage
Deforestation and the fragmentation of tropical rainforest for the purposes of
mining and industrial agriculture are increasing throughout Indonesia, although
with substantial variations between regions.39 There is expected to be a sharp
rise in the amount of deforestation and fragmentation caused by mining
operations in the North Maluku islands over the next 30 years. According to local
news sources, there are 26 mining concessions, covering a total of 576 km2, in
the central regions of Halmahera alone.40
The fact that WBN’s concession area is surrounded by other mining concessions
(as shown, for example, in Fig. 4), will have clear implications for the efficacy of
any mitigating measures with respect to biodiversity.
2.3 Indigenous people living in voluntary isolation
Indigenous people living in voluntary isolation are indigenous groups which do
not have regular contact with the rest of society and which have decided to live
in isolation from the world at large.41 An isolated group will often be the last
unique ecosystems; and/or (v) areas associated with key evolutionary processes.”:
https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2010/2012-ifc-performance-standard-6-en.pdf.
38 Letter from Eramet to the Council on Ethics, dated 13 November 2024.
39 Voigt, M., Supriatna, J., Deere, N. J., Kastanya, A., Mitchell, S. L., Rosa, I. M., ... &
Struebig, M. J. (2021). Emerging threats from deforestation and forest fragmentation in
the Wallacea centre of endemism. Environmental Research Letters, 16(9), 094048.
40 Indonesia Business Post (2024): https://indonesiabusinesspost.com/insider/ngo-asks-
government-to-restrict-mining-in-halmahera/.
41 One definition of this may be found in section 2 of Peru’s LEY Nº 28736: Ley para la
protección de pueblos indígenas u originarios en situación de aislamiento y en
situación de contacto inicial: http://www.spda.org.pe/portal/cd-
ambiental/documentos/LEY%20NO%2028736.htm.
13
remaining portion of a larger group which has had, or has sought, contact with
mainstream society.42 For uncontacted indigenous people, the right to self-
determination implies absolute respect for their desire to remain isolated.43
The decision to remain in isolation is often a survival strategy for a group living in
an extremely precarious situation. 44 Uncontacted indigenous people have no
immunity to common illnesses, and contact with outsiders will inevitably lead to
the introduction of diseases, with fatal consequences for the tribe.45 Based on
experiences from Brazil, it is estimated that the introduction of common
“Western” diseases will be the direct cause of death of between a third and a half
of an indigenous population in the first five years after first contact.46
Since it takes generations to develop herd immunity, people will continue to
sicken and die for many years after first contact has been established. Under
such circumstances, the group’s social structure disintegrates because its
collapse in size means that the tribe is unable to perform its traditional rituals
and tasks. This leads to hunger and malnutrition, which further weakens the
tribe’s resilience. Children are particularly vulnerable when the adults become
too weak to engage in hunting, fishing or gathering. There is also a risk of violent
conflicts between intruders and isolated indigenous peoples, when the size of
their territories is curtailed.47
42 Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo, Nenhum povo é uma ilha, in Instituto Socioambiental
(2019), Cercos e Resistências – Povos Indígenas Isolados na Amazônia Brasileira, pp.
12–13.
43 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2012, Directrices de Protección
para los Pueblos Indígenas en Aislamiento y en Contacto Inicial de la Región
Amazónica, el Gran Chaco y la Región Oriental de Paraguay : resultado de las consultas
realizadas por ACNUDH en la region : Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Perú
y Venezuela.
44 Organización del Tratado de Cooperación Amazonica (OTCA) (2018), Marco Estratégico
para la Protección de los Pueblos Indígenas en Aislamiento Voluntário y Contacto Inicial, p.
15: https://otca.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Marco-Estrategico-para-la-
Proteccion-de-los-PIACI.pdf
45 John Hemming, 2003, Die If You Must, provides a detailed description of the impact on
indigenous people in Brazil. See also Ministerio de Salud (Peru), 2003: Pueblos en
situación de extrema vulnerabilidad: El caso de los Nanti de la reserva territorial Kugapakori
Nahua, Rio Camisea, Cusco.
