Can Rio Tinto take responsibility for QMM?

According to local reports, QMM communicated through a local Deputy that 80% of the social budget for 2023, 2024, and 2025 has already been spent and is unavailable. The community is urged to focus on upcoming budgets for 2026, 2027, and 2028. However, the locals are dissatisfied, claiming that the projects from 2023 do not meet their actual needs.

They point to QMM’s initiatives, such as distributing radios and a fuel efficiency programme that extends beyond the Anosy region, thus not directly benefiting those affected by mining activities. 

Additionally, the road rehabilitation in front of the Bank of Africa in Ft Dauphin does not directly aid rural villagers around Mandena, who are most impacted by the QMM mine. The communities are prioritizing health, education, and income generation and are preparing a list of needs to present to QMM. 

Narrative

QMM asserts that its corporate social responsibility efforts align with development goals. In 2023, Rio Tinto committed $100 million over 25 years, a significant increase from a 2022 target of $10 million over three years, as part of the government’s condition for renewing its lease.

An article in NewsMada mentions that Rio Tinto/QMM clarifies that the social funds are not meant as compensation. This clarification follows three days of protests over legitimate compensation claims, which are often not reported.

QMM claims its social programme is innovative, involving co-creation with local communities. It emphasizes the substantial investment Rio Tinto is making in QMM, similarly highlighted at the Mining Indaba in February. 

During the Indaba, QMM stressed its commitment to dialogue with authorities and local stakeholders to maximize mining’s economic and social benefits. However, it remains absent from discussions with the Antanosy protestors at the mine showcased by Rio Tinto as exemplary.

Future

QMM has not clarified its future within Rio Tinto, as it is under internal “strategic review,” with a possibility of being sold. 

There is local concern that Rio Tinto might exit Madagascar, leaving behind environmental damage, poverty, unresolved claims, and governance issues.

Without clarity on QMM’s future, emphasizing the investment in QMM appears more as a public relations strategy, possibly to calm government and investor concerns, appease protestors, and attract potential buyers.

Nevertheless, increased investment alone does not guarantee effective solutions. It fails to provide answers, establish peace, or fulfill social and human rights commitments without genuine engagement.

Evaluation

In practice, only half of the fund ($2 million per year) is allocated to benefit local communities, with the other half going to the region. Both allocations lack consultation, transparency, and accountability. 

The shortcomings of QMM’s social programme have led to ongoing local conflict since operations began, with these issues being well-documented and raised with Rio Tinto.

Last year, Antanosy leaders (Toteny) documented these failures and the worsening poverty in the region. They released a 24-point paper outlining unresolved issues and QMM’s unmet commitments over the past two decades, including job provision failures, which await response.

Questions about the lack of a meaningful evaluation of QMM’s social programme over twenty years were raised during the company’s last AGM, particularly before investing larger sums.

Conflict 

Land loss significantly impacts rural producers and food security, with land compensation issues dating back to the first QMM land displacements in 2006. Residents reported feeling deprived of their entitlements due to poor communication and transparency.

Villagers continue to report that QMM asks them to sign documents, promising to return copies, which they fail to do. Poor governance has led to grievances and intra-community conflict (PWYP MG 2022).

These recent protests suggest the company has not learned from past mistakes. Numerous efforts to improve dialogue around QMM have not yielded long-term solutions. Rio Tinto appears unwilling to probe the reasons.

A significant barrier to scrutiny is Rio Tinto itself, which has been asked by civil society at various levels to allow an independent human rights and environmental assessment of QMM. The company has consistently refused. 

Will Rio Tinto take responsibility for QMM, or will it abandon its issues in Madagascar, leaving behind a symbolic cash trail in an attempt to obscure the unresolved social unrest?

This Author

Yvonne Orengo is an independent researcher, writer, and campaigner. She has been associated with the Andrew Lees Trust (UK) and has a long-standing relationship with the Anosy region in Madagascar. Since 2014, she has collaborated with The Ecologist to raise awareness and advocate for human rights related to the Rio Tinto/QMM mine. More coverage of Rio Tinto can be found in The Ecologist.