ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS (EN)
Management Approach

We recognize that mining is a temporary use of land which impacts the surrounding environment. As such, our vision of Zero Harm encompasses a commitment to protect the environment. Before commencing any new mining development, we carry out an environmental and social impact assessment to ensure that the site and region are characterized and understood, and the impact of any future mining activities is minimized. Each of our operations has an Environmental Management System (EMS) in place to ensure regulations and best practices are met on an ongoing basis.

IAMGOLD discloses environmental aspects through the Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) programs. Both programs provide an annual assessment of how IAMGOLD is doing on environmental issues as a company. We annually complete the CDP Climate Change questionnaire and the TSM Protocol on Energy Use and GHG Emissions.

TSM Progress Report 2016

ASPECT: MATERIALS
Disclosure of Management Approach Many materials are required at different stages of the gold production process. We monitor materials deemed to be significant, which include the explosives, tires and energy used for mining and the reagents used for mineral processing. These materials are considered to be significant because they are critical inputs to the final product and have the potential to cause environmental impacts. An accidental spill can be hazardous to our employees and other stakeholders, and can also contaminate the environment if not responded to quickly and effectively.

We aim to prevent material spills. All of our sites have rigorous procedures in place for the safe transport, storage, handling and disposal of cyanide and other hazardous substances. Additionally, we have spill response procedures to respond appropriately and minimize any environmental impacts. Further, continuous improvement programs have been implemented to increase efficiency in the use of explosives and fuels.