46 See, for example, Ribeiro, Darcy, 1996: Os Índios e a Civilização. - A integração dos
indígenas no Brasil moderno Cia. das Letras. It is assumed that 38 per cent of Brazil’s
indigenous people died as a result of introduced diseases between 1900 and 1957.
47 Huertas Castillo, Beatriz, 2004: Indigenous people living in voluntary isolation in Peru, pp.
82-83. IWGIA Document No 100- Copenhagen.
14
The survival of all isolated indigenous peoples depends wholly on the land in
which they live. Their way of life reflects the dynamics of the rainforest, with an
abundance of natural resources distributed across different ecosystems and
seasons. This requires large territories that can provide the diversity of resources
needed for the indigenous people’s health and wellbeing, and for their cultural
practices.48
To protect isolated indigenous groups and minimise the risk of unwanted
contact, the UN guidelines require the establishment of buffer zones around
their territories, with strict controls on who may enter and what activities may be
carried out.49 Environmental destruction may put isolated indigenous peoples
under such severe territorial pressure that contact becomes their only realistic
way of obtaining food and the wherewithal to sustain life.50
3 The Council’s findings
3.1 Environmental damage
Nickel mining generates a number of adverse environmental impacts.51 The
nickel deposits are spread thinly in the ground. The forest cover must be
removed completely in the areas where extraction takes place. The development
of associated infrastructure opens up forest areas that have hitherto been
difficult to access. This may lead to increased migration to the area which, in
turn, puts further pressure on the forest. Furthermore, the risk of soil erosion
48 Huertas Castillo, Beatriz (2007), Autodeterminación y protección, in International Work
Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), Pueblos indígenas en aislamiento voluntario y
contacto inicial en la Amazonía y el Gran Chaco, p. 44:
https://www.iwgia.org/images/publications/0313_PUEBLOS_INDIGENAS_EN_AISLAMIEN
TO.pdf.
49 The UN’s guidelines on the protection of indigenous people living in voluntary
isolation and in initial contact (see footnote 19), p. 16, para. 55.
50 Fundação Nacional dos Povos Indígenas (FUNAI) (1988), Portaria do Presidente PP no.
1047/88, p. 12: https://www.gov.br/funai/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/publicacoes/atos-
normativos/arquivos/pdf/Port104729081988.pdf.
51 Climate Rights International, Indonesia Report (2024): https://cri.org/reports/nickel-
unearthed/.
15
increases after deforestation. Mining operations increase the risk of water and
soil pollution from slag heaps and processing facilities.
3.1.1 Deforestation
Intact tropical rainforest is considered indispensable for the preservation of
biodiversity.52 WBN’s concession area consists of mangrove and freshwater
swamp forest, lowland forest and low mountain forest.53 In the 2009
environmental impact assessment (EIA), the total area due to be deforested over
the course of the nickel mine’s lifespan was put at 42 km2, with an annual
deforestation rate of 6 km2.54
The EIA also reported that further areas will be deforested for topsoil storage
sites, tailings dams and other support-related infrastructure. Since the start of
mining operations in 2019, 27 km2 has been developed. The company states
that areas no longer used for mining will be restored on an ongoing basis. So far,
an area of 0.5 km2 has been replanted.55
3.1.2 Impact on biodiversity
Deforestation leads to fragmentation and the destruction of plant and animal
habitats. In keeping with the majority of intact areas of dense rainforest, the
biodiversity to be found in large portions of Halmahera remains poorly studied,
and the discovery of species new to science is regularly reported.56 Our
knowledge of the biodiversity and ecological interactions that would be lost
through deforestation is therefore limited.
52 Gibson, L., Lee, T., Koh, L. et al., Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical
biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011): https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10425.
53 Weda Bay, ANDAL, Chapter III, p. 92:
https://www.miga.org/sites/default/files/archive/Documents/WedaBay_EIA_ANDAL.pdf
54 Weda Bay, ANDAL, Chapter V, p. 36:
https://www.miga.org/sites/default/files/archive/Documents/WedaBay_EIA_ANDAL.pdf.
