A/HRC/42/42 types of security providers in extractive operations: security professionals directly employed by an extractive company (“in-house security”); private military and security companies contracted by the company; and State security forces operating in and around the extractive site. More often than not, extractive companies rely on all these actors, resulting in what appear to be complex and fluid security arrangements to the general public. In some contexts, paramilitary groups and non-State armed actors may also be involved. Transparency with regard to private security arrangements within the extractive industry may be further complicated by the use in some regions of both formal private military and security companies (that is, those registered and authorized to offer security services in accordance with relevant national rules and regulations) and informal private security providers (those operating without a licence or with links to criminal entities). 26. According to information received by the Working Group, extractive companies contract private military and security companies to provide a broad range of “traditional” security functions, such as devising risk assessments and mitigation measures, securing and guarding premises, securing the transportation of extractive products, and conducting security training for onsite extractive staff. For these purposes, extractive companies contract either international or local private military and security companies, with further subcontracting possible. Private military and security personnel are not usually authorized to carry or use firearms or live ammunition, although many seem to be equipped with non-lethal weapons, such as tear gas. 27. In areas characterized by weak governance and in the absence of effective State security forces, extractive companies may, however, rely on private security (in-house and private military and security companies) to secure their operations. This may also be the case when State security forces have limited capacity and are asked to concentrate on key threats to national security. In such cases, private military and security companies can be engaged to perform functions beyond the regular ones; for instance, in one country, mining companies reinforced their private security personnel in response to a high risk of kidnappings of foreign national employees, coupled with additional security measures by State security forces. 18 Particularly acute security threats, such as criminal piracy, trafficking cartels, guerrilla forces and expropriation efforts by corrupt government regimes,19 may also lead extractive companies to contract private security services. 28. In the specific context of armed conflict, the Working Group was informed about past situations where private security personnel, employed or contracted to support an extractive operation, allegedly conducted military-like operations either on their own or with the support of the State.20 Depending on the particular aspects of such operations, determined on a case-by-case basis, such actions may qualify as direct participation in hostilities, in which case the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law would directly apply to those private actors. In such cases, the distinction between security and military services is blurred, even though a private military or security company might identify itself only as a security provider. In other cases, States have sought to augment their military capacity by engaging private military or security services in exchange for access to and proceeds from extractive operations. One well-known example is the involvement of Executive Outcomes in diamond mining in Sierra Leone.21 Reports indicate, however, that such practices, whereby private military services are provided in exchange for mining or oil concessions, may be continuing in more recent conflicts. 29. Data shared with the Working Group by one extractive company illustrate how different types of security providers may be engaged in the same extractive project. 22 In this specific case, the contracted personnel largely outnumbered the security professionals 18 19 20 21 22 8 Submission by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. Carlos Díaz Bodoque, “PMSC’s and Extractive Industries in Southern Africa: a Good Business for Everyone?”, Current Affairs. See for example Occidental lawsuit (re Colombia), Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, 18 February 2014. Sabelo Gumedze, “Addressing the use of private security and military companies at the international level”, Institute for Security Studies, 2009. Newmont, Annual Report on the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, 2019.