Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

exploitation, and National agencies responsible for

environmental quality in their work of building the

foundations for good mining policy and admin-

istration. Further, such stakeholders can use this

document to help inform their own expectations

for practice and to stimulate innovation and crea-

tion of solutions tailored to their own circumstance

(as is discussed earlier in this document, a number

of the practices or investments required elsewhere

will not suffice here, nor can they all be afforded).

This final discussion will consist of two parts. The

first will list a number of guiding principles for

mining policy development work. The second will

outline a number of steps that need to be taken in

the near future.

6.6.1

a codification of

principles

Pursuant to the experiences from around the world

as documented in this discussion, this section will

summarise a set of guiding principles. These can

be used to guide the management of existing and

new mining operations so that acceptable sustain-

ability requirements and cost effective closure can

be achieved. Further, these can be used to support

work with abandoned and orphaned mining sites

in order to make them safe and/or remediate, and

close them. It should be noted that the items listed

below should be seen as congruent and synergistic

and not exclusive (e.g. such as strict versus flexible).

In order to

Mine for Closure

, jurisdictions, policies

and work approaches should be:

Consistent

– Mine closure requirements and proce-

dures should be consistent with those in place in other

territories of the region. This is particularly important

where two countries share trans-boundary risks.

Centralised

– Governments should strive for an

independent mine closure law that establishes a

single agency for implementation.

Strict

– Legislation should apply the polluter pays

principle strictly and should ensure that the owner

or operator of a mining operation is responsible for

execution and completion of successful reclamation.

Financially assured

– Legislation should provide that

(particularly for new operations and operations with

considerable lifespan remaining) financial assur-

ance is provided to ensure successful reclamation.

Long-term financed

– Where conditions requiring

long-term care exist, the funding of long-term care

and management should be included in assurance.

However, government legislation should explic-

itly provide that at a certain moment the company

could be relieved of future liabilities for the site.

Temporally bounded

– Where long-term care is in-

volved, the operator should be responsible to pro-

vide it until relieved of liability, but amenable tem-

poral bounds of such liability should be included in

agreements. This requires that care be long-term

financed.

Low hazard and viable

– Viable, rather than

only

self-sustaining ecosystems, that are compatible

with a healthy environment and with human activi-

ties and are low hazard should be left post-mining.

Measures to address and prevent ongoing pollution

from the site should be in place.

Considered and flexible

– The target condition of a

mining site should be carefully considered in the

light of long-term environmental stability but not

in the absence of social and economic uses that

can contribute to making it safe. All encompassing

requirements to return a site to its original condi-

tion or to a condition permitting a maximum range

of land uses may be inappropriate. Jurisdictions

should be flexible in devising solutions that match

site-specific needs in terms of the types of mining

operation, climate, topography, the sensitivity of

the surrounding environment, and social require-

ments, and which deliver outcomes consistent with

sustainable development principles and objectives

Synergistic

– Synergies between actors, particularly

actors with the capacity to provide rehabilitation

service at lowest cost, should be pursued. This may

be achieved by providing incentives for the current

industrial actors to provide expertise, equipment,

supplies and personnel to support government

funding in addressing legacies.

Elastic

– Innovative, flexible and forgiving frame-

works for indemnification against potential liabili-

ties should be sought, particularly in situations

where this may provide the necessary incentives

for multi-stakeholder participation in reclamation/

rehabilitation works.

Reasonable

– There must be recognition that insist-

ence upon on protection against extremely unlikely

events will impose excessive costs and as a conse-