55 Letter from Eramet to the Council on Ethics, dated 24 January 2025.
56 See, for example, Ziegler, T., Böhme, W. and Schmitz, A. (2007), A new species of
the Varanus indicus group (Squamata, Varanidae) from Halmahera Island, Moluccas:
morphological and molecular evidence. Zool. Reihe, 83: 109–
119: https://doi.org/10.1002/mmnz.200600034, Ardi, Wisnu H., et al., "Studies on
Begonia (Begoniceae) of the Molucca Islands I: two new species from Halmahera,
Indonesia and an updated description of Begonia holosericea", Reinwardtia 14.1 (2014):
19–26. Keim, A. P., W. Sujarwo, and D. Sahroni, "A new species of Freycinetia
Gaudich.(Pandanaceae; Freycinetoideae) from the island of Halmahera, the Moluccas,
Indonesia." Blumea-Biodiversity, Evolution and Biogeography of Plants 67.2 (2022): 129–
131.
16
WBN’s entire concession area has been identified as a critical habitat, i.e. an area
of high conservation value and important for biodiversity. 57 Both the flora and
fauna of the Maluku islands comprise a great many endemic species. Almost half
of the palm species recorded in Halmahera are endemic to the Maluku islands.58
Many of the bird species are also endemic. The only recorded habitat of the
Sombre Kingfisher (Todiramphus funebris)59 is, for example, located in
Halmahera. The island is also home to several endangered species, such as the
White Cockatoo (Cacatua alba)60 and the Moluccan Megapode (Eulipoa wallacei).61
BirdLife International considers loss of forest cover to the be greatest threat to
birdlife in this region.62 By definition, endemic species inhabit a restricted area
and are particularly vulnerable since they live nowhere else.
The project’s EIA reports that there will be thousands of workers on site at all
times throughout the project’s lifespan.63 Without targeted measures, this could
intensify pressure on local fauna, through poaching and the illegal capture of
species for the pet trade – both locally and internationally.64, 65
57 Letter from Eramet to the Council on Ethics, dated 13 November 2024.
58 Abdo, Melissa E., "A Floristic Study of Halmahera, Indonesia Focusing on Palms
(Arecaceae) and Their Seed Dispersal" (2017). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations,
3355.https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/3355.
59 BirdLife International. 2022. Todiramphus funebris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2022: e.T22683387A217398758: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2022-
2.RLTS.T22683387A217398758.en. (Accessed on 14 November 2024.)
60 BirdLife International. 2021. Cacatua alba. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2021: e.T22684789A178092137: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-
3.RLTS.T22684789A178092137.en. (Accessed on 14 November 2024.)
61 BirdLife International. 2021. Eulipoa wallacei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2021: e.T22678632A195133155: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-
3.RLTS.T22678632A195133155.en. (Accessed on 14 November 2024.)
62 BirdLife International, BirdLife International (2024) Endemic Bird Area factsheet:
Northern Maluku. Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/eba/factsheet/171 on 14 November 2024.
63 Weda Bay, ANDAL, 2009, Chapter III. “Manpower recruitment for the entire Operations
Stage will provide employment for around 3,000 workers.”
64 Setiyani, Ayu Diyah, and Mukhtar Amin Ahmadi. "An overview of illegal parrot trade in
Maluku and North Maluku Provinces." Forest and Society 4.1 (2020): 48–60.
65 Sy, E.Y., Raymundo, J.J.G. and Chng, S.C.L. (2022). Farmed or poached? The trade of live
Indonesian bird species in the Philippines. TRAFFIC, Southeast Asia Regional Office,
Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/19606/id-
ph_bird-r5-rgb_compressed.pdf.
