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

2.1

the opportunities associated with best environmental practice mining

reduction of significant and at times severe po- litical, social, health and environmental risks – including transboundary risks associated with orphaned, abandoned and operational mining sites; improvement of internal social stability in- cluding a catalytic role in national and regional economic growth; ongoing amelioration of existing pollution and prevention of future pollution. 32 It is clear that differing types of stakeholders in min- ing will accord these opportunities differing priority. Further, when mine decommissioning planning is incorporated as a part of “best environmental prac- tice mining” as discussed above, then a new subset of benefits is documented. The discussion of such priorities and benefits are addressed later in this doc- ument. A number of the items relevant to mine clo- sure are also addressed in more detail in Section 4. • • • While all the arguments presented above should be attractive to governments and to responsible min- ers, the fact remains that best environmental practice methodologies are not without cost. Further, the point has already beenmade that rehabilitation of mine leg- acies – particularly in the absence of ongoing mining activities can be very costly. Thus, a question must be addressed is – Is there reason for mining companies to engage in the discussions of Mining for Closure ? In the absence of accountability for environmental quality and the viability of communities in a min- ing area after the cessation of mining and miner- als processing activities, then the answer may be no. This however, is a situation that increasingly lacks relevance as countries seek to build regula- tory frameworks that are similar to those of “suc- cessful” mining countries. 33 As was discussed at 32. In SEE in general, and in distinct watershed areas such as the TRB, there remain serious challenges with airborne transport of pollutants such as dust, smelter emissions, gases, vapours; (frequent) mass movements of wastes such as tailings contain- ing heavy metals and toxic compounds; waterborne transport of wastes as suspended solids and as dissolved materials. While such challenges exist elsewhere – including advanced mining na- tions, the gravity of the situation is generally lesser. 33. Refer to Andrews (2002) for a comparison of the relative suc- cess of mining countries and their general performance against a range of governance measures. investment in best mining practice 2.2

An examination of the literature enfolding min- ing and sustainability indicates that the extractive industries, environment and societies can not only coexist, but can prosper together. Practitioners and stakeholders have delineated a wide set of company internal benefits and a wide range of positive envi- ronmental and social externalities associated with good mining practice. Traditionally however, good governments have had principle accountability for considering environmental and social externalities while the focus of mining companies has been on internal efficiency concerns. On a positive note, the benefits for industry that can be achieved through improvement of envi- ronmental practice are many. According to the national environmental body in Australia (Envi- ronment Australia, 2002b) a leading mining na- tion, the benefits to a mining organization that are yielded by best environmental practice in mining include: improved access to land for mineral explora- tion, greater certainty of outcomes in the project ap- plication stage, the prevention of harmful environmental and social impacts, lower risk of non-compliance, greater acceptance/less resistance from key stakeholders (in particular local communities and land owners), lower financial burdens in the mine closure and rehabilitation phases, and lower risk of significant liabilities post-closure It is clear that such benefits are of also of great interest to national environmental and mining ju- risdictions in SEE/TRB. However, in the context of SEE/TRB, the potential benefits are somewhat broader in scope, not least because the criticality is greater than in countries that have highly devel- oped institutional mechanisms for dealing with such items. As is outlined in detail in the ENVSEC Desk-assessment (Peck, 2004), improved mining practice should also yield benefits in a number of areas that may be accorded less immediate priority in other regions. These include, inter alia : • • • • • • •

17

MINING FOR CLOSURE