Independent Assurance Statement by ERM

Introduction

Newmont Mining Corporation (Newmont) requested Environmental Resources Management (ERM) to provide independent assurance on the information presented in "Beyond the Mine — the Journey Towards Sustainability 2007 (the Report). The report is focused on Newmont's management of Health, Safety and Loss Prevention (HSLP), Environment, and Community and External Relations (CER).

Scope of Work

ERM was asked to provide assurance on whether Newmont has reported appropriately:

• the application and status of alignment of Newmont's management and reporting of its Sustainability performance against the AA1000AS (2003) for materiality, completeness and responsiveness;
• the status of compliance of the Report against the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (2006) - level A requirements and the associated GRI Mining and Metals Sector Supplement Pilot Version 1.0 (2005) as presented in the GRI Content Index;
• the application and status of alignment of Newmont's management and reporting of its Sustainability performance against the ICMM Principles for Sustainable Development (2003) and the UN Global Compact Ten Principles as presented in the GRI Content Index; and
• the data detailed in the data sheets and tables that form part of the performance sections of the report.

In addition, ERM considered Newmont's response to the recommendations which came out of the assurance process for the 2006 report:

• "the level of completeness in the reporting of social versus other types of data, such as environmental data"; and
• the preparation of a "report that was to evaluate the systems to identify and assess social and environmental risks and the effectiveness of existing social and environmental policies, including those relating to community engagement and potential opposition from local communities."

Assurance Methodology

Newmont gave ERM full access to the information and personnel that we believe were necessary to gather sufficient evidence to provide a basis for our assurance conclusions.

During the period December 2007 to March 2008, ERM teams undertook the following activities:

• Visited the Newmont offices in Denver, Colorado and the mines at Yanacocha, Peru, Twin Creeks, Nevada and Batu Hijau, Indonesia. Mine visits were planned to test the effectiveness of sustainability systems and processes on the ground, both for implementation and verification, to understand their respective sustainability performance, and to review the effectiveness of information flow between site and regional/corporate levels. Meetings were held with mine management and employees as well as with a sample of external stakeholders;
• Reviewed management's approach at site and corporate level to respond to issues and concerns identified through its own business review (compliance to the company's standards, to legislation, regulations and voluntary standards such as the ICMM Sustainability principles and the UN Global Compact) and external stakeholder consultations;
• Reviewed Corporate, Regional and Mine management's approach to prioritizing and managing its key sustainability issues;
• Reported our assurance findings to management as they arose to provide them with the opportunity to correct them prior to finalization of our work; and
• Reviewed the presentation of information in the Report relevant to the scope of our work to ensure consistency of our findings.

Our Conclusions

Materiality

Based on our work, we believe that the process which Newmont has in place for the identification of issues material to Newmont's business is more robust for HSLP and Environment than for CER. We conclude that the material issues that have been identified have been considered and communicated in the Report.

Completeness

All organizational entities and sustainability activities under the direct operational control of Newmont, with the exception of the implementation of the CER Guidelines, have been included in this Report.

The commitment of the company to carry out a comprehensive Community Relations Review (CRR), which was started in September 2007, has impacted the 5-Star management system for CER and the implementation of the CER guidelines has in effect been put on hold pending the outcome of the CRR.

Indicative of this is the evidence that several mines, including the three visited, had not implemented the full suite of CER guidelines as required under the 5-Star management system. Social impact assessments, community needs analysis, stakeholder mapping and mine closure plans had not been completed. As a result the mines had not targeted or prioritized their key social risks or established baselines for assessing the past or future impacts of their operations.

It was clear that some mines have expended considerable effort and budget towards the development of surrounding communities, and have looked to allocate their budgets through development committees and goal orientated project planning. Whilst this demonstrates inclusiveness, such activities have been ad hoc and are difficult to assess for effectiveness without a comparative baseline and a schedule of social risks grounded in comprehensive stakeholder engagement. Furthermore, the implementation of this type of development was not consistent from site to site.