17
3.2 Impact on indigenous people
There has been widespread local opposition to the WBN project since its early
planning phase.66 Objections have come especially from the local communities
and indigenous groups who live in the forest and who have been concerned
about the project’s potential impact on their way of life and culture. A number of
reports have pointed to the risk of human rights abuses in connection with the
mining operation.67
The O’Hongana Manyawa indigenous people
The O’Hongana Manyawa people (the People of the Forest), also known as the
Forest Tobelo, belong to the last now-living nomadic indigenous groups in
Indonesia. They live only in the Halmahera rainforest. Of the approximately 3,500
individuals who belong to the O’Hongana Manyawa people, it is estimated that
some 500 live in voluntary isolation, with no permanent contact with outsiders.
Some recently contacted family groups continue to live as nomads in the
rainforest.68
They are a hunter-gatherer people, who live off the resources available in the
forest. Their way of life, culture and religious beliefs are deeply embedded in the
rainforest. According to their beliefs, trees have souls and feelings just like
people, and trees are fundamental to their rituals surrounding birth and death.69
Many of the O’Hongana Manyawa people were contacted by the authorities and
missionaries in the 1970s to 1990s, and became permanently settled in villages.
66 See, for example, Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman (IFC) (2011), OMBUDSMAN
ASSESSMENT REPORT Complaint Regarding the MIGA PT Weda Bay Nickel Project (#8113)
Halmahera Island, North Maluku, Indonesia: https://www.cao-
ombudsman.org/sites/default/files/downloads/WBN_Assessment_FINAL_with_appendices_ENG.
pdf.
67 See, for example, Climate Rights International, Indonesia Report (2024):
https://cri.org/reports/nickel-unearthed/; Survival International:
https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/honganamanyawa; and Marshall, S.,
Balaton-Chrimes, S., Pidani, O., 2013, Access to Justice for Communities Affected by the
PT Weda Bay Nickel Mine – Interim Report: https://media.business-
humanrights.org/media/documents/files/media/weda-bay-public-report-oct2013.pdf.
68 Survival International 2024, Driven to the edge: How the demand for electric cars is
destroying uncontacted Indigenous people’s lives and lands in Indonesia:
https://www.survivalinternational.org/documents/DrivenToTheEdge/
69 Survival International 2024.
18
Although outbreaks of disease and many deaths were reported when they were
first contacted, no statistics are available on the actual numbers concerned.70
Territory
According to Survival International, which has endeavoured to map the
indigenous people’s territory, there are at least three O’Hongana Manyawa
groups currently living in isolation. They roam the forests in the central, eastern
and northern parts of Halmahera, including in Eramet’s concession area.71 “All of
these wider groupings have territories which overlap with the WBN concession,
meaning that they actively live in, hunt, gather and depend on these areas for their
survival.”72 It has been estimated that their territory covers an area of just under
3,290 km2 (328,900 hectares). As can be seen in Fig. 4, the concession areas
controlled by WBN and other companies overlap the areas through which these
indigenous peoples migrate. However, they have no formal land rights and the
authorities have implemented no measures to protect them.
Mining-related deforestation is a direct threat to indigenous people’s existence.
When forest is removed, it naturally becomes more difficult for indigenous
peoples to find food and undisturbed places to set up camp. Witnessing the
destruction of the rainforest, which they consider to be the home of their
ancestors, may also leave them feeling emotionally traumatised. In addition,
deforestation could increase the risk of contact.73
70 Survival International 2024. The report refers to an estimated 50–60 O’Hongana
Manyawa people in one small area alone who died from disease within two months of
being contacted and forcibly settled.
71 Marshall, S., Balaton-Chrimes, S., Pidani, O., 2013, Access to Justice for Communities
Affected by the PT Weda Bay Nickel Mine – Interim Report:
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2343957.
72 Survival International has worked with contacted O’Hongana Manyawa and with local
and international experts to map the boundaries of the uncontacted indigenous
groups’ territories. An important resource are the more than 40 observations that have
been documented and plotted on the map, all of which have taken place after WBN
commenced its activities in the area.
73 Survival International, 2024.
observations that have
been documented and plotted on the map, all of which have taken place after WBN
commenced its activities in the area.
