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

elsewhere. Such a partnership would be based on creating future economic and social values in the context of a healthy environment, rather than simply aiming to “clean up”. This would require a consider- able shift in the stance of all the partners, and is only likely where all of them see some gain from such a deal. However, by focussing on opportunities rather than liabilities it is more likely that such a major shift could be made. For such an approach to gather widespread support the potential opportunities need to be communicated to stakeholders such as local communities and to the mining industry (although many might argue that they should be self-evident). The emergence of such is partnerships is highlight- ed by the following mention of a joint venture from the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in 2002 – a joint venture that has now gone forward and made “on the ground” achievements. 88 Ontario is currently negotiating a joint venture with the Ontario Mining Association to collectively work on legacy sites. This envisages the current industry providing expertise, equipment, supplies and person- nel to be matched by government funding in address- ing the legacy. Suitable indemnification for potential liabilities is proving to be a challenge To summarize this issue we have found inventorying and prioritiz- ing amongst legacy sites to be of fundamental im- portance in ensuring the best use of pubic funds. En- couraging new exploration activity on old sites and engaging the current industries are examples of our exhortation to other jurisdictions facing these prob- lems to: be creative! (Gammon, 2002, p3) Bundling the remediation costs into a larger de- velopment-oriented framework will require more creative solutions than simply assigning strict fi- nancial liability to one or several partners. Creative solutions should be based on maximizing the as- set potential of abandoned sites, and creating value through policy changes and fiscal incentives. In- deed, examples exist that fall into a number of gen- eral categories for economic activity based upon: the use of operational wastes as a resource for more advanced mineral extraction (remining); the use of operational wastes as a resource for alternative product manufacture; the combination of site rehabilitation with the waste disposal requirements of other human activities; 89 the conversion of mining-related infrastruc- ture for other uses, and the conversion of spe- cialised mining infrastructure; • • • •

As was indicated in Section 4.2 where the special problems of orphan sites were discussed, various parties are examining the challenge in this area. However, as indicated, it appears that the formula- tion of suitable coercive measures to frame abso- lute requirements for Mining for Closure , and the creation of models for utilitarian measures that can encourage uptake, remain largely outside the remit for such initiatives. This next section addresses the latter subject – i.e. measures to encourage activity dealing with mining legacies. Some general ideas about how to proceed – expressed in general terms and without qualifications or provisos, are included in the following sections. These suggestions to be seen as a “seed” for future ideas – they are not yet in a form that seeks to fulfil practical requirements. 5.1.1 a special case of “orphan sites” 87 It is now time to explore the potential of a different approach – that of a partnership to future remedia- tion of orphanmining sites without assigning blame or legal liability to the extent that has been sought 88. The Ontario Mining Association’s (OMA) partnership with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines mentioned in the above citation has gone forward now successfully completed its first major project. The following excerpt is taken from the OMA’s website at http://www.oma.on.ca/environment/goodsamaritan. asp. “In 2003, the Ontario Mining Association signed a Memoran- dum of Understanding with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. The MOU, which is in effect for five years, allows for the identification and rehabilitation of specific abandoned mine sites on Crown lands. The OMA/MNDM agreement creates a joint advisory committee to identify projects on Crown lands and manage those reha- bilitation initiatives and contributions from companies are considered as “gifts to the Crown” for tax purposes. The MOU allows companies to make voluntary donations of $1 million, which will be matched by MNDM, to clear up evidence of historic mining activity. The MOU contains so-called “Good Samaritan” rules, which means companies can make these donations without assuming historic environmental liabilities of specific sites. Also, this MOU permits companies to make donations in kind such as doing the work - providing manpower and equipment - at specific sites. This agreement is a breakthrough in co- operation dealing with this legacy issue. A portion of the funds raised by the mining industry in 2003 were employed at the Kam Kotia prop- erty in Timmins. Work began in August 2004 and it was completed in September. The project involved repairing and vegetating a tailings dam. The dam was showing signs of damage and vegetