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

WHO, 1998; van Zyl et al ., 2002a; Van Zyl, 2000; Warhurst & Noronha, 1999; WOM Geological As- sociates, 2000). Importantly for mining organiza- tions, these benefits evidence themselves both dur- ing mining operations and at the end of mine life and as such, they constitute far more than just cost savings that can be achieved during the execution of a task forced upon them.

Thus, while the costs of environmental manage- ment are generally lower when measures are in- corporated at the planning stage instead of retrofit- ting and redesigning systems later in the life of the mine, and whilst it is not easy to quantify the costs of best environmental practice, such costs appear reasonable. For miners, there are clear indications that the up-front costs of incorporating best envi- ronmental practice into a mining operation provide long term gains for projects in terms of regulatory performance and lower potential liabilities (Envi- ronment Australia, 2002b). Further, widespread adoption of best practice envi- ronmental management techniques will translate into long term gains for the industry through great- er certainty for access to land and project approvals, improved relationships with regulatory authorities, acceptance by the community, and lower levels of risk to the environment. 2.2.1 the business case Until recent decades organisations involved in mining were generally not interested in assuming responsibility for the rehabilitation of lands affect- ed by mining activities. Rehabilitation of mine sites imposes costs upon the extractive industries that in the past have generally not been internalised. However, trends towards high (and higher) expec- tations for environmental protection, reduced risk to human health, and for inclusions of community related considerations, have combined with com- peting land use demands, increasing value of the natural environment as recreational space, and in- creased appreciation of functioning ecosystems as the repository of valuable biological assets, provid- ers of natural environmental services and for their aesthetic appeal (Environment Australia, 2002b). These trends have greatly changed the business case for best environmental practice in mining and Mining for Closure practices as described in this document. The activities embodied in best environ- mental practice mining and Mining for Closure for which the business case is outlined here, are also discussed in more detail in later sections. In this setting – that of increasing requirements (or absolute requirements) for mine closure – a range of business related benefits of effective mine closure are described (Allen, Maurer, & Fainstein, 2001; ANZMEC MCA, 2000; Environment Aus- tralia, 2002a; Robertson & Shaw, 1998; UNEP

Benefits (principally after Environment Australia, 2002a) include inter alia :

•

continual reduction of liabilities via optimiza- tion of rehabilitation works undertaken dur- ing the productive phase of mining operations rather than deferral of costs to the end of the project; provision of a basis for estimating rehabilita- tion costs prior to final closure so that suffi- cient financial and material resources can be set aside; ongoing testing, assessment and feedback re- garding the effectiveness of rehabilitation de- signs and/or processes in a site specific fash- ion during the active mine life; increased efficiency in execution of work (e.g. in reduction of double-handling for waste ma- terials and topsoil); possibilities to optimise mine planning for ef- ficient resource extraction and return of eco- system to a functional form; reduced areas of land disturbance through use of smaller waste landforms and mining paths, and in some circumstances progressive backfilling; identification of areas of high risk as priorities for ongoing research and/or remediation; the direct involvement of operations personnel in achieving mine rehabilitation outcomes; the involvement of key stakeholders (especial- ly local communities) in setting priorities for mine rehabilitation; reduction of ongoing responsibilities for the site and facilitation of timely relinquishment of tenements and bond recovery; reductions in impacts on local communities in terms of environmental, social and economic impacts of mine operations; reduction of exposure to contingent liabilities related to public safety and environmental hazards and risks; lower risk of regulatory non-compliances; greater acceptance/less resistance from key stakeholders (in particular local communities and land owners),

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

19

MINING FOR CLOSURE