Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

Miller, 2005). When viewed in combination with

growing desires to preserve land areas as a reposi-

tory for valuable biological assets, for natural envi-

ronmental services and for aesthetic appeal, these

developments appear likely continue to drive con-

tinued improvement in mining practice.

As a part of this positive trend, mine planning,

mine closure practices and the conduct of mine op-

erations to facilitate environmentally and socially

acceptable closure have also evolved significantly in

recent years. While in the past communities often

saw that the only choice available was whether a

deposit should be mined or not, it has been clearly

shown that the manner in which a mine is planned

can have major positive influences on the magni-

tude and duration of impacts over the life of the

development and following its closure (Environ-

mental Protection Agency, 1995a, p. 2). In this

context, the title

Mining for Closure

chosen for this

document is

not

intended to indicate that existing

mining activities should be ceased, and future min-

ing activities curtailed significantly. To the contrary,

the mining sector is a very important contributor

to local and national economies (Nazari, 1999).

Further, the extractive industries will continue to

underpin the economies of many countries in the

future. As such, ongoing and new developments to

process and mine the mineral resources of “min-

ing nations” will be vital for many of them to pur-

sue sustainable development. In recognition of this

importance, this document is intended to help fa-

cilitate mining policy development, capacity devel-

opment and institutional development so that they

can yield a sustainable mix of social, economic,

and environmental outcomes from mining. The

key focus of this document is upon countries in

SEE/TRB, however much of the material and ideas

presented here are intended to be generic.

However, while many positive developments have

taken place, it cannot be ignored that the major

motivating factors behind improvement of exist-

ing and new mining activities are the extensive and

problematical legacies of abandoned mines and

their associated environmental and social problems

(Balkau, 2005a, 2005b; U.S. Department of Inte-

rior, 1998).

Countless thousands of these mining

legacies exist around the world and while marked

improvements can be noted in the management of

ongoing and planned mining developments, the

“making good” of past mining sins has been far

less impressive. Relatively few of these orphaned

or abandoned mines have been restored. The min-

ing sector constitutes a very important contribu-

tor to local and national economies in Central and

Eastern Europe (CEE) and SEE/TRB. However, in

parts of these regions, the mining sector has often

been characterised by inappropriate planning, op-

erational and post-operational practices. Moreover,

such activities have taken place within inadequate

regulatory frameworks. Inadequate implementa-

tion of mine rehabilitation and closure activities

has been one outcome of note (Nazari, 1999).

the focus region for this document, this has re-

sulted in and continues to cause – significant ad-

verse environmental, health and safety, social and

economic impacts and related liabilities (Burnod-

Requia, 2004; ICPDR/Zinke Environment Con-

sulting, 2000; Nazari, 1999; Peck, 2004).

In addition to these problems, the contribution that

mining can deliver to such Economies in Transi-

tion (EiT) is also compromised for other reasons. In

1999, the European Bank for Reconstruction and

Development (Nazari) reported that in many EiTs

where there are significant mining activities, the

lack of implementation of mine closure activities

has resulted and continues to result in significant

adverse environmental and health and safety im-

pacts. Such failure was normally as a result of finan-

cial constraints. It should be noted that the finan-

5. According to Gilles Tremblay, Program Manager, Special

Projects with Natural Resources Canada (personal communica-

tion: Natural Resources Canada, 2005, 2 August), “Mining for

Closure” as presented in this document is very similar to the con-

cept of ”Design for Closure” and/or “Operate for Closure” utilised

elsewhere. He indicates that the term “Design for Closure” was

actively promoted by John Gadsby, a consultant from British Co-

lumbia, Canada and he used that in a foreword to a volume on

Acid Drainage published in 1990 (Gadsby, Malick, & Day, 1990).

According to Tremblay, Canadian actors used such terminology

extensively during the 1990s and it was mostly focused on reduc-

ing the environmental liabilities at the time of closure. Further,

he reports that as part of the Seven Questions to Sustainability

Task of the North American MMSD (Mining Metals and Sustain-

able Development) Regional Process it was realized that to test

the contributions of a mining project to Sustainable Development

one should change the concept to “Design and Operate for Post-

Closure”. The mine then becomes a bridge between the pre-min-

ing and post-mining physical and human environment (for green

field projects) and served as a powerful way of looking at the con-

tributions of mining to SD.

6. It must be stressed; that the “closure” (or lack thereof) as con-

ducted by the parties that were active at the majority of abandoned

and orphaned mines discussed within this document met the en-

vironmental requirements imposed (or not imposed) on them at

the time of mining and minerals processing activity. While we

find that there have been major improvements in the more indus-

trialized countries – such was accepted practice at that time.

7. Then Principal Environmental Specialist, European Bank for

Reconstruction & Development (EBRD)