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

rationale for the mining for closure report

general background Increasing expectations for environmental protec- tion, desires for reduced human health risks, compe- tition for land, and the increasing value of the natural environment as recreational space have led tomarked improvements in regulatory requirements and min- ing practice in a number of countries. Many miners have introduced management policies, practices and technologies that markedly reduce the environmen- tal harm caused by mining (Environment Australia, 2002b; Gammon, 2002; Miller, 2005). When viewed in combination with growing desires to preserve land areas as a repository for valuable biological assets, for natural environmental services, and for aesthetic ap- peal, these developments appear likely continue to drive continued improvement in mining practice. As a part of this positive trend, mine planning, mine closure practices and the conduct of mine op- erations to facilitate environmentally and socially acceptable closure have also evolved significantly in recent years. While in the past communities often saw that the only choice available was whether a deposit should be mined or not, it has been clearly shown that the manner in which a mine is planned can have major positive influences on the magni- tude and duration of impacts over the life of the development and following its closure (Environ- mental Protection Agency, 1995a, p.2). In this context, the title Mining for Closure chosen for this document is not intended to indicate that existing mining activities should be bought to closure, and fu- ture mining activities curtailed significantly. To the contrary, the mining sector is a very important con- tributor to local and national economies and it must be recognised that in the past, authorities did gener- ally not require the “closing” of mines in the manner described throughout this report. Further, the extrac- tive industries will continue to underpin the econo- mies of many countries in the future. As such, ongo- ing and new developments to process and mine the mineral resources of “mining nations” will be vital for many of them to pursue sustainable development. In recognition of this importance, this document is in- tended to help facilitate mining policy development, capacity development and institutional development so that they can yield a sustainable mix of social, eco- nomic, and environmental outcomes from mining. The key focus of this document is upon countries in SEE/TRB, however much of the material and ideas presented here are intended to be generic.

In 1999, a representative of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Nazari) wrote the following: The mining sector is a very important contribu- tor to local and national economies, including in central and eastern Europe (CEE) and the former Soviet Union (FSU). However, in parts of CEE and the FSU, the mining sector has often been characterised by inappropriate planning, opera- tional and post-operational practices, including a lack of an adequate regulatory framework and inadequate implementation of mine rehabilita- tion and closure activities. In some of the regions associated with significant mining activities, this has resulted and continues to result in significant adverse environmental and health and safety im- pacts and related liabilities. As a result, donors and international organisations and agencies are frequently requested to provide financial assistance to alleviate the most heavily impacted areas. A programme to develop a policy and regulatory framework for financial provisioning related to mine rehabilitation and closure should be initi- ated. This programme would be able to assist par- ticipating countries in developing the required pol- icy and regulatory framework to further promote and implement long term environmentally sound and sustainable development in the mining sector. The programme would also contribute to reducing the uncertainties associated with post-operational practices, and potentially related adverse environ- mental impacts and costs. It would also facilitate the introduction of a standardised approach to this issue, establishing a ‘level playing field with fixed goal posts’ for regulators, investors, mining companies, and operators ... Despite efforts, the progress of work tomeet such calls has not been rapid. There remains much to be done. Indeed, it is perceived by, inter alia , the ENVSEC Ini- tiative partners (OSCE, UNDP, UNEP, in association with NATO) that the efforts by international bodies to address this issue and provide guidance to national and international institutions in their role as stake- holders in mining activities remain insufficient. This important deficiency in international action has seri- ous implications for the SEE/TRB region.

VII

MINING FOR CLOSURE