The other materials used are not considered to be significant as they present less risk and are generally used in smaller quantities. As IAMGOLD is a producer of primary raw materials (gold), we do not produce a product that consists of raw materials or semi-manufactured goods. Additionally, packaging is non-material as our products are transported in bulk.
G4-EN1 Materials used by weight or volume DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Total weight or volume of non-renewable materials (listed below) used during the reporting period:
i. Cyanide Tonnes 5,649.5 5,928 482
ii. Acid Tonnes 2,067.7 1,073.11 0.5
iii. Flocculant Tonnes 205.6 433.8 25
iv. Caustic soda Tonnes 663.1 1,738.45 38
v. Lime Tonnes 12,177.8 14,202.86 4,419
vi. Explosives Tonnes 14,675.36 13,849 1,510
vii. Other Tonnes N/A N/A 716
Total weight or volume of any renewable materials used during the reporting period (specify type of renewable materials if any): Tonnes N/A Cyanide: 876 N/A
What is the total weight or volume of associated process materials used (i.e., materials that are needed for the manufacturing process but are not part of the final product, such as lubricants for manufacturing machinery)? Tonnes (or appropriate unit) Diesel Fuel: 63,582.1
(50,865,658.4 L @ 0.8kg/L)
Kluber fluid: 10.67
(11,000 L @ 0.97 kg/L)
Engine oil: 345
(392,113.4 L @ 0.88 kg/L)
Hydraulic oil: 796
(914,868.8 L @ 0.87 kg/L)
Transmission oil: 292
(335,201.8 L @ 0.87 kg/L)
Motor/Drill oil: 56.7
(65,186 L @ 0.87 kg/L)
Grease: 18
(56,602.19 L @ 0.87 kg/L and 17,862.6 kg)
Grease: 108,200 litres
Oil: 1,383,808 litres
N/A
What is the total weight or volume of semi-manufactured goods or parts used, including all forms of materials and components other than raw materials that are part of the final product? N/A – IAMGOLD is a producer of primary raw materials (gold) and therefore does not produce a product that consists of raw materials or semi-manufactured goods. N/A N/A N/A
What is the total weight or volume of materials used for packaging purposes? N/A – Packaging is not a material issue as our products are transported in bulk. N/A N/A N/A
ASPECT: ENERGY
Disclosure of Management Approach Energy use contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) production and is also a significant operating cost. As per our Energy and Greenhouse Gases Policy, we recognize that efficient management of energy is required to achieve our business strategy and provide benefits to stakeholders. Further, effective energy management will directly contribute to operational cost improvements and control of environmental impacts. Our key energy management objectives are to continuously improve our energy performance, and support the introduction of clean and renewable energy.
G4-EN3 Energy consumption within the organization DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood 2016 Exploration
Total fuel consumption from non-renewable sources (listed below) during the reporting period:
i. Diesel GJ (or appropriate unit) 2,018,720 1,518,804 101,747 Brazil: 6,920 litres
Burkina Faso: 55,007,150 FCFA
Colombia: N/A
Mali: 312,852 litres
Peru: 3,780 gallons
Quebec: 62,000 litres
Senegal: 156,795 litres
Suriname: $141,032.85 USD (estimated 313,046 litres)
ii. Gasoline GJ (or appropriate unit) 1,368 893 2,465 Brazil: 4,026 litres
Burkina Faso: 128,081 FCFA
Colombia: 860 GL
Mali: N/A
Peru: 1,080 gallons
Quebec: 16,000 litres
Senegal: N/A
Suriname: $3,402.34 USD
iii. Propane GJ (or appropriate unit) 4,777 N/A N/A Brazil: N/A
Burkina Faso: N/A
Colombia: N/A
Mali: N/A
Peru: N/A
Quebec: N/A
Senegal: N/A
Suriname: N/A
iv. Natural gas GJ (or appropriate unit) 0 N/A 81,095 Brazil: N/A
Burkina Faso: N/A
Colombia: N/A
Mali: N/A
Peru: N/A
Quebec: 1,600 m3 Senegal: N/A
Suriname: N/A
v. Fuel oil GJ (or appropriate unit) 0 2,840,266 N/A Brazil: N/A
Burkina Faso: N/A
Colombia: N/A
Mali: N/A
Peru: N/A
Quebec: N/A
Senegal: N/A
Suriname: $1,716.94 USD
vi. Acetylene GJ 149 131.099 84 Brazil: N/A
Burkina Faso: N/A
Colombia: N/A
Mali: N/A
Peru: N/A
Quebec: N/A
Senegal: N/A
Suriname: N/A
vii. Kerosene GJ 0 8.244 N/A Brazil: N/A
Burkina Faso: N/A
Colombia: N/A
Mali: N/A
Peru: N/A
Quebec: N/A
Senegal: N/A
Suriname: N/A
viii. Other GJ 0 N/A N/A Brazil: N/A
Burkina Faso: N/A
Colombia: N/A
Mali: N/A
Peru: N/A
Quebec: N/A
Senegal: N/A
Suriname: N/A
ix. Total GJ (or appropriate unit) 2,025,012 4,368,338.099 185,391 Brazil: 10,946 litres
Burkina Faso: 55,135,231 FCFA
Colombia: 860 GL
Mali: 312,852 litres
Peru: 4,860 gallons
Quebec: $100,200
Senegal: 156,795 litres
Suriname: $146,152 USD
Total fuel consumption from renewable sources (listed below) during the reporting period:
i. Solar GJ 24,124 N/A N/A Brazil: N/A
Burkina Faso: N/A
Colombia: N/A
Mali: N/A
Peru: N/A
Quebec: N/A
Senegal: N/A
Suriname: N/A
What is the total electricity consumption? GJ 870,242 2,288 580,160 Brazil: 66,888 kWh
Burkina Faso: 8,767,869 FCFA
Colombia:
Mali: 34,310 kWh
Peru: 28,800 kW
Quebec: 5,000 kWh
Senegal: 49,606 L of diesel consumed to produce electricity on site through two generators
Suriname: 120,888 kWh
Was any of the electricity generated sold? Yes/No No No No Brazil: No
Burkina Faso: No
Mali: No
Peru: No
Quebec: No
Senegal: No
Suriname: No
What is the total energy consumption? GJ 2,895,255 4,370,626.099 765,551 Brazil: 66,888 kWh
Burkina Faso: 8,767,869 FCFA
Colombia:
Mali: 11,386.19 GJ
Peru: 28,800 kW
Quebec: $1,300
Senegal: 49,606 L of diesel consumed to produce electricity on site through two generators
Suriname: –
G4-EN6 Reduction of energy consumption DETAILS +
2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane

The following energy-related initiatives have been designed and engineered and project cost feasibilities were done in 2016:

