Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

4.4.2

what about post-closure?

As was indicated in Section 2, there can be a funda-

mental divide between the interests of mining com-

panies and the interests of the communities where

mining takes place. While mining companies typi-

cally want to develop mines, achieve a good return

for shareholders and then leave; communities on

the other hand want to see wealth and income op-

portunities created in their midst that will last over

time. Further, within current frameworks their cus-

todial interest generally only commences when a

closure plan is completed. This indicates that these

key stakeholders should indeed be very interested

in post-closure issues.

According to a South African mining leader (Rei-

chardt, 2002):

It therefore is certain that mining companies clos-

ing or downscaling their operations in developing

countries increasingly will be pressured into not

merely finding alternative employment opportu-

nities but also establishing retraining or develop-

ment funds with which to ameliorate the impact

of job losses on the local communities

Moreover, the sustainability of community activi-

ties that are directly or indirectly supported by the

mine is also put at risk. Measures and activities that

can support or maintain post-mine economic activ-

ity and community development are central to such

stakeholders.

While it is reported that effective stakeholder en-

gagement can make it possible to develop innova-

tive approaches to long-term land use at mine sites

(van Zyl

et al

., 2002a) it cannot be denied that this

represents a major challenge. Progress however,

must be made. Not least so that future custodian

stakeholders are willing to accept a mine closure

at all. Robertson

et al

(1998) indicate that poor ex-

perience with the success of closure plans (in gen-

eral), as well as the recognition that many defects

are not apparent (or not recognised) at the time

of custodian transfer, has resulted in reluctance

by the new custodians to accept transfer. They

indicate that successful custodial transfer of land

post-mining requires an extension of the concept

of “designing for closure” and the development of

a “post mining sustainable use plan” rather than

a “closure plan”. Here, it is held that the mining

industry can do much to limit the liabilities associ-

ated with operation a mine by actively participat-

ing in, or leading efforts to define the custodial

transfer process, and by developing a sustainable

post mining land use.

As an example, it is not uncommon that a mining

company directly sponsors many essential com-

munity services such as medical care, schools,

and so forth during the period of mine operation.

Sassoon (2000) argues that consultation with the

government and community leaders will be neces-

sary to identify how these services can be contin-

ued after mine closure. A number of foundations

have been established in mining communities to

provide long-term sustainability for some servic-

es, e.g. the Escondida Foundation in Antafogasta,

Chile and the Rossing Foundation in Namibia (le

Roux, 2000). Van Zyl

et al

(2002a) report that a

similar approach is to establish a community

trust fund that is protected against inflation. The

income from the fund can allow the communities

to take a long-term view of sustainability. Such

a fund may also allow the communities to build

their own capacity in order to manage the finan-

cial resources sustainably.

However, and as was indicated in the previous sub-

section, it may be undesirable to rely to heavily

upon “trust funds” and may be far more produc-

tive to encourage a post mining “developed” sus-

tainable land-use which yields an adequate return.

Moreover in the context of SEE/TRB it may be de-

sirable to engender situations where there is ongo-

ing care for the land in order to ameliorate the costs

of ongoing pollution control.

Following Robertson

et al

(1998), a developed use

usually implies a financial yield and may require ei-

ther passive care, such as would apply to rangeland

or forestry, or active care, as would apply to any in-

dustrial site. Figure 4.2 provides a representation

of such land-use. The cyclical representation of site

use post-closure is intended to portray the manner

in which the land should (theoretically) mature

towards a minimal or no-maintenance condition

with time.

Definitions provided in Table 3 refer to the figure

and to the concepts described above.

It is important to note that there is likely to be a “grey

zone” between the classifications of passive and ac-

tive care as outlined above. Particularly where water

pollution issues requiring some level of monitoring

or “passive treatment” are associated with a site. For