Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995

Mining safety has always been a large issue in the overall working industry as numerous fatalities occur each year. As a result of the workplace being underground, the threat of harmful gases being trapped in the workplace is present. Additionally, if any miner were to become trapped due to a cave-in, the extraction process can be extremely difficult and hazardous. There is also a risk of having a secondary collapse since the necessary infrastructure to support the new topography would not be in place after an initial collapse. This would result in additional trapped miners and rescue workers. Since miners are trapped in pockets of rock, the risk of an explosion and oxygen deprivation is high.[3]

As of 2001, more than 30 million people were employed in the mining industry. Despite that being only 1% of the world's workforce, mining holds over 8% of workplace fatalities.[4] These statistics concerned the ILO, forcing them to hold a convention in order to decrease these statistics.

The 29 Current Ratifying Countries of the Safety and Health in Mines Convention

Before the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, there were numerous other conventions that were slightly relevant to health and safety in the mines such as The Safety and Health in Construction Convention and Recommendation, The Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Convention and Recommendation, and The Medical Examination of Young Persons (Underground Work) Convention. However, despite the many conventions that were relevant, there were not enough laws and conditions specifically laid out for miner's health and safety. Therefore, the Safety and Health in Mines Convention was created.[5]

In Article 19 of Part 5, the process of denouncing the Convention is laid out. Countries are allowed to denounce the Convention only under certain circumstances. The article states that a country may denounce the Convention if they wish, only ten years after the Convention first came into force (in 1998). Therefore, in 2008 it was possible for any ratifying countries to eliminate the Convention and subsequently drop their enforcement of its laws. This would result in a major loss of support for miner's health and safety, and even basic rights. As a result, no countries have yet to denounce the Convention.[7]

Mining personnel are shown demonstrating rescue equipment to MSHA inspectors. These inspections are required under both the U.S. Mine Act as well as the Convention.

Since the Convention contains laws that are enforceable by the government, the United States would be held accountable for all of the laws contained within it. However, the United States already enforces many laws relevant to the Convention. The Department of Labor has a division applicable to miners. This division, The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), is an agency that since 1977 has a mission to promote a safe and healthy workplace for miners by preventing injury and disease. The main method of doing this is by enforcing the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, known as the Mine Act. The Mine Act sets various standards intended to reduce fatal accidents and to minimize health hazards in an already dangerous occupation. Having the MSHA inspect every American mine accomplishes a part of the Mine Act. In addition, the MSHA handles all accident reporting and safety issues from miners.[9] The disease black lung, which largely affects miners, is being worked on by the MSHA to have it diminished in the United States. Similarly, the laws outlined in the Convention are aimed at lowering the number of individuals with disease obtained from the mining workplace.[10]

As a result of the already implemented MSHA and the Mine Act in the United States, it was not clear whether or not the Convention ratification would make a large impact in the various mining health and safety laws. A tripartite panel consisting of representatives covering American government, labor and business was held. They compared the laws from the Convention and the laws set in place by the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. They concluded that the Convention could be signed by the president and ratified without the introduction of any new laws. This was due to the MSHA already enforcing all of the laws stated within the Convention.[11]

Even though the ratification would not introduce any new laws, Bill Clinton signed the Convention in 2001. The reason for the ratification was a political and economic strategy. The United States had an interest in holding other countries accountable for miner's health and safety. By ratifying the Convention, the United States could reach out to other countries that have ratified it for failing to comply. If the United States had not ratified the Convention, it would be difficult to task other countries for failure to enforce the applicable laws. [12] In addition to holding other nations accountable, the ratification would make the United States mining industry more competitive in the global economy. For example, if a coal buyer were only interested in doing business with mines that had the Convention signed, the United States would be at a loss without having it ratified.

At least 301 miners were killed in Soma, Turkey after an explosion sent poisonous gasses throughout the mine. More than 100 workers survived the explosion and subsequent gas, but were killed as a result of the mine collapsing onto them. Backlash against the government and the mine operator was strong and negligence investigations ensued. The general manager and the operations manager were held on suspicion of neglect, which caused numerous deaths. During the Soma disaster, a commission from the International Labor Organization was sent to discuss miner's health and safety with Turkish officials. The Turkish Labor minister, Faruk Celik, claimed that strict laws were already in place in Turkey. In addition, Turkey claimed to be in full compliance with European Union standards and had laws even more advanced than the ILO Convention.[13]

IndustriALL, a global union that represents 50 million workers from 146 countries, wanted Turkey to swiftly ratify the Convention following the Soma disaster. One of their goals as a global union is to make the worlds mines safer. They claim that the best way to accomplish this is by having countries ratify the Convention and fully implement the laws and safety regulations contained within it. In addition, they state that the first priority of mining is to promote the safety and well being of miners. By favoring profit first, it should be considered criminal behavior that should be intolerable.[14]

Following the Soma disaster, debates occurred in Turkey as to whether or not the government was protecting its miners from disasters like this. Turkey was largely hesitant to begin ratification processes due to employer backlash of the cost to uphold to the Conventions rules and regulations. In the end, the Turkish Parliament's General Assembly on December 4, 2014 decided to formally adopt the Convention. Turkey notice of ratification of the treaty was deposited on 23 March 2015.

However, this has not been a perfect resolution. Many employers are unable to cover the cost of the resulting changes. As a result, many companies have been forced to lay off workers and shut down mines.[15]

In 2008, the European Commission released a Recommendation for all EU members to ratify recent conventions from the ILO, including Convention 176. Similar to the United States, many EU member States have laws already in place that would match or in some cases surpass the laws laid out in the Convention. However, the Recommendations laid out by the Commission did not just ask for the ratification of the various conventions. The Commission recognized the notion that governments can ratify, yet not enforce the Convention fully. Therefore, it asked for the conventions rules to be strengthened and made certain that a supervisory system was in place to monitor the effectiveness of the conventions enforcement. The Recommendation was released despite opposition from some EU nations claiming that the funding to the ILO should be lowered or in some cases dropped.[20]