  • Installing LED lighting in Parbo offices and at different locations at the Rosebel Mine site
  • Replacement of window units with new units with built-in inverters
  • Shutting down central AC units at night at the Administration Building
  • Replacement of diesel powered lighting and radar with solar powered lighting and radar at remote locations
Specific power consumption was reduced from 210.08 g/kWh in 2015 to 208.74 g/kWh for power plant engines. Site pickup reduction project helped save 3,705 litres per month, which is equivalent to a reduction of 9%.
ASPECT: WATER
Disclosure of Management Approach Water is a key resource for both the gold extraction process and our host communities. As a result, we have to be responsible water stewards in our operations.

As per our Water Management Standard, we recognize the importance of environmentally sustainable and socially equitable water use. We are dedicated to employing efficient water management and water conservation practices to ensure access to clean water for all users, now and in the future. Water management strategies will address all aspects of the operation, including closure planning, reclamation, tailings management, discharge water quality, potable water and groundwater quality.

Water Management Standard
G4-EN8 Total water withdrawal by source DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Total volume of water withdrawn from the following sources:
i. Surface water m3 0 6,097,243 518,346
ii. Groundwater m3 206,403 1,107,064
(wells and drinking water)
557,022
iii. Rain water m3 0 n/a n/a
iv. Waste water from another organization m3 0 n/a n/a
v. Municipal water supplies and other water utilities m3 0 n/a n/a
vi. Other water utilities m3 0 6,272,478 n/a
vii. Total water withdrawn (sum of i. to vi.) m3 206,403 13,476,785 1,075,368
Standards, methodologies and assumptions used Description Calculations are based on groundwater well readings Water is measured using readings from the flow meter on pipes, water level above spillway and rain gauges Flow meter
G4-EN10 Percentage and total volume of water recycled and reused DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Total volume of water recycled/reused by the organization m3 12,128,096 7,088,343 487,563
Total volume of water recycled/reused as a percentage of the total water withdrawal reported under indicator EN8 % 5,875.92% 46.54% 45.34%
Report standards, methodologies and assumptions used Description

Calculations are based on tailings pond summary calculations by Engineering.

Tailings thickening plants are used Flow meter
ASPECT: BIODIVERSITY
Disclosure of Management Approach IAMGOLD recognizes that protecting biodiversity and sustaining healthy ecosystems are fundamental for the responsible environmental management of our mining projects. Our Sustainability Policy and Biodiversity Policy state that we are committed to integrating biodiversity management and conservation at all stages of our activities, from exploration to mine closure, using the resources and skills necessary to minimize impacts on biodiversity from our activities while ensuring the restoration of disrupted ecosystem functions.

Impacts to aquatic and terrestrial species and measures to avoid or reduce impacts are considered early in the project planning process. Recent environmental assessment reports, such as the EA report for the Côté Gold Project, are available on our website for review.

Sustainability Policy
Biodiversity Policy
G4-EN11 Operational sites owned, leased or managed in, or adjacent to, protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Is the site owned, leased or managed in, or adjacent to, any protected areas or areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas? Y/N Yes Yes No
If yes, provide the following information:
i. Geographic location Description Brokopondo District Northeastern Burkina Faso N/A
ii. Subsurface and underground land that may be owned, leased or managed by the organization Description 170 km2 100 km2 N/A
iii. Position in relation to the protected area (in the area, adjacent to, or containing portions of the protected area) or to the high biodiversity value area outside protected areas Description The Brinckheuvel Nature Reserve is localted 3 km west of the concession across the Mindrineti River on the west bank. The Brownsberg Nature Reserve is located approximately 10 to 15 km southeast of the concession area. The mining concession is located inside the 1,600,000 hectare Sahel partial fauna reserve. Mining is permitted in this area. It is a designated zone primarily because of temporary lakes (Mare d'Oursi, Mare de Yomboli, Mare de Kissi) which are of importance for migratory birds. The Mare d'Oursi Wetlands are located 67 km from the mine site. N/A
iv. Type of operation (office, manufacturing or production, or extractive) Description Extractive Extractive N/A
v. Size of operational site in km2 (total disturbance) km2 36.451 16.6 N/A
vi. Biodiversity value characterized by:
– The attribute of the protected area or high biodiversity value area outside the protected area (terrestrial, freshwater or maritime ecosystem)
Description The ecosystem found on and near the Rosebel Gold Mine (RGM) is part of the savannas of Suriname and Guyana, which are a widespread ecosystem in the region. Globally, this is a relatively unique ecosystem and one of high biodiversity. A wildlife survey was started in 2011 and continued in the first quarter of 2012 and 2014. The next wildlife survey is planned for 2017. Wildlife survey data confirmed that Rosebel areas have a richer mammal fauna as compared to nearby nature reserves. The preliminary report emphasized that the RGM area harbours good populations of several species that are internationally considered as vulnerable or near threatened. With the process of desertification and human activities (e.g., gold mining) which has affected the Sahel, several species of trees, shrubs and grasses are declining in the region. Forest, steppes and bushes located along the Gorouol and Feildegasse rivers are an important habitat for migrating mammals and reptiles. N/A
vii. Biodiversity value characterized by:
– Listing of protected status (such as IUCN Protected Area Management Categories (67), Ramsar Convention (78), national legislation)
Description

