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

the start of this section, such frameworks involve miners being made responsible for the restoration of the physical, chemical and biological quality or potential of air, land and water regimes disturbed by mining to a state acceptable to the regulators and to post-mining land users. Further, social con- siderations can and should be included in such. Thus, the principal argument applied here, is that while it does cost to be environmentally and social- ly responsible, such investments to reduce (gener- ally unpriced) environmental damage also reduce private costs to such a degree that the investments are worthwhile. In essence, good mining practice reduces the private costs of miners as well as pro- viding the public goods listed above. The gains available to the industry are mainly focused upon increasing efficiency and reducing (potentially) costly risk. How much then does it cost to Mine for Closure ? While such numbers will vary from operation to operation – indeed from year to year in operations, it is clear that the numbers, while significant, are modest. In Australia, estimates indicate that:

Best practice methodologies make up about 5 per cent of the capital and operating costs for new min- ing projects. However, these costs can commonly be offset against the many benefits that best practice brings. The cost of cleaning up a major spill for ex- ample can exceed the annual budget for good envi- ronmental practice at a site by a factor of 10 to 100 or even more. Moreover, best practice energy and water management can routinely yield significant financial savings (Environment Australia, 2002b). This however, is for new mining projects. Costs for mature mines are logically somewhat higher but may remain relatively modest. According to the manager for corporate environmental affairs for a major African mining concern, in the case of South African operators of mature mines, total closure li- abilities can amount to between 10 – 20% of the total profits of the remaining life of the mines (Rei- chardt, 2002). 34

34. Note the slightly different emphasis in these comments. The former addresses Mining for Closure , thus includes closure activi- ties and environmental work during the mine lifetime, while the latter only refers to closure activiites.

Backyard clean-up: tailings removal after a tailings impoundment failure – Macedonia Photograph by UNDP Macedonia

18

MINING FOR CLOSURE