73 Survival International, 2024.
19
Fig. 4: Map showing the territory of the uncontacted O’Hongana Manyawa (marked in grey) and the
concession areas in which mining is permitted. Eramet’s concession area is marked in red. For the
safety of the indigenous people concerned, the map is deliberately approximate. Source: Survival
International
Eramet’s own investigations
Eramet has been aware of the presence of the O’Hongana Manyawa since it
began exploring the concession area in the late 1990s.74
The EIA conducted in connection with prospecting and mine development in
2010 states that: “A number of small groups each based around a single family are
known to inhabit the inland forests of Halmahera. Collectively known as the Forest
Tobelo, these groups are nomadic, depending on hunting and gathering for
subsistence, and occasionally visiting lower elevations to harvest sago. Members of
74 Under the heading “The remarkable success story of Weda Bay Nickel” Eramet
describes the first exploration activities in the concession area in the interior of the
Halmahera Island thus: “…In these far-flung lands live the Forest Tobelo (O'Hongana
Manyawa), small nomadic communities who, research suggests, either fled the Dutch
colonies in the seventeenth century, or took refuge in the forest during World War II, when
the Japanese occupied the region.” Eramet has taken down the page, but it is still
available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230901180755/https://www.eramet.com/en/group/the-
success-story-of-weda-bay-nickel/.
20
the groups avoid contact with other inhabitants of Halmahera [...] It can be expected
that they will largely avoid contact with project operations.”75
In 2013, WBN commissioned a consultant to study the indigenous groups. The
consultant’s report confirmed that there were several large groups of
uncontacted indigenous people in the rainforest and that the territories of some
of these groups overlapped with Eramet’s concession area.76 A further study
performed in 2023 found that two nomadic groups which have previously been
contacted (known as the “Bokumu Group”) have a temporary camp inside the
concession area.77 Three other groups live outside the concession area.
According to the survey, these depend on the forest resources inside the
concession area to only a small extent. Around 20–30 families, called the “Dote
Group”, inhabit the Akesangaji Forest Unit, which lies approximately 10 km from
the eastern boundary of WBN’s concession area.78
Survival International’s investigations show that the Dote Group has several
hundred members, many of them uncontacted. The group also uses the areas
around Kao Rahai and Tofu Blewen, which lie inside the concession area. Much
of the information about uncontacted indigenous peoples has been collected via
conversations with contacted groups, such as the Bokumu Group. The study that
WBN commissioned in 2023 proposed the settlement of these groups through
the construction of houses, the creation of meeting places, the establishment of
a school and the implementation of other measures to facilitate their interaction
with the outside world.79
None of the groups concerned have given their free, prior and informed consent
to the mining operations that are to take place within their territories. Nor is the
Bokumu Group said to be in favour of the proposed settlement of the groups or
75 ERM, 2010: Eramet-PT Weda Bay Nickel Exploration and Development ESIA:
https://www.miga.org/sites/default/files/archive/Documents/WedaBay_Explorationand
Development_ESIA.pdf.
76 Referenced in Survival International 2024 and Canopeé, Les minerais de la transition
énergétique, une nouvelle menace sur les forêts: https://www.canopee.ong/le-
media/enquetes/les-minerais-une-nouvelle-menace-sur-les-forets/. “To the east of the
WBN CoW area, a large group of Forest Tobelo (estimated to be about 30 families) lives in
the forest interior…These groups appear to be living in voluntary isolation and avoid contact
with outsiders.” It is also claimed that the consultant raised the issue of whether the
concept of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is applicable when a large
proportion of the indigenous people do not wish to be contacted.
