Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

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).

Clark

et al

. (2000) summarises the challenge of a

process he terms integrated mine closure as follows:

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

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

of ongoing liabilities

(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

., 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):

There is a fundamental divide between the in-

terests of mining companies and the interests of

the rationale for working towards

“mining for closure”

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.