ERM observed continued differences in the quality and completeness of the reporting of social data compared to the health, safety and loss prevention and environmental data, which are more mature.

Responsiveness

Newmont was assessed to be responding to external stakeholders concerns and interests although variation in the level of engagement was noted between the different sites visited. While an open approach was generally being maintained, the mines were not monitoring the effectiveness of the communication and we found a number of cases where external stakeholders believed that Newmont could be doing more to maintain the positive relationships established.

Overall Conclusions

Based on our review we conclude that, in all material respects Newmont has appropriately reported in its 2007 Report:

• Its application and status of alignment of Newmont's management and reporting of its Sustainability performance against the AA1000AS (2003) for completeness, materiality, and responsiveness with the exception of the issues discussed above;
• Its status of compliance of the Report against the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (2006) - level A requirements and the associated GRI Mining and Metals Sector Supplement Pilot Version 1.0 (2005) as presented in the GRI Content Index;
• Its application and status of alignment of Newmont's management and reporting of its Sustainability performance against the ICMM Principles for Sustainable Development (2003) and the UN Global Compact Ten Principles as presented in the GRI Content Index; and
• The data detailed in the data sheets and tables that form part of the performance sections of the report.

ERM Observations

Based on our assurance activities set out above, and without affecting our assurance conclusions, we provide the following key comments and recommendations for management improvements that could be reported on in future years. Further details are presented to management through our assurance project report.

Areas of Strength

• Management systems have been developed to ensure sustainability risks are controlled. Health, Safety and Loss Prevention (HSLP) performance was assessed to be the furthest progressed and programs were clearly in place delivering high levels of performance with clear focus on continuous improvements for the future.
• The Stage Gate Project Planning/Evaluation process for new projects was an example of a robust business process into which sustainability considerations had been integrated.
• Newmont has strong internal policies and standards for CER.

Areas to Consider for Future Improvement

• There are aspects of the GRI reporting framework which are touched upon by the report but which might benefit from slight reinterpretation in future reports.
• An overarching sustainability strategy or framework setting out the company's objectives for sustainability may help to provide an overall coherence to activities taking place both at corporate and in the field.
• While accountability for environmental management has clearly been improved in 2007, the responsibilities and accountability for the management of CER issues continues to lag. CER could be better integrated into Operational/Corporate functions and these functions should be held accountable for the implementation of the CER standards and processes throughout the organization.
• To improve the identification and management of social and environmental risk, several actions should be considered:
  • the CER standards and guidelines should be further progressed and relevant assessments should be undertaken and plans developed at all mines to provide a baseline for future development;
  • for new projects, all social assessments should be integrated with environmental and community health assessments to ensure a coherence of approach and risk management planning across the operations;
  • all sites should develop a strategic stakeholder engagement strategy/plan based on stakeholder mapping, and a mine closure plan, to ensure that material issues for stakeholders are effectively fed into the risk management and decision making processes for operation and closure.

Respective Responsibilities and ERM Independence

Newmont's management is responsible for the collection and presentation of the Report and the data included within the Report, and for maintaining the internal controls and systems designed to support the management and reporting of its sustainability performance. ERM's responsibility is to express its assurance conclusions on the selected scope of work agreed to with Newmont.

During 2007, ERM worked with Newmont on other technical consulting engagements in Indonesia. ERM operates strict conflict of interest checks and has confirmed our independence to work on this engagement to Newmont.

ERM Competence

Our team includes environmental, health and safety, loss prevention, social, economic, business administration and assurance specialists who have performed similar engagements with a number of multi-national companies. Our assurance team has the required combination of education, experience, training and skills for this engagement.

Environmental Resources Management
Washington, DC
April 22, 2008.


ERM is a global provider of environmental, social and corporate responsibility consulting and assurance services. Over the past 4 years we have worked with over half of the world's 500 largest companies, in addition to numerous governments, international organizations and NGOs.