Civil society organisations have raised human rights and environmental concerns about the Reko Diq copper mine in Balochistan, Pakistan. The mine is operated by Reko Diq Mining Company (RDMC) and owned 50% by Barrick Mining Corporation, 25% by Pakistan's federal government, and 25% by the Government of Balochistan.

In August 2025, over 30 civil society organisations published a letter calling on international financiers, including the International Finance Corporation and the Asian Development Bank, to pause all funding for RDMC until concerns have been addressed. Organisations highlighted that the project takes places in an intensely militarised region, where civic space is extremely closed and where reprisals against civil society actors are systematic, making effective stakeholder engagement "virtually impossible." They also stated that RDMC has ignored the presence of the Indigenous Baloch population in its Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), classifying the Baloch people as an “ethnic minority”, and is denying the Baloch people their rights with regard to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), stakeholder engagement, land rights and cultural heritage. Other concerns raised include exacerbation of water scarcity, pollution of water and air, loss of livelihoods, threats to health, and high carbon emissions.

The Resource Centre invited Barrick Mining Corporation, International Finance Corporation, and Asian Development Bank to respond; they did. Barrick (responding also for RDMC) published a response to the civil society letter, noting that a comprehensive environmental and social impact assessment was undertaken over a period of two-and-a-half years by independent experts, under peer review, and in consultation with local communities, environmental groups, and government stakeholders. The company disagrees with the assertions in the project does not meet lender standards or that it would be ‘impossible’ for the IFC and ADB to uphold their environmental and social safeguards if they proceeded with financing the project. See the full response below.

IFC and ADB provided more information about how they applied their safeguard requirements in this case and responses to the concerns raised by civil society. Their full responses are available below.