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

4.4.2 what about post-closure?

ing in, or leading efforts to define the custodial transfer process, and by developing a sustainable post mining land use. As an example, it is not uncommon that a mining company directly sponsors many essential com- munity services such as medical care, schools, and so forth during the period of mine operation. Sassoon (2000) argues that consultation with the government and community leaders will be neces- sary to identify how these services can be contin- ued after mine closure. A number of foundations have been established in mining communities to provide long-term sustainability for some servic- es, e.g. the Escondida Foundation in Antafogasta, Chile and the Rossing Foundation in Namibia (le Roux, 2000). Van Zyl et al (2002a) report that a similar approach is to establish a community trust fund that is protected against inflation. The income from the fund can allow the communities to take a long-term view of sustainability. Such a fund may also allow the communities to build their own capacity in order to manage the finan- cial resources sustainably. However, and as was indicated in the previous sub- section, it may be undesirable to rely to heavily upon “trust funds” and may be far more produc- tive to encourage a post mining “developed” sus- tainable land-use which yields an adequate return. Moreover in the context of SEE/TRB it may be de- sirable to engender situations where there is ongo- ing care for the land in order to ameliorate the costs of ongoing pollution control. Following Robertson et al (1998), a developed use usually implies a financial yield and may require ei- ther passive care, such as would apply to rangeland or forestry, or active care, as would apply to any in- dustrial site. Figure 4.2 provides a representation of such land-use. The cyclical representation of site use post-closure is intended to portray the manner in which the land should (theoretically) mature towards a minimal or no-maintenance condition with time.

As was indicated in Section 2, there can be a funda- mental divide between the interests of mining com- panies and the interests of the communities where mining takes place. While mining companies typi- cally want to develop mines, achieve a good return for shareholders and then leave; communities on the other hand want to see wealth and income op- portunities created in their midst that will last over time. Further, within current frameworks their cus- todial interest generally only commences when a closure plan is completed. This indicates that these key stakeholders should indeed be very interested in post-closure issues. It therefore is certain that mining companies clos- ing or downscaling their operations in developing countries increasingly will be pressured into not merely finding alternative employment opportu- nities but also establishing retraining or develop- ment funds with which to ameliorate the impact of job losses on the local communities Moreover, the sustainability of community activi- ties that are directly or indirectly supported by the mine is also put at risk. Measures and activities that can support or maintain post-mine economic activ- ity and community development are central to such stakeholders. While it is reported that effective stakeholder en- gagement can make it possible to develop innova- tive approaches to long-term land use at mine sites (van Zyl et al ., 2002a) it cannot be denied that this represents a major challenge. Progress however, must be made. Not least so that future custodian stakeholders are willing to accept a mine closure at all. Robertson et al (1998) indicate that poor ex- perience with the success of closure plans (in gen- eral), as well as the recognition that many defects are not apparent (or not recognised) at the time of custodian transfer, has resulted in reluctance by the new custodians to accept transfer. They indicate that successful custodial transfer of land post-mining requires an extension of the concept of “designing for closure” and the development of a “post mining sustainable use plan” rather than a “closure plan”. Here, it is held that the mining industry can do much to limit the liabilities associ- ated with operation a mine by actively participat- According to a South African mining leader (Rei- chardt, 2002):

Definitions provided in Table 3 refer to the figure and to the concepts described above.

It is important to note that there is likely to be a “grey zone” between the classifications of passive and ac- tive care as outlined above. Particularly where water pollution issues requiring some level of monitoring or “passive treatment” are associated with a site. For

47

MINING FOR CLOSURE