11 / 120
MINING FOR CLOSURE
XI
adequate capacity among regulatory person-
nel;
ongoing research and testing of remediation
strategies and technologies and integration of
results in
Mining for Closure
review processes;
surveillance of the views and desires for the in-
volvement of local communities (in particular
where such parties wish to ensure the quality
of information that they are receiving – de-
manding a role in site monitoring and access
to information to ensure accountability of op-
erator and governments are examples);
the maintenance of communication between
private and public bodies to improve closure
policy and regulations;
ongoing searches for financing measures for
clean-up; disaster response; spills management
and so forth, particularly for orphaned sites.
It is necessary to underline that it is the role of gov-
ernment (as the representative of stakeholders in
the nation state) to ensure that the expectations of
stakeholders are met. Further, it must be noted that
stakeholder expectations are inherently fluid – and
indeed that such expectations can be influenced,
and perhaps should be where they do not best re-
flect the interests of all.
the governmental case
for mining for closure
While there are other advantages defining the gov-
ernmental case for pursuit of
Mining for Closure
, it
suffices to summarise them within the following
broad categories:
the prevention of harmful environmental and
social impacts;
lower risk of non-compliances;
greater acceptance/less resistance from key
stakeholders (in particular local communities
and land owners);
lower financial burdens to the national purse
for mine closure and rehabilitation, and
lower risks for significant liabilities post-closure.
In the context of developing and restructuring
economies, these points are perhaps even more
telling than for wealthier nations. It is clear how-
ever, that where governments do
not
have sufficient
fiscal resources to deal with legacies, then even
more innovativeness and flexibility will be required
in order to protect the public and the environment
from the risks posed by mining legacies.
the business case for
mining for closure
It is also important – and fortunate – that it also
makes good business sense to adopt best environ-
mental practice in mining, and to
mine for closure
.
Importantly for mining organizations, these bene-
fits evidence themselves both during mining oper-
ations and at the end of mine life and as such, they
constitute far more than just cost savings that can
be achieved during the execution of a task forced
upon them.
Benefits (principally after Environment Australia,
2002a) include
inter alia
:
continual reduction of liabilities via optimization
of rehabilitation works undertaken during the
productive phase of mining operations rather
than deferral of costs to the end of the project;
provision of a basis for estimating rehabilita-
tion costs prior to final closure so that suffi-
cient financial and material resources can be
set aside;
ongoing testing, assessment and feedback re-
garding the effectiveness of rehabilitation de-
signs and/or processes in a site specific fash-
ion during the active mine life;
increased efficiency in execution of work (e.g.
in reduction of double-handling for waste ma-
terials and topsoil);
possibilities to optimise mine planning for ef-
ficient resource extraction
and
return of eco-
system to a functional form;
reduced areas of land disturbance through use of
smaller waste landforms and mining paths, and
in some circumstances progressive backfilling;
identification of areas of high risk as priorities
for ongoing research and/or remediation;
the direct involvement of operations personnel
in achieving mine rehabilitation outcomes;
the involvement of key stakeholders (especial-
ly local communities) in setting priorities for
mine rehabilitation;
reduction of ongoing responsibilities for the
site and facilitation of timely relinquishment
of tenements and bond recovery;
reductions in impacts on local communities in
terms of environmental, social and economic
impacts of mine operations;
reduction of exposure to contingent liabilities
related to public safety and environmental
hazards and risks;
lower risk of regulatory non-compliances,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•