77 Around 3.5 km from WBN’s Kao Rahai camp.
78 Letter from Eramet to the Council on Ethics, dated 26 April 2024.
79 Referenced in Survival International, 2024.
21
of mining operations in general because this would change their way of life in the
forest and reduce their ability to fend for themselves.80
In 2019 and 2020, relatives of the uncontacted O’Hongana Manyawa groups
protested against the Weda Bay project because the expansion of mining
operations is increasingly threatening the territory and food resources of the
groups which live in the forest.81 The demonstrations in 2020 took place when
WBN opened up a new area for mining.82
4 Information provided by the company
The Council on Ethics has communicated with Eramet on several occasions
between 2023 and 2025. Eramet has provided information on the assessment
processes the company is currently engaged in, but has only to a small extent
shared the reports or results of the investigations carried out. In February 2024,
the company was sent a first draft of a recommendation to exclude it from
investment by the GPFG. The most recent draft recommendation was sent to the
company in December 2024. Eramet has submitted comments on both
occasions.
Eramet considers that the EIA from 2009, to which the recommendation refers, is
outdated. The Council has asked Eramet for updated information about both the
environment and biodiversity, and about the status of the indigenous people
living there. In February 2024, Eramet granted time-limited, eyes-only access to a
number of documents, including further studies of biodiversity. The studies
largely confirm the existence of the same natural phenomena as were identified
in the EIA from 2009. WBN also commissioned a field study relating to the
O’Hongana Manyawa people in 2023. In March 2024, the Council was granted
restricted eyes-only access to a summary of this study.
80 Survival International, 2024.
81 Brook, J. 2023, ‘They Will Die’: Tesla-Linked Mining Project Is Devastating One of the
World’s Uncontacted Peoples, Vice News:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxj8wm/uncontacted-tribe-threatened-indonesia; and
Rushdi, M., Sutomo, A., Ginting, P., Risdianto, Masri, M. Anwar; Fast and Furious for
Future: the Dark Side of Electric Vehicle Battery Components and their Social and
Ecological Impacts in Indonesia; and The Jakarta Post, November 2023, North Maluku
tribe fights to protect forest from nickel mining:
https://www.thejakartapost.com/indonesia/2023/11/03/north-maluku-tribe-fights-to-
protect-forest-from-nickel-mining.html.
82 Environmental Justice Atlas, Indonesia Weda Bay Industrial Park:
https://ejatlas.org/conflict/indonesia-weda-bay-industrial-park-iwip-north-maluku-
indonesia.
22
In its reply to the Council, Eramet emphasised that it behaves as a responsible
minority shareholder in WBN.83 In accordance with its shareholder agreement,
the company performs “annual technical reviews, during which we take an active
role and consistently intervene to prevent potential norm violations”. Due diligence
assessments are performed in order to ensure that “PT Weda Bay Nickel's studies
and protocols comply, among others, with environmental protection standards and
respect the rights of the O’Hongana Manyawa community. When Eramet becomes
aware of any norm violations or potential violations, we immediately demand
explanations and corrective actions from PT Weda Bay Nickel at the Strand Minerals
board.”
The company further states that WBN, under Eramet’s leadership, has pledged to
comply with the Responsible Mining standard established by the Initiative for
Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), with the aim of becoming certified in
2025.84 With respect to biodiversity, this standard requires, among other things,
the application of the mitigation hierarchy and that priority be given to avoiding
the loss of biodiversity. The standard also requires that an operator company not
engage in prospecting or the development of new mines in areas where
indigenous people live in voluntary isolation.85
Eramet states that “In 2024, PT Weda Bay Nickel devised a comprehensive strategy
for biodiversity offsetting, including methods to measure losses and gains, and is
actively developing solutions and programs aimed at achieving net positive gains.
Additionally, PT Weda Bay Nickel updated its rehabilitation plan to align with IRMA
requirements.”86 Furthermore, a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been drawn
up, which aims “to achieve and account for ‘net gain’”. The company also states
that in 2023 and 2024, WBN “conducted surveys to update the assessment of critical
habitats”. The company points out that no forest designated as “conservation
forest” is included in the concession area.
With respect to the workers who migrate to the area to work at WBN, these are
accommodated in existing housing areas and villages. WBN has initiated the
development of a “population influx management plan, which is expected to be
finalized by Q1 2025”.