IUCN Red List species on or around the site: Vulnerable: giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris), white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari), yellow-footed tortoise (Geochelone denticulata).

Near threatened: bush dog (Speothos venaticus), margay (Leopardus wiedii), jaguar (Panthera onca). A total of 117 bird species were recorded in 2014. All the observed bird species are of “least concern” status according to the IUCN Red List.

IUCN Red List species on or around the site: Vulnerable: white-headed vulture (Trigonoceps occipitalis); Near threatened: Rüppell’s vulture (Gyps rueppellii); bateleur (Terathopius ecaudatus) N/A
G4-EN13 Habitats protected or restored DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Size and location of habitat protected areas or restored areas km2 and location N/A La Mare d’Oursi, a 450 km2 Ramsar site and designated ornithological sanctuary, is 67 km from the Essakane site. N/A
Total land rehabilitated (including previous years) Hectares/km2 0.704. In 2016, a total of 5.53 ha was revegetated. Reclamation includes hydroseeding and hand planting. 308 N/A
a. Was or is the success of restorative measures approved by independent external professionals? Yes/No No Yes N/A
b. Do partnerships exist with third parties to protect or restore habitat areas distinct from where the organization has overseen and implemented restoration or protection measures? Yes/No No Yes N/A
c. What is the status of each area based on its condition at the close of the reporting period? Description N/A Active N/A
d. Report standards, methodologies and assumptions used. Description Hydroseeding and hand planting Inventory and success rate tracked by species and location N/A
G4-EN14 Total number of IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with habitats in areas affected by operations, by level of extinction risk DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Critically endangered (CR) Number 0 N/A N/A
Endangered (EN) Number 0 N/A N/A
Vulnerable (VU) Number 4 1 N/A
Near threatened (NT) Number 3 2 N/A
Least concern (LC) Number 131 N/A N/A
MM1 Amount of land (owned or leased, and managed for production activities or extractive use) disturbed or rehabilitated DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Total land disturbed and not yet rehabilitated (in hectares) Hectares 3,438.7 1,661 935
Total amount of land newly disturbed within the reporting period Hectares 206.4 129 N/A
Total amount of land newly rehabilitated within the reporting period to the agreed end use Hectares 0 42 N/A
Total land disturbed and not yet rehabilitated Hectares 3,645 1,748 935
MM2 The number and percentage of total sites identified as requiring biodiversity management plans according to stated criteria, and the number (percentage) of those sites with plans in place DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Has a biodiversity management plan been put in place? Yes/No Yes Yes Yes
Percentage of total sites with plans in place % 100% of our operational sites have biodiversity management plans in place, as required through our company-wide biodiversity strategy.
ASPECT: EMISSIONS
Disclosure of Management Approach We recognize that efficient management of energy is required to achieve our business strategy and provide benefits to our stakeholders. Further, effective energy management will directly contribute to operational cost improvements and control of environmental impacts by reducing the overall amount of greenhouse gases produced.

