Publication Name

VIII

MINING FOR CLOSURE

objectives of the

report

The ENVSEC Initiative seeks to facilitate a process

whereby key public decision-makers in South East-

ern and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Cauca-

sus are able to motivate action to advance and pro-

tect peace and the environment. This should occur

via the collaborative articulation and adoption of

policies, practices and guidelines for sustainable

mining practices,

Mining for Closure

, and closure of

mines in order to support the reduction of environ-

ment and security risks in SEE/TRB.

This document has the aim: to support the articula-

tion and adoption of policies, practices and guide-

lines for sustainable mining practices,

Mining for

Closure

and closure of mines for the reduction en-

vironment and security risks in SEE/TRB.

Towards that aim, the document has the following

objectives:

objective I

– to present principles, ideas and guidelines

for mining policy development, capacity development

and institutional development that can yield a sustain-

able mix of social, economic, and environmental out-

comes in the SEE/TRB region with key foci being:

operation of existing and new mining opera-

tions in order to ensure and facilitate cost-ef-

fective closure that fulfils acceptable sustain-

ability requirements;

re-mining or otherwise valorising abandoned

or orphaned sites in order to make safe and/or

remediate and close them (including finding

other uses/economic value from sites);

closure, making safe and/or remediation of

abandoned or orphaned sites;

objective II

– to support the ongoing assessment

of transboundary environmental and human safety

risks posed by sub-standardmining operations – both

active and abandoned; implementation of risk reduc-

tion measures through demonstration at selected

sites, evaluation and testing of possible policy chang-

es and transboundary cooperation mechanisms.

what is mining for

closure?

The items included above are packaged here as a

concept labelled

Mining for Closure

. In essence, the

general ethos of

Mining for Closure

is captured by

integrated mine planning where a mine closure

plan should be an integral part of a project life cycle

and be designed to ensure that:

Future public health and safety are not com-

promised

;

Environmental and resources are not subject

to physical and chemical deterioration;

The after-use of the site is beneficial and sus-

tainable in the long term;

Any adverse socio-economic impacts are mini-

mized; and

All socio-economic benefits are maximized.

In addition, there is a great interest in the legacies

of the past – and how to deal with them. These are

discussed below.

challenges identified

inprevious unep studies

Mining legacies are clearly identified as a key en-

vironmental issue within SEE/TRB. A desk as-

sessment of security risks posed by mining, and

particularly those associated with pollution from

residual mining wastes

Reducing Environment &

Security Risks from Mining in South Eastern Europe

(Peck, 2004) and the

UNEP Rapid Environmental

Assessment of the Tisza River Basin

(Burnod-Requia,

2004), showed clearly that there are a large number

of mineral resource related sites that are of high

hazard in the SEE/TRB area. Further, evidence was

found that many have significant risks associated

with them that threaten the environment, public

health and safety, and/or regional socio-political

stability in SEE/TRB countries.

Moreover, it was found that mining and minerals

processing operations can affect (and are affecting)

the surrounding environment and communities via:

airborne transport of pollutants such as dust,

smelter emissions, gases, vapours;

1. After Sassoon (2000).

2. Generally as posed by safety hazards such as unstable tailings

impoundments, toxic waters, unsafe buildings, equipment, open

holes, and so forth. However, it must be recognised that few (if

any) items in the built or natural environment are “hazard free”.

Thus, it is reasonable to expect that assume that in all countries

there should be transparent debate and agreement on the level

of acceptable risk pertinent environmental, social and economic

aspects of mines and mining facilities post-closure.

3. The terms applied here, as drawn from Sassoon (2000), van

Zyl, Sassoon, Fleury & Kyeyune (2002a) are generic but are in-

tended to bear with them the intent and limitations presented in

the source documents.

•