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

where jurisdictional legitimacy may be absent, but the means to act may not be.

To further clarify the intention of this document, and the manner in which it is related to the types of stakeholders outlined above, the following notes are provided regarding a limited number of key stakeholders. These points also build on the con- tent of other parts of this document. Administrators of minerals activities (dominant and dormant stakeholders) . This brief document is intended to outline the expectations of society and the international community, the general content of mining best environmental and social practice, and its degree of international uptake. This should serve to guide the building of the foundations for good mining policy and administration. Further, such stakeholders can use this document to help inform their own expectations for practice and to stimulate innovation and creation of solutions tailored to their own circumstance (as is discussed earlier in this document, a number of practices or investments re- quired elsewhere will not suffice here, nor can they be afforded). This document should also help inform the stance of such actors regarding the granting of legitimacy or the granting of power to proponents or opponents of minerals related activity. Communities adjacent to minerals activities (de- pendent stakeholders). The content presented within this discussion should help guide the ex- pectations of such dependent actors. General guid- ance regarding reasonable expectations for safety, accident preparedness, operational emissions, Mining for Closure , closure plans, site monitoring and so forth is available in this text. Much more specific guidance is available in the sources utilised in generating this text This document should also provide aid in understanding the motives and the approaches of those directly involved in minerals related activities. The content can also help such communities where they need to seek power to sup- port legitimate claims. This could be in the form of guardianship of administrations or the support and voice of the international community. Downstream or risk-affected neighbours & nations (dependent or dangerous stakeholders) . “Down- stream” or “receiving” neighbours, particularly nation states can also utilise this document in the manner outlined for the dependant stakeholders above. The principal difference here are the scale, level of capacity and ability to pose some form of danger to the mining development in situations

National and international NGOs (demanding and dormant stakeholders). Again, the content pre- sented within this discussion should help guide the expectations of such actors regarding reason- able expectations for safety, accident preparedness, operational emissions, Mining for Closure, closure plans, site monitoring and so forth. Further, this document should also provide aid in understand- ing the motives and the approaches of those direct- ly involved in minerals related activities. Intergovernmental bodies and development agen- cies (dormant, demanding or dominant stakehold- ers). Dependant upon factors such as the degree of urgency perceived and the ability to supply or withhold development funds, the application of this document amongst such actors will vary. Across the board, it appears reasonable to state that the content presented here will help such bodies formulate their expectations regarding Mining for Closure . In the outlines presented in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 the mining company (a proponent of mining) was presented as the central actor tied to a mining development – upon which all other stakeholders looked. Although not explicitly portrayed in those figures, it is clear that such actors are also central stakeholders in the mining development. Where they have a mining lease and official role (right of law) in society, there is legitimacy; where there are financial resources and human capacity then they have power; when they have committed resources to a project, there is time sensitivity and criticality. Proponents of minerals activities (dominant or de- finitive stakeholders). For such actors, the material presented here should help underline the expecta- tions of other parties – expectations that should be anticipated by proponents of mineral development. Further, this document aims to present a balanced account of the underlying economic and operation- al common sense of Mining for Closure . Within this facet, actions and practices performed so as to gain the trust of their opponents should be important to such actors. Even when trust may not be obtained, problems of opposition may be circumvented or defused by genuine displays of best practice that serve to reduce the legitimacy of claims made by opponents.

36

MINING FOR CLOSURE