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

This document will then conclude with a number of suggestions regarding the way forward to achieving Mining for Closure in SEE/TRB. The text addresses each of the following queries areas in turn: what the key issues are; why they should be dealt with; how such issues can be progressed, who should or can take action and when action should be taken. abandoned sites The reader is reminded that within this report the term abandoned mine site refers to an area former- ly used for mining and mineral processing (min- ing operations or facilities) where closure (includ- ing rehabilitation) is incomplete but whose legal owners still exist, while an orphaned mine site is deemed to be an abandoned mining operations or facilities for which the responsible party no longer exists or cannot be located. This distinction is important to note in the text that is included in this sub-section and the sections that follow. what are some key issues regarding orphaned and abandoned sites in see/trb? A large number of mineral extractive industry re- lated sites that are of high hazard exist in SEE/TRB and many have significant risks associated with them that threaten the environment, public health and safety, and/or regional socio-political stability in the South Eastern European countries. The enormous financial liability embedded in any systematic rehabilitation programme for mining legacies constitutes a challenge that is beyond any single social actor’s financial or organizational re- sources to solve alone in a conventional manner. There is a lack of quantitative data describing the morphology of sites, their geochemistry, their gen- eral degree of risk, and which actors who should be accountable, or can be made accountable for such sites. While, the lack of current legal owners of orphaned mine sites often places the accountability in the governmental hands, few governments anywhere have the resources or the expertise to take on physi- 6.1 orphaned and

cal and financial responsibility for dealing with such orphaned sites.

(Evidence suggests that) current liability regimes act as a disincentive for economic actors to asso- ciate themselves with orphaned and abandoned mine sites. The approaches to social issues taken in rehabilita- tion programmes are often inappropriate at such sites and for their neighbouring communities. The absence of clear criteria and standards for re- habilitation in many jurisdictions delay action by both the industry and by public authorities Many national institutions or jurisdictions lack direction and require guidance. Further, it is clear that new approaches are required to find more in- novative solutions. why should these issues be dealt with?

There are very significant risks associated with non-operational, abandoned and/or orphaned sites

64

MINING FOR CLOSURE