Mining for Closure: Policies, practises and guidelines for sustainable mining and closure of mines

ary pollution and the retardation of social and eco- nomic development are central. Here, the loss of mining operations – or the opportunity to mine – may constitute a major loss to the host society in development, environment and economic spheres. In parallel, substandard operations or mine closure may bear with them repercussions at a much high- er level than the mining company or the local host community for a minerals operation (Peck, 2004). Mining practice has evolved to reflect these con- cerns in a number of countries and regulatory re- quirements, and some operators have introduced management policies and practices and have adopted technologies that allow mining to occur with minimum environmental harm (Smith & Underwood, 2000). To take Canada as a promi- nent example, Tremblay (2005) writes that the first government regulations requiring mineral or mine site rehabilitation were enacted in British Columbia in 1969. 24 Since then, the (Canadian) government’s approach has been to set broad rec- lamation objectives, and then negotiate mine-spe- cific requirements through the review of reclama- tion plans and issuing of permits. The philosophy behind this approach has been that every mine is unique and therefore, reclamation requirements must be tailored to suit the site specifics. 25 Further, to this point and relating to the critical issue of waterborne pollution from mine sites (including acidic and neutral drainage issues). Tremblay (per- sonal communication: Natural Resources Canada, 2005, 2 August) also stresses the understanding of geochemical issues at mine sites is fundamen- tal to the success of reclamation efforts. A better understanding of acidic drainage as a significant environmental issue in the past 20 years has re- sulted in increased security for many sites in Brit- ish Columbia and the rest of Canada. Moreover, and very importantly in the context of this discussion, Miller (2005) reports that a number of jurisdictions have strengthened their legislation in recent years, including Botswana, Canada (the Yukon), Chile, Ghana, India, Peru, South Africa, 24. See Barazzuol & Stewart (2003) for details. 25. Tremblay reports that originally (1969), bonds to secure mine rehabilitation were limited to a maximum of $500 per acre and raised to $1000 per acre in 1975 (1 acre is approximately 0.4 hec- tares). The legislative limit on the amount of security the province could hold was removed in 1989. Since then, security levels have been increased on many properties to reduce the possibility that public funds may be required to reclaim a mine in case of com- pany default.

the communities where mining takes place. Min- ing companies typically want to develop mines, achieve a good return for shareholders, then leave when production is finished – so that they can de- velop more mines and continue to produce else- where. Communities on the other hand want to see wealth and income opportunities created in their midst that will last over time ... In line with such interest, the legacy of abandoned mines, their associated environmental, social and economic problems and the future development opportunities for communities has led to an in- creased emphasis on mine closure planning in re- cent years (Smith & Underwood, 2000). However, this is not an issue that has been rele- gated by mining companies. Nor is it an issue that lacks strategic relevance or attention within the industry. Key actors in the industry clearly recog- nise that the very viability of the mining industry is challenged because of high expectations for envi- ronmental protection, lower risk to human health, competing land use demands, and the value of the natural environment as recreational space, and as the repository of valuable biological assets, natural environmental services and aesthetic appeal (Envi- ronment Australia, 2002b). The Australian mining industry fully accepts the concept and responsibility of minesite rehabilita- tion and decommissioning (ANZMEC MCA, 2000, p. v). The importance of such factors affecting the future viability of the mining industry hold in SEE/TRB as they do in countries such as Australia (cited above), and other leading mining nations such as Canada (Gammon, 2002; WOM Geological As- sociates, 2000), the U.S. and more. Moreover, in the majority of jurisdictions taken as examples in this document, social issues and financial liabili- ties associated with such sites are being given great attention. Rising opposition to mining and miner- als processing from society and increased scrutiny and coordinated opposition from NGOs constitute threats to the industry’s “licence to operate”. How- ever, in a regional environment and security con- text, the stress upon certain aspects are somewhat different in SEE/TRB and particularly in multina- tional watersheds such as the TRB, than they are in these other jurisdictions. In SEE/TRB, prominent aspects affecting factors such as tensions between Nation-states that may result from transbound-

14

MINING FOR CLOSURE