Eramet reports that it conducts risk assessments in accordance with French
legislation on due diligence and has identified impacts on indigenous people as a
83 Letter from Eramet to the Council on Ethics, dated 24 January 2025.
84 Eramet’s website: https://www.eramet.com/en/news/2023/05/eramet-accelere-son-
engagement-rse-avec-le-lancement-de-son-premier-audit-par-linitiative-for-
responsible-mining-assurance/.
85 IRMA standard for responsible mining: https://responsiblemining.net/.
86 Letter from Eramet to the Council on Ethics, dated 24 January 2025.
23
serious risk for WBN. According to Eramet, agreements concerning free, prior,
informed consent and continuous consultations and discussions with members
of the local communities will reduce this risk.87
Eramet asserts that none of the studies that have been carried out show
evidence that “any of O’Hongana Manyawa living in or close to its concession are in
voluntary isolation”.88
Eramet further discloses that the indigenous population study carried out in
2023 confirmed “that none of the Tobelo groups that roam within or in the nearby of
the CoW live in voluntary isolation”. The company considers that Survival
International has misinterpreted WBNs’ data, “which in no way indicates the
presence of uncontacted members of the O’Hongana Manyawa”, and that, according
to the 2023 study, there was considerable uncertainty about the presence of
these groups “within the concession perimeter”.
On its website, Eramet reports that the company “interacts with small nomadic
groups (known as the Forest Tobelo) living in the interior of the island, who have
developed lifestyles and cultural practices distinct from the other inhabitants”.89
Eramet states that WBN is engaged in a dialogue with the Bokumu group, which
has been contacted, and that a protocol has been drawn up for how its
interaction with these groups should be managed. With respect to the
consultations, “specific engagement strategies” have been drawn up to ensure
respectful and effective interaction about future mining plans, “including potential
no-go zones and consideration for traditional practices”. Furthermore, the “Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP), which guides WBN workers and subcontractors'
engagement with the Tobelo community, focusing on avoiding contact in culturally
sensitive areas, [..] being updated”. Eramet has also engaged five “Tobelo speaking
guides to facilitate engagement with the Bokum Group”. These guides will
communicate the mine’s plans with respect to its operations and promote
dialogue concerning the indigenous group’s wishes and needs.90
Eramet has asked third-party experts to assess the studies that have been
undertaken so far, and advise on the consultation processes. This work is
scheduled for completion during the first half of 2025 and could lead to new
87 Eramet Human Rights 2023: https://www.eramet.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/12/2023-12-Eramet-Human-Rights-report.pdf
88 Letter from Eramet to the Council on Ethics, dated 24 January 2025.
89 Eramet’s website: https://www.eramet.com/en/activities/nickel/, under Ongoing
dialogue with stakeholders in Indonesia.
90 Letter from Eramet to the Council on Ethics, dated 13 November 2024.
24
“engagement protocols which may recommend obtaining their Free, Prior and
Informed Consent (FPIC)”.91
5 The Council’s assessment
On the basis of the information available, the Council has assessed whether
there is an unacceptable risk that Eramet is both contributing to serious
environmental damage and infringing the rights of indigenous peoples through
participation in the joint venture Weda Bay Nickel in Halmahera, Indonesia.
Eramet and the companies Tsingshan Holding Group and PT Andam are partners
in a joint venture whose purpose is to extract nickel. Eramet has an indirect
shareholding of 38.7 per cent in the joint venture and is the mine’s operator. The
Council attaches importance to the fact that Eramet has been involved in WBN
since 2006 and has played an important role in the mine’s development and
operation. The Council attaches no importance to the fact that Eramet is a
minority shareholder in a joint venture and considers that the company, through
its shareholding and its role, has a significant influence over the business and
therefore also contributes to the impact of its activities.
With respect to environmental damage, the Council’s starting point is that the
removal of intact tropical rainforest and loss of habitats are among the gravest
threats to biodiversity worldwide. The Council considers that the international
agreement to preserve biodiversity has been reinforced by the Kunming-
Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s goal of reducing the loss of nature and
species and its expectation that companies will play their part in this effort.
