Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

the communities where mining takes place. Min-

ing companies typically want to develop mines,

achieve a good return for shareholders, then leave

when production is finished – so that they can de-

velop more mines and continue to produce else-

where. Communities on the other hand want to

see wealth and income opportunities created in

their midst that will last over time ...

In line with such interest, the legacy of abandoned

mines, their associated environmental, social and

economic problems and the future development

opportunities for communities has led to an in-

creased emphasis on mine closure planning in re-

cent years (Smith & Underwood, 2000).

However, this is not an issue that has been rele-

gated by mining companies. Nor is it an issue that

lacks strategic relevance or attention within the

industry. Key actors in the industry clearly recog-

nise that the very viability of the mining industry

is challenged because of high expectations for envi-

ronmental protection, lower risk to human health,

competing land use demands, and the value of the

natural environment as recreational space, and as

the repository of valuable biological assets, natural

environmental services and aesthetic appeal (Envi-

ronment Australia, 2002b).

The Australian mining industry fully accepts the

concept and responsibility of minesite rehabilita-

tion and decommissioning (ANZMEC MCA,

2000, p. v).

The importance of such factors affecting the future

viability of the mining industry hold in SEE/TRB

as they do in countries such as Australia (cited

above), and other leading mining nations such as

Canada (Gammon, 2002; WOM Geological As-

sociates, 2000), the U.S. and more. Moreover, in

the majority of jurisdictions taken as examples in

this document, social issues and financial liabili-

ties associated with such sites are being given great

attention. Rising opposition to mining and miner-

als processing from society and increased scrutiny

and coordinated opposition from NGOs constitute

threats to the industry’s “licence to operate”. How-

ever, in a regional environment and security con-

text, the stress upon certain aspects are somewhat

different in SEE/TRB and particularly in multina-

tional watersheds such as the TRB, than they are in

these other jurisdictions. In SEE/TRB, prominent

aspects affecting factors such as tensions between

Nation-states that may result from transbound-

ary pollution and the retardation of social and eco-

nomic development are central. Here, the loss of

mining operations – or the opportunity to mine

– may constitute a major loss to the host society in

development, environment and economic spheres.

In parallel, substandard operations or mine closure

may bear with them repercussions at a much high-

er level than the mining company or the local host

community for a minerals operation (Peck, 2004).

Mining practice has evolved to reflect these con-

cerns in a number of countries and regulatory re-

quirements, and some operators have introduced

management policies and practices and have

adopted technologies that allow mining to occur

with minimum environmental harm (Smith &

Underwood, 2000). To take Canada as a promi-

nent example, Tremblay (2005) writes that the

first government regulations requiring mineral

or mine site rehabilitation were enacted in British

Columbia in 1969.

Since then, the (Canadian)

government’s approach has been to set broad rec-

lamation objectives, and then negotiate mine-spe-

cific requirements through the review of reclama-

tion plans and issuing of permits. The philosophy

behind this approach has been that every mine is

unique and therefore, reclamation requirements

must be tailored to suit the site specifics.

Further,

to this point and relating to the critical issue of

waterborne pollution from mine sites (including

acidic and neutral drainage issues). Tremblay (per-

sonal communication: Natural Resources Canada,

2005, 2 August) also stresses the understanding

of geochemical issues at mine sites is fundamen-

tal to the success of reclamation efforts. A better

understanding of acidic drainage as a significant

environmental issue in the past 20 years has re-

sulted in increased security for many sites in Brit-

ish Columbia and the rest of Canada.

Moreover, and very importantly in the context of

this discussion, Miller (2005) reports that a number

of jurisdictions have strengthened their legislation

in recent years, including Botswana, Canada (the

Yukon), Chile, Ghana, India, Peru, South Africa,

24. See Barazzuol & Stewart (2003) for details.

25. Tremblay reports that originally (1969), bonds to secure mine

rehabilitation were limited to a maximum of $500 per acre and

raised to $1000 per acre in 1975 (1 acre is approximately 0.4 hec-

tares). The legislative limit on the amount of security the province

could hold was removed in 1989. Since then, security levels have

been increased on many properties to reduce the possibility that

public funds may be required to reclaim a mine in case of com-

pany default.