Mining for Closure: Policies, practises and guidelines for sustainable mining and closure of mines

2.

the rationale for working towards “mining for closure”

of ongoing liabilities 23 (Laurence, 2003) as quickly as possible and at as low a cost as possible. As such, a mining organization often has, and traditionally has had, a short term planning perspective – a view that is significantly misaligned with the temporal aspects of potential impacts (Strongman, 2000; van Zyl et al ., 2002a). The same may even be true of regulatory bodies (Smith & Underwood, 2000). The objectives of present-day mining industries with regard to mine closure are often similar to those of the regulatory authorities. Owners and operators wish to eliminate future liabilities as far as possible to obtain a release from planning and discharge licence conditions or bonds and to give them the freedom to dispose of their sites at the ap- propriate time (Smith & Underwood, 2000). This contrasts markedly with the interests of the succeeding custodian(s) and associated stakehold- ers. These actors are (or should be) far more focused upon the continued sustainable use of the land (Strongman, 2000). In current frameworks, such custodial interest generally only commences when a closure plan is completed (Robertson, 1998). In the past, communities often saw that the only choice available was whether a deposit should be mined or not. However, it has been shown that the manner in which a mine is planned can have major influences on themagnitude and duration of impacts over the life of the development and following its clo- sure (Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a, p. 2). This indicates that at first glance the issue of Min- ing for Closure may dominantly be an issue for com- munities and their guardians to pursue. As a Mining Adviser for the World Bank Group stated some years ago (Strongman, 2000, emphasis added):

As stated in Section 1.3, this document seeks to ad- dress three distinct components of the interaction between mining, the environment and society in SEE/TRB. Similar to other mining related initiatives (c.f. ANZMEC MCA, 2000 for instance) it address- es the operation of existing and new mining opera- tions. However, as distinct from such initiatives, “Mining for Closure” in this document is intended to encompass the stimulation and the creation of new and innovative frameworks to support the re-mining or otherwise valorising of abandoned or orphaned sites and the closure and making safe of such sites. This document is intended to build on calls for such frameworks (see for example, Post Mining Al- liance, 2005), and existing governmental advances in practice in some jurisdictions (see for example, Gammon, 2002). Comprehensive mine closure for abandoned mines, presently operating mines, and future mines remains a major challenge for virtually every mining nation in the world. To accommodate the need to close abandoned mines and to ensure that existing and future mines are appropriately closed will require the cooperation of a diverse stakeholder community, new and innovative methods of financing closure and major policy and legislative change in most nations to ensure post-mining sustainable development. Mining for closure requires recognition that min- ing is a temporary use of land, but that the nature of potential impacts can be exceedingly long term. Further, such impacts can negatively affect a wide range of stakeholders and economic development in addition to the ecological environment. Mining for Closure is a sustainability issue – not just an en- vironmental issue. As Robertson, Shawand others (1998; 1998) note, the interest of amining organization in the land generally terminates with the implementation of a closure plan – a closure plan that is generally focussed upon items such as optimized resource extraction, achievement of regulated environmental objectives and cessation Clark et al . (2000) summarises the challenge of a process he terms integrated mine closure as follows:

There is a fundamental divide between the in- terests of mining companies and the interests of

23. As such, we are essentially discussing “walk-away” – or legally binding sign-off of liability for the site. However, as Gilles Trem- blay, Program Manager, Special Projects with Natural Resources Canada indicates (personal communication: Natural Resources Canada, 2005, 2 August)- for sites with ongoing pollution chal- lenges such as acidic drainage – true “walk-away” conditions may not be achievable.

13

MINING FOR CLOSURE