Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

As was indicated in Section 4.2 where the special

problems of orphan sites were discussed, various

parties are examining the challenge in this area.

However, as indicated, it appears that the formula-

tion of suitable coercive measures to frame abso-

lute requirements for

Mining for Closure

, and the

creation of models for utilitarian measures that can

encourage uptake, remain largely outside the remit

for such initiatives. This next section addresses the

latter subject – i.e. measures to encourage activity

dealing with mining legacies. Some general ideas

about how to proceed – expressed in general terms

and without qualifications or provisos, are included

in the following sections. These suggestions to be

seen as a “seed” for future ideas – they are not yet in

a form that seeks to fulfil practical requirements.

5.1.1

a special case of “orphan

sites”

It is now time to explore the potential of a different

approach – that of a partnership to future remedia-

tion of orphanmining sites without assigning blame

or legal liability to the extent that has been sought

elsewhere. Such a partnership would be based on

creating future economic and social values in the

context of a healthy environment, rather than simply

aiming to “clean up”. This would require a consider-

able shift in the stance of all the partners, and is only

likely where all of them see some gain from such a

deal. However, by focussing on opportunities rather

than liabilities it is more likely that such a major

shift could be made. For such an approach to gather

widespread support the potential opportunities need

to be communicated to stakeholders such as local

communities and to the mining industry (although

many might argue that they should be self-evident).

The emergence of such is partnerships is highlight-

ed by the following mention of a joint venture from

the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Province of

Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and

Mines in 2002 – a joint venture that has now gone

forward and made “on the ground” achievements.

Ontario is currently negotiating a joint venture with

the Ontario Mining Association to collectively work

on legacy sites. This envisages the current industry

providing expertise, equipment, supplies and person-

nel to be matched by government funding in address-

ing the legacy. Suitable indemnification for potential

liabilities is proving to be a challenge To summarize

this issue we have found inventorying and prioritiz-

ing amongst legacy sites to be of fundamental im-

portance in ensuring the best use of pubic funds. En-

couraging new exploration activity on old sites and

engaging the current industries are examples of our

exhortation to other jurisdictions facing these prob-

lems to: be creative! (Gammon, 2002, p3)

Bundling the remediation costs into a larger de-

velopment-oriented framework will require more

creative solutions than simply assigning strict fi-

nancial liability to one or several partners. Creative

solutions should be based on maximizing the as-

set potential of abandoned sites, and creating value

through policy changes and fiscal incentives. In-

deed, examples exist that fall into a number of gen-

eral categories for economic activity based upon:

the use of operational wastes as a resource for

more advanced mineral extraction (remining);

the use of operational wastes as a resource for

alternative product manufacture;

the combination of site rehabilitation with the

waste disposal requirements of other human

activities;

the conversion of mining-related infrastruc-

ture for other uses, and the conversion of spe-

cialised mining infrastructure;

87. Much of the content in this section is derived directly from a

position paper put forward by Fritz Balkau of UNEP DTIE Paris

(2005b).

88. The Ontario Mining Association’s (OMA) partnership with the

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines mentioned in the

above citation has gone forward now successfully completed its

first major project. The following excerpt is taken from the OMA’s

website at

http://www.oma.on.ca/environment/goodsamaritan.

asp.

“In 2003, the Ontario Mining Association signed a Memoran-

dum of Understanding with the Ministry of Northern Development

and Mines. The MOU, which is in effect for five years, allows for the

identification and rehabilitation of specific abandoned mine sites on

Crown lands. The OMA/MNDM agreement creates a joint advisory

committee to identify projects on Crown lands and manage those reha-

bilitation initiatives and contributions from companies are considered

as “gifts to the Crown” for tax purposes. The MOU allows companies

to make voluntary donations of $1 million, which will be matched by

MNDM, to clear up evidence of historic mining activity. The MOU

contains so-called “Good Samaritan” rules, which means companies

can make these donations without assuming historic environmental

liabilities of specific sites. Also, this MOU permits companies to make

donations in kind such as doing the work - providing manpower and

equipment - at specific sites. This agreement is a breakthrough in co-

operation dealing with this legacy issue. A portion of the funds raised

by the mining industry in 2003 were employed at the Kam Kotia prop-

erty in Timmins. Work began in August 2004 and it was completed

in September. The project involved repairing and vegetating a tailings

dam. The dam was showing signs of damage and vegetation cover was

needed to prevent further erosion. The total area of the tailings dam

surface requiring repair and vegetations was about 123,000 square

metres.”

89. For instance, Gilles Tremblay (personal communication: Nat-

ural Resources Canada, 2005, 2 August) reports that in Quebec a

number of projects have utilised used paper mill sludge as cover

material.

•