59 / 120
MINING FOR CLOSURE
41
here include 1) coercive measures; 2) utilitarian
measures supplying some form of material incen-
tive; 3) measures intended to supply or enhance
capacity and 4) measures taken to influence the
norms of industry and other stakeholders.
71
These
categories, assessed in Table 2 indicate that the
focus of this initiative (and similar initiatives) are
predominantly targeted at influencing capacity re-
lated and normative factors within the shift to more
sustainable mining practice (i.e. what capacity ac-
tors have to perform, and what social norms actors
seek to comply to or feel bound to comply with).
72
The brief examination documented in the table in-
dicates that the key focus of the initiative is upon
the influencing of norms, and the stimulation of
capacity building. The stimulation of suitable coer-
cive measures to frame absolute requirements for
Mining for Closure
and the creation of models for
utilitarian measures that can encourage uptake re-
main largely outside the remit for such initiatives.
This provides some indication of the gap that this
document must seek to fill.
Further, it is desirable that concrete examples of the
types of works required are available upon which
to base initiatives in SEE. Here, notable actions are
being undertaken in some national jurisdictions.
One leading example shall be taken up prior to
moving to an examination of the underlying rea-
sons for mine abandonment in Section 4.3.
Box 3
A proposed approach for the Post-Mining Alliance
(Post Mining Alliance, 2005)
The Approach
The Post-Mining Alliance aims to become the world
leader in co-ordinating information exchange and
facilitating the implementation of good practice in
integrated mine closure planning, and in dealing
with the adverse social and environmental legacy
of orphaned and abandoned mines. It will pro-
mote a multi-stakeholder approach in which risks,
responsibilities and opportunities are shared. It
will optimise engagement between mining sector
stakeholders, and build a network to transfer ide-
as, knowledge and technology globally and deliver
action locally.
Action on these issues will require innovation on a
number of fronts:
Inventive technological solutions – both engi-
neering and biological
Creative financial mechanisms – to release
funds from diverse sources
New legal instruments – to overcome the his-
torical stumbling blocks
Unconventional partnerships – involving both
the public and private sectors, and embracing
players who are not usually engaged in post-
mining regeneration.
The Alliance will be an international organisation in
subject scope, membership and operational influ-
ence. The critical audiences have been identified as
policy makers and legislators at all levels of govern-
ment, companies, the investment community, local
communities and non-governmental organisations.
A small secretariat coordinates the Alliance at the
Eden Project, Cornwall, UK. Key activities of the Al-
liance will include:
Benchmarking good practice
Developing demonstration models
Convening & facilitating workshops
The underlying philosophy of the initiative is that
mine closure planning and the adverse impacts of
mining legacy should be addressed by a wider con-
stituency than mining companies alone. While there
is significant activity in post-mining regeneration
being undertaken worldwide, there is a clear need
for co-ordination in identifying, collating and dis-
seminating good practices, and further integrating
social, economic and environmental factors. One of
the key challenges is to promote much wider adop-
tion of current good practice in integrated closure by
those who, for a variety of reasons, do not conform
to this standard or expectation. There is a need to
understand what constrains the adoption of good
practice. At the same time, particularly in develop-
ing countries, regulators and other stakeholders are
calling for more guidance and capacity-building to
ensure that good practice can be more easily identi-
fied, understood, acknowledged and implemented.
71. Delineation of such approaches – or the manner in which
stakeholders influence, and can be influenced, can be found in
sources such as Mitchell et al (1997). Refer also to the discussion
of policy measures in Section 1.5.
72. Note that some proposed work areas address more than one
area or measure.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•