86 / 120
68
MINING FOR CLOSURE
reduce impacts on local communities in terms
of environmental, social and economic im-
pacts of mine operations;
reduce organizational exposure to contingent
liabilities related to public safety and environ-
mental hazards and risks;
lower the risk of regulatory non-compliances;
increase the degree of acceptance or reduce the
resistance from key stakeholders (in particular
local communities and land owners),
improve access to land resources from govern-
ments;
improve access to capital from reputable lend-
ing institutions;
provide potential for reduced cost of capital
and liability insurance;
provide continual feedback upon the manner
in which community expectations are being
achieved.
In general terms the pursuit of
Mining for Closure
should be attractive as it has been clearly shown
that the manner in which a mine is planned can
have major positive influences on the magnitude
and duration of impacts over the life of the devel-
opment and following its closure. Further, and as
the points above indicate, such approaches are the
most inclusive with regards to communities and
other external stakeholders.
how can these issues be pro-
gressed?
It has been demonstrated throughout this discourse
that the successful implementation of (integrated)
Mining for Closure
approaches is dependent upon the
presence of relatively strict financial assurance tools
addressing mine closure and reclamation.
101
Thus,
these issues can be progressed via adoption of such
measures should fulfil a number of criteria
:
Legislation should provide that the owner or
operator is responsible for execution and com-
pletion of successful reclamation activities to
an appropriate and agreed technical standard.
Where long-term care is involved, the opera-
tor should be responsible to provide it until
relieved of liability.
101. Note that the majority of material here is drawn from Miller
(2005). His work was summarised in Section 2.3.1.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•