Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

2.1

An examination of the literature enfolding min-

ing and sustainability indicates that the extractive

industries, environment and societies can not only

coexist, but can prosper together. Practitioners and

stakeholders have delineated a wide set of company

internal benefits

and

a wide range of positive envi-

ronmental and social externalities associated with

good mining practice. Traditionally however, good

governments have had principle accountability for

considering environmental and social externalities

while the focus of mining companies has been on

internal efficiency concerns.

On a positive note, the benefits for industry that

can be achieved through improvement of envi-

ronmental practice are many. According to the

national environmental body in Australia (Envi-

ronment Australia, 2002b) a leading mining na-

tion, the benefits to a mining organization that are

yielded by best environmental practice in mining

include:

improved access to land for mineral explora-

tion,

greater certainty of outcomes in the project ap-

plication stage,

the prevention of harmful environmental and

social impacts,

lower risk of non-compliance,

greater acceptance/less resistance from key

stakeholders (in particular local communities

and land owners),

lower financial burdens in the mine closure

and rehabilitation phases, and

lower risk of significant liabilities post-closure

It is clear that such benefits are of also of great

interest to national environmental and mining ju-

risdictions in SEE/TRB. However, in the context

of SEE/TRB, the potential benefits are somewhat

broader in scope, not least because the criticality

is greater than in countries that have highly devel-

oped institutional mechanisms for dealing with

such items. As is outlined in detail in the ENVSEC

Desk-assessment (Peck, 2004), improved mining

practice should also yield benefits in a number of

areas that may be accorded less immediate priority

in other regions. These include,

inter alia

reduction of significant and at times severe po-

litical, social, health and environmental risks

– including transboundary risks associated

with orphaned, abandoned

and

operational

mining sites;

improvement of internal social stability in-

cluding a catalytic role in national and regional

economic growth;

ongoing amelioration of existing pollution and

prevention of future pollution.

It is clear that differing types of stakeholders in min-

ing will accord these opportunities differing priority.

Further, when mine decommissioning planning is

incorporated as a part of “best environmental prac-

tice mining” as discussed above, then a new subset

of benefits is documented. The discussion of such

priorities and benefits are addressed later in this doc-

ument. A number of the items relevant to mine clo-

sure are also addressed in more detail in Section 4.

2.2

While all the arguments presented above should be

attractive to governments and to responsible min-

ers, the fact remains that best environmental practice

methodologies are not without cost. Further, the point

has already beenmade that rehabilitation of mine leg-

acies – particularly in the absence of ongoing mining

activities can be very costly. Thus, a question must be

addressed is – Is there reason for mining companies

to engage in the discussions of

Mining for Closure

In the absence of accountability for environmental

quality and the viability of communities in a min-

ing area after the cessation of mining and miner-

als processing activities, then the answer may be

no. This however, is a situation that increasingly

lacks relevance as countries seek to build regula-

tory frameworks that are similar to those of “suc-

cessful” mining countries.

As was discussed at

the opportunities

associated with

best environmental

practice mining

investment in best

mining practice

32. In SEE in general, and in distinct watershed areas such as

the TRB, there remain serious challenges with airborne transport

of pollutants such as dust, smelter emissions, gases, vapours;

(frequent) mass movements of wastes such as tailings contain-

ing heavy metals and toxic compounds; waterborne transport

of wastes as suspended solids and as dissolved materials. While

such challenges exist elsewhere – including advanced mining na-

tions, the gravity of the situation is generally lesser.

33. Refer to Andrews (2002) for a comparison of the relative suc-

cess of mining countries and their general performance against a

range of governance measures.

•