Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

In Sections 1.3 to 1.5 the objectives for this docu-

ment were outlined. Much of the ensuing content

has sought to “make the case” for Mining for Clo-

sure – and to provide some examples of what this

can mean. In those introductory sections, referenc-

es were made to previous studies that focused upon

aspects of mining and mining legacies in SEE/TRB

(Burnod-Requia, 2004; Peck, 2004). Among other

things, these studies concluded that input was re-

quired in order to start the process of generating

legal and/or regulatory frameworks for key mining

actors. Further, that utilitarian measures needed

to be designed to provide material incentives that

could improve performance in problem areas

– however, it was stressed that this process must

likely be two-way. That Government must seek to

“give” as well as “demand”.

Further, it was indicated that measures intended

to supply or enhance capacity within the mining

sector – and the regulatory frameworks that enfold

it – were required. Also that the prevalent norms

among industrial, regulatory and social actors

needed to be shifted in order to promote (and al-

low) improved mining performance.

Pursuant to that earlier work, four key areas for ac-

tion among regional decision-makers, policy mak-

ers, and leading industrial actors were listed:

risk reduction at abandoned or orphaned sites

– actions among regional actors that can facili-

tate the reduction of the very significant risks

associated with non-operational, abandoned

and/or orphaned sites where large quantities

of physically and chemically unstable, and/or

poorly contained mine wastes are stored;

risk reduction at operational sites

– actions that

can facilitate the reduction of the very significant

risks associated at sites of mining or minerals

processing that are operational via enablement

of the existing economic actors and industrial

activities with a key part of this being the devel-

opment of an effective and efficient approach to

the funding of closure that enables mine reha-

bilitation;

development of new resources and re-mining

aligned with sustainable development

– actions

that can stimulate development of institutional

capacity, a culture of risk control, and markedly

improved operational procedures throughout

the region to create a norm of mine planning

that encompasses mine closure plans as an in-

tegral part of a project life cycle;

fostering of institutional frameworks for aban-

doned or orphaned site management and

sustainable mining and minerals processing

practice

– further development of legislative

frameworks addressing mining and minerals

processing legacies; clear accountability (and

jurisdictional remit) for the environmental

aspects of mining and minerals processing ac-

tivities in the region; and the further develop-

ment of institutions supporting transboundary

risk management and/or disaster response.

Section 2 then outlined why a range of stakehold-

ers consider

Mining for Closure

and the issue of

abandoned or orphaned sites to be so important

to sustainable development around the world.

Section 3 examined how these actors can work to-

gether; how the relative importance of stakehold-

ers can change over time and when they form dif-

fering constellations. Pursuant to that, Section 4

provided a précis of why mines close – and more

importantly in the context of this document, why

so many have been abandoned without adequate

works to ensure that they do not pose risks to the

environment and to society. Section 5 then speci-

fied the somewhat unique needs of the SEE/TRB

states and has provided some examples in order to

provide “substance” to so many of the arguments

presented earlier. As such, the material provided

conclusively demonstrates that

Mining for Closure

makes the first three key areas for action possible,

while the fourth area is vital for progress towards

such objectives.

Thus a point has been reached in this report where

the actions deemed to be required after earlier

studies can be confirmed and where more specific

items identified as a result of the content of this

document can be summarised. Each of the four ac-

tion areas identified at the outset of this document

will be examined in turn, then some additional

notes will be supplied regarding some general is-

sues enfolding mine closure policy formulation.

improving mining frameworks in

see/trb

•