Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

To further clarify the intention of this document,

and the manner in which it is related to the types

of stakeholders outlined above, the following notes

are provided regarding a limited number of key

stakeholders. These points also build on the con-

tent of other parts of this document.

Administrators of minerals activities (dominant

and dormant stakeholders)

. This brief document is

intended to outline the expectations of society and

the international community, the general content of

mining best environmental and social practice, and

its degree of international uptake. This should serve

to guide the building of the foundations for good

mining policy and administration. Further, such

stakeholders can use this document to help inform

their own expectations for practice and to stimulate

innovation and creation of solutions tailored to their

own circumstance (as is discussed earlier in this

document, a number of practices or investments re-

quired elsewhere will not suffice here, nor can they

be afforded). This document should also help inform

the stance of such actors regarding the granting of

legitimacy or the granting of power to proponents or

opponents of minerals related activity.

Communities adjacent to minerals activities (de-

pendent stakeholders).

The content presented

within this discussion should help guide the ex-

pectations of such dependent actors. General guid-

ance regarding reasonable expectations for safety,

accident preparedness, operational emissions,

Mining for Closure

, closure plans, site monitoring

and so forth is available in this text. Much more

specific guidance is available in the sources utilised

in generating this text This document should also

provide aid in understanding the motives and the

approaches of those directly involved in minerals

related activities. The content can also help such

communities where they need to seek power to sup-

port legitimate claims. This could be in the form

of guardianship of administrations or the support

and voice of the international community.

Downstream or risk-affected neighbours & nations

(dependent or dangerous stakeholders)

. “Down-

stream” or “receiving” neighbours, particularly

nation states can also utilise this document in the

manner outlined for the dependant stakeholders

above. The principal difference here are the scale,

level of capacity and ability to pose some form of

danger to the mining development in situations

where jurisdictional legitimacy may be absent, but

the means to act may not be.

National and international NGOs (demanding and

dormant stakeholders).

Again, the content pre-

sented within this discussion should help guide

the expectations of such actors regarding reason-

able expectations for safety, accident preparedness,

operational emissions, Mining for Closure, closure

plans, site monitoring and so forth. Further, this

document should also provide aid in understand-

ing the motives and the approaches of those direct-

ly involved in minerals related activities.

Intergovernmental bodies and development agen-

cies (dormant, demanding or dominant stakehold-

ers).

Dependant upon factors such as the degree

of urgency perceived and the ability to supply or

withhold development funds, the application of this

document amongst such actors will vary. Across the

board, it appears reasonable to state that the content

presented here will help such bodies formulate their

expectations regarding

Mining for Closure

In the outlines presented in Figure 3.1 and Figure

3.2 the mining company (a proponent of mining)

was presented as the central actor tied to a mining

development – upon which all other stakeholders

looked. Although not explicitly portrayed in those

figures, it is clear that such actors are also central

stakeholders in the mining development. Where

they have a mining lease and official role (right of

law) in society, there is legitimacy; where there are

financial resources and human capacity then they

have power; when they have committed resources

to a project, there is time sensitivity and criticality.

Proponents of minerals activities (dominant or de-

finitive stakeholders).

For such actors, the material

presented here should help underline the expecta-

tions of other parties – expectations that should be

anticipated by proponents of mineral development.

Further, this document aims to present a balanced

account of the underlying economic and operation-

al common sense of

Mining for Closure

. Within this

facet, actions and practices performed so as to gain

the trust of their opponents should be important to

such actors. Even when trust may not be obtained,

problems of opposition may be circumvented or

defused by genuine displays of best practice that

serve to reduce the legitimacy of claims made by

opponents.