Consistent with our Energy and Greenhouse Gases Policy, one of our key management objectives is to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting impacts on the environment. Projects within Canada are typically subject to provincial air quality guidelines and approvals which seek to protect local receivers that surround the project.
G4-EN15 Direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 1) DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood 2016 Corporate
a. Total direct emissions of greenhouse gases (in metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent) from: Tonnes of CO2e 157,383 318,901.4 12,859 Toronto: 0
Longueuil: 0
Waste Tonnes of CO2e 417.4 351.28 443 N/A
Energy – Power plant Tonnes of CO2e 114 206,705.5 N/A N/A
Energy – Treatment plant Tonnes of CO2e 2,718 5,509.53 264 N/A
Energy – Extraction Tonnes of CO2e 142,923.2 83,164.7 11,978 N/A
Energy – Support activities Tonnes of CO2e 283.54 4,187.09 10 N/A
Company-owned vehicles – Operations Tonnes of CO2e 6,715.11 19,943.48 164 N/A
b. Gases included in the calculation (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, or all) List CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, R404A, R407C, R410A CO2, CH4, N2O N/A
c. Indicate chosen base year, rationale for choosing the base year, emissions in the base year, and the context for any significant changes in emissions that triggered recalculations of base year emissions. Year, rationale, tonnes of CO2e In 2013, began use of Ecometrica software N/A
d. Standards, methodologies and assumptions used Description Ecometrica factors sheet N/A
e. Report the source of the emission factors used and the global warming potential (GWP) rates used or a reference to the GWP source. Description CO2: 1
CH4: 25
N2O: 298
HFC-134a: 1,430
HFC-404a: 3,922
HFC-407c: 1,774
HFC-410a: 2,088

IPCC (2007). IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

The GWP values listed span 100 years.
N/A
f. Report the chosen consolidation approach for emissions (equity share, financial control, operational control). Description 100% of operational control 100% of operational control 100% of operational control 100% of operational control
G4-EN16 Energy indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 2) DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood 2016 Corporate
a. Indirect emissions of greenhouse gases (in metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent) from the generation of the electricity, heating, cooling and steam which was purchased from other organizations Tonnes of CO2e 0 608.9329 N/A Toronto: 46.19
Longeuil: 1.64
b. Gases included in the calculation (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, or all) List N/A N/A N/A CO2, CH4, N2O
c. Indicate chosen base year, rationale for choosing the base year, emissions in the base year, and the context for any significant changes in emissions that triggered recalculations of base year emissions. Year, rationale, tonnes of CO2e In 2013, began use of Ecometrica software. In 2013, began use of Ecometrica software.
d. Standards, methodologies and assumptions used Description N/A N/A N/A Ecometrica
e. Report the source of the emission factors used and the global warming potential (GWP) rates used or a reference to the GWP source. Description N/A N/A N/A Hydro from provincial grid (Toronto Hydro, Hydro-Quebec)
f. Report the chosen consolidation approach for emissions (equity share, financial control, operational control). Description 100% of operational control 100% of operational control 100% of operational control 100% of operational control
G4-EN18 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
GHG intensity ratio:
i. Total GHG emissions Tonnes of CO2e 147,173 319,510.3 12,859
ii. GHG intensity (mill) kg CO2e/tonne milled 0.212 17.7 0.76
iii. GHG intensity (mine) kg CO2e/tonne moved 2.22 1.56 9.79
Does the total include Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions? If not, explain. Yes/No with Description Yes, the scope 2 emissions are 0. Does not include Scope 3. Does not include Scope 3.
Gases included in the calculation List CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC-134a Gases of cooling machines (R134A, R404A, R407C, R22, R410A) CO2, CH4, N2O
G4-EN19 Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
a. Amount of GHG emissions reductions achieved as a direct result of initiatives to reduce emissions, in metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent Tonnes of CO2e 13,969
  • Automatic water flow controls for high and low pressure gland water systems
  • Continuation of cleaning and replacement of process water piping that was severely obstructed by calcium and iron build-up
  • Commissioning the PowerFlex drive for SAG mill motor which will power the motor more efficiently than the obsolete LCI drive
  • Revised sump pumping system in the Mill basement to eliminate unnecessary re-handling of water
Carbon In leach (CIL)
  • Variable Speed Drive project using Premium Efficiency motors/stocked
  • Installing at Rosebel Mine site
  • Remote fuel farms constructed
  • Solar power plant commissioned

Studies are finalized for the installation of a solar power plant with photovoltaic technology with a capacity of 14.3 MW.