The Council’s inquiries have shown that Weda Bay Nickel’s concession area lies in
an area of exceptionally rich biodiversity. The area is included in a biodiversity
hotspot and overlaps with a Key Biodiversity Area and an Endemic Bird Area. The
company’s own assessments classify the entire concession area as a critical
habitat. The fact that each and every one of these different classifications
underlines the area’s significant contribution to global biodiversity and the
importance of its preservation carries weight with the Council. A great many
endemic species live on the island of Halmahera, most of which has not yet been
fully surveyed with respect to its biodiversity. The Council attaches importance to
the fact that place-specific species are especially vulnerable to loss of habitat and
that there is a material risk that species may become extinct before anyone has
had the opportunity to formally describe them.
91 Letter from Eramet to the Council on Ethics, dated 24 January 2025.
25
The Council notes that the measures which Eramet aims to implement in order
to reduce the project’s environmental impact remain at the assessment and
planning stages – more than five years after mining operations got underway.
The measures include so-called “avoidance zones” and “offset areas” both inside
and outside the concession area. However, the company has not shared any
details that would enable the Council to assess what this entails in practice.
Although Eramet considers that “offsetting is deemed necessary to achieve ‘net
biodiversity gain’”, it remains unclear to the Council how the planned
deforestation may be offset in ways that will actually increase biodiversity, given
the area’s high conservation value.
In the Council’s view, it is unlikely that the measures that the company has
announced will be sufficient to reduce the risk of serious and irreversible
environmental damage ensuing from the development of a mine in an area of
such high conservation value. In this case, the risk of serious environmental
damage is closely linked to the rights of indigenous people, since the
deforestation and environmental damage deriving from mining operations could
also threaten the survival of uncontacted groups of the O’Hongana Manyawa
people.
When assessing whether the company is contributing to the abuse of indigenous
people’s rights, the Council attaches importance to studies and surveys that have
been performed and published by organisations and research communities over
many years.
A determining factor for the Council is that forest removal and fragmentation in
furtherance of the mining operation will increase significantly in the years ahead.
This will result in a corresponding reduction in the territory of the O’Hongana
Manyawa people and therefore their ability to fend for themselves. Territorial
encroachment also means less access to food and other resources that are vital
for indigenous peoples’ survival and cultural practices. The expected migration of
people to Halmahera as a result of the mine could intensify competition for land
and therefore increase the risk of indigenous peoples coming into contact with
the outside world, with potentially fatal consequences.
In its communications with the Council, Eramet has contested the existence of
uncontacted indigenous people in or in the vicinity of its concession area, and
has asserted that the investigations to which the company has contributed have
not found evidence of this. The Council attaches importance to the fact that an
EIA, as far back as 2010, pointed to the risk that such groups could be present in
and around the concession area and that more recent surveys have confirmed
this. The Council would also like to point out that mining operations will affect
these groups even though they remain exclusively outside the concession area.
26
The Council finds that WBN and Eramet are failing to exercise the due diligence
needed to reduce the risk that mining operations could severely harm an
extremely vulnerable group of indigenous people. The Council attaches
importance to the fact that the isolated indigenous groups have nowhere else to
live and that they are among the most vulnerable population groups in the
world. The Council cannot see how mining operations here may be undertaken
without infringing indigenous peoples’ rights, particularly when no measures are
being implemented to protect their living spaces.
The Council considers that WBN’s mining operations in the island of Halmahera
represent an unacceptable risk that important ecosystems will be lost and that
deforestation will devastate indigenous peoples’ livelihoods, culture and way of
life. For those indigenous groups who remain uncontacted, this could threaten
their very existence.
6 Recommendation
The Council on Ethics recommends that Eramet SA be excluded from the
Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global.
*
Siv Helen Rygh
Torstensen,
Acting Chair
Cecilie
Hellestveit
Vigdis Vandvik Egil Matsen
(Sign.) (Sign.) (Sign.) (Sign.)