General education of department heads was conducted. No quantifiable reduction in GHG emissions.
b. Report gases included in the calculation (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, or all). List N/A CO2, HFCs N/A
c. Report the chosen base year or baseline and the rationale for choosing it. Base year, rationale In 2013, began use of Ecometrica
d. Report standards, methodologies and assumptions used. Description Ecometrica
e. Report whether the reductions in GHG emissions occurred in direct (Scope 1), energy indirect (Scope 2), or other indirect (Scope 3) emissions. Description Reduction of GHG emissions ocurred in Scope 1 and 3 Specific consumption in 2016 is 208.74 g/kWh compared to 2015 210.08 g/kWh N/A
ASPECT: EFFLUENTS AND WASTE
Disclosure of Management Approach Guided by our vision of Zero Harm, we closely monitor the waste and tailings produced as well as the quality of final effluent during mining operations and post-closure. A mining deposit is a finite resource and operations will ultimately come to an end. At closure, some components remain on the landscape, namely the tailings management facilities and mine rock piles. Reclamation efforts are guided towards a suitable end land use as per agreed-upon closure criteria.

As per our tailings management standard, we locate, design, construct, operate and close tailings facilities in compliance with the Mining Association of Canada’s environmental policy, and with our commitment to stakeholders in mind. We ensure that all structures are stable, and all solids and water are managed within their designated areas.
G4-EN22 Total water discharge by quality and destination DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
a. Total volume of planned and unplanned water discharges in m3 per year. Also indicate the following details: m3/year 2,919,865 3,186,023 Zero discharge site
i. Destination of water discharges Description Mindrineti River Bousquet River The domestic waste water is discharged into a field to be evaporated where trees are planted. The industrial waste water from the mill is recycled in the mill or sent to the tailings storage facility. As Essakane is a zero discharge site, no industrial water is discharged to the environment. Industrial waste water from the garage is discharged in the contaminated materials pond. Water in the pit is accumulated in a temporary pond and is used as process water.
ii. Treatment method for water discharge Description Effluent Treatment Plant and an Aerated Lagoon Lime treatment

Domestic waste water: four sewage plants for waste water treatment by activated sludge are in operation.

Waste water from the garage: We use an oil-water separator and have an anti-pollution pond for water storage. The water from the contaminated materials pond is reused in the plant.

iii. Was the water discharge reused by another organization? Yes/No with Description No No No
Report standards, methodologies and assumptions used. Description IFC limits for the discharge of process waste water to the surface water (WB, IFC Guidelines 2007). And End-of-Pipe target discharge objectives set by RGM for ammonia and total cyanide Flow meter

Tailings thickening plants

Sewage plant of waste water treated by activated sludge

G4-EN23 Total weight of waste by type and disposal method DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Total amount of hazardous waste (as defined by national legislation at the point of generation) kg or tonnes (or appropriate unit) Hazardous waste:
Empty chemical bags + pallets (lime, caustic, carbon, ammonium nitrate, flocculant, microspheres) + empty boxes (cyanide): 485.5 tonnes
Waste oil: 1,094,513 L
Scrap batteries: 23.61 tonnes
Medical waste: 32 kg
Waste oil: 550 m3
HFO sludge: 533 m3
Medical waste: 0.9 tonnes
Contaminated waste: 61 tonnes
285 tonnes
Total amount of non-hazardous waste (all other forms of solid or liquid waste excluding waste water) kg or tonnes Non-hazardous waste (kitchen, food, camp and office waste, scrap wood): 1,075 tonnes 1,426 tonnes 1,660 tonnes
i. Reuse a. kg or tonnes

b. How disposal method was determined
N/A N/A a. 1,261 tonnes

b. waste disposal contractor
ii. Recycling a. kg or tonnes

b. How disposal method was determined
a. Drums (steel + plastic): 4.564 tonnes
Waste oil: 1,094,513 L
Scrap steel: 1,246.89 tonnes
Equipment batteries: 23.61 tonnes
PET bottles: 18.078 tonnes

b. Organizational defaults of the waste disposal contractor
a. 627,542 kg

b. Disposed directly by a waste disposal contractor
a. 37 tonnes

b. Waste disposal contractor
iii. Composting a. kg or tonnes

b. How disposal method was determined
N/A N/A N/A
iv. Recovery, including energy recovery a. kg or tonnes

b. How disposal method was determined
N/A N/A N/A
v. Incineration (mass burn) a. kg or tonnes

b. How disposal method was determined
N/A a. Biomedical waste: 459 kg
Packaging explosive: 6,284 kg

b. Disposed directly by IAMGOLD
N/A
vi. Deep well injection a. kg or tonnes

b. How disposal method was determined
N/A N/A N/A
vii. Landfill a. kg or tonnes

b. How disposal method was determined
N/A a. 350 tonnes

b. Buried in the dumps in waste rock
N/A
viii. On-site storage a. kg or tonnes

b. How disposal method was determined
N/A a. 61 tonnes

b. Buried at the municipal treatment centre in Ouagadougou
N/A
MM3 Total amounts of overburden, rock, tailings, and sludges and their associated risks DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Total amount of overburden (waste rock) generated during the year Tonnes 49,394,086 35,983,000 783,339
Describe the risks associated with overburden. Description Acid rock drainage isn't an issue. Procedures are in place for the tailings storage facility and waste rock dumps. Due to the implementation of mitigation measures, the risks have decreased to acceptable levels (not significant). No acid rock drainage issue; but sedimentation and erosion and metal leaching in waste rock

The Doyon tailings facilities and waste rock piles are acid generating. IAMGOLD manages this challenge by minimizing the possibility of sulphide oxidation by the use of water covers for the tailings facilities, and appropriate environmental protection systems have been developed.

At our Westwood Project in Quebec in 2012, we received regulatory approval to use the former Doyon open pit to dispose of Westwood waste rock and tailings, rather than building a new tailings facility. The pit acts like a hydraulic trap. This reduces the risk significantly with no tailings facility and waste rock dumps.

Total amount of tailings (including sludges) generated during the year Tonnes 12,597,711 12,005,623 503,612
Describe the risks associated with tailings. Description Acid rock drainage isn't an issue. Procedures are in place for the tailings storage facility and waste rock dumps. Due to the implementation of mitigation measures, the risks have decreased to acceptable levels (not significant). Pollution of the soil or water (surface and ground), erosion, dam failure, fauna cyanide intoxication (e.g., poisoning of birds through ingestion of or contact with tailings water)

The Doyon tailings facilities and waste rock piles are acid generating. IAMGOLD manages this challenge by minimizing the possibility of sulphide oxidation by the use of water covers for the tailings facilities, and appropriate environmental protection systems have been developed.

At our Westwood Project in Quebec in 2012, we received regulatory approval to use the former Doyon open pit to dispose of Westwood waste rock and tailings, rather than building a new tailings facility. The pit acts like a hydraulic trap. This reduces the risk significantly with no tailings facility and waste rock dumps.

G4-EN24 Total number and volume of significant spills DETAILS +
Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Number and m3 None None None
ASPECT: COMPLIANCE
Disclosure of Management Approach As per our Sustainability Policy, we are committed to establishing site operating standards that meet or exceed relevant laws and regulations, IAMGOLD’s environmental and social impact statements, environmental and social management and closure plans, and international protocols of which IAMGOLD is a signatory. We are vigilant about compliance and ensure any non-compliance is remediated swiftly.

Sustainability Policy
G4-EN29 Monetary value of significant fines and total number of non-monetary sanctions for non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Were there non-compliance events? If yes, describe the events. Description No Yes, quality of domestic waste water did not comply with standards for discharge in surface water for the following: fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, BOD5, COD.

Nox emissions at the power plant exceeded the Burkina Faso discharge standard (330 ppm).
No
What was the total monetary value of significant fines? USD N/A N/A N/A
What was the number of non-monetary sanctions? Number N/A N/A N/A
Were there cases brought through dispute resolution mechanisms? If yes, describe. Yes/No with Description No No No
ASPECT: OVERALL
Disclosure of Management Approach We are committed to avoiding and/or minimizing, to an extent that is technically feasible and fiscally reasonable, any negative impacts from our mining activities.

As part of our commitment, we partnered with UQAT-Polytechnique’s Research Institute on Mines and Environment (RIME) in 2012 to support new development in environmental practices including tailings rehabilitation. Our financial commitment of $1.5 million over five years enabled various research projects such as desulfurization of residue cover and sludge cover. With the approval of the Government of Quebec of our closure plan, IAMGOLD hopes to integrate some of the practices being researched at RIME. In 2012, IAMGOLD also committed $1.25 million to Laurentian University over five years in support of creating two tenure-track faculty positions with two distinct focuses: open pit mining and mechanical engineering with specialization in mining.

As per our Sustainability Policy, we are committed to developing appropriately funded reclamation plans and progressive reclamation strategies for all operations from exploration through to closure. We are continuously monitoring and improving our practices as a commitment to Zero Harm.
G4-EN31 Total environmental protection expenditures and investments by type DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
Provide the total expenditures for the following:
i. Waste disposal (tailings) USD $5,499,716 (includes costs for TSF Expansion Construction and Professional Service) $370,000 captation wells, $4,923,000 for lining and other tailings infrastructure $990,000
ii. Emissions treatment (filters, agents, oxidizers, flaring equipment, etc.) USD No cost associated with emission testing in 2016 N/A N/A
iii. Depreciation of related equipment USD $0 N/A N/A
iv. Maintenance, operating materials and services, and related personnel costs USD $5,250 N/A $1,000,000
v. Personnel employed for education and training USD $0 N/A N/A
vi. External services for environmental management and external certification of management systems USD $190,338 ($21,500 for Aquatic survey, $16,374 for SGS Surveillance Audit, $152,464 for SRK services) $17,000 $10,000
vii. Personnel for general environmental management activities USD $241,912 (salary for monthly and hourly personnel) $329,000 $440,000
viii. Research and development USD N/A N/A $110,000
ix. Extra expenditures to install cleaner technologies (e.g., additional cost beyond standard technologies) USD $8,644 (for awareness and purchases of LED lights) $2,386,000 for intensive leach reactor to treat gravity concentrate (reduction of calcination of gold concentrate and emissions of fumes containing arsenic). Currently, 80% of gold concentrate is treated through ILR, but aim is to increase that up to 90%. N/A
x. Other environmental management costs USD $109,918 (Environmental Monitoring)

$21,191 (Waste Management)
N/A $450,000
Grand total expenditures USD $6,055,469 $8,025,000 $3,000,000
ASPECT: ENVIRONMENTAL GRIEVANCE MECHANISMS
Disclosure of Management Approach It is essential to address concerns in an accessible and timely manner in order to continuously improve. As stated in our Sustainability Policy, we are committed to practising good corporate governance, transparency, fair dealing and reporting annually on our performance. This commitment is complemented by our tailings management standard, which states that consultations with communities of interest are organized to take into account their concerns relating to tailings facility management.

A formal grievance mechanism is in place for dealing with complaints/concerns from external stakeholders. Stakeholders are well informed of the grievance mechanism which is easily accessible. The Company reports back to communities periodically with the outcomes of the grievances filed. Senior management reviews the engagement system and results annually.
G4-EN34 Number of grievances about environmental impacts filed, addressed and resolved through formal grievance mechanisms DETAILS +
Disclosure Required Unit 2016 Rosebel 2016 Essakane 2016 Westwood
a. Total number of grievances about environmental impacts filed through formal grievance mechanisms during the reporting period Number None None None
b. Of the total number of identified grievances, how many were addressed during the reporting period? Number N/A N/A N/A
b. Of the total number of identified grievances, how many were resolved during the reporting period? Number N/A N/A N/A
c. Total number of grievances that were filed prior to the reporting period that were resolved during the reporting period Number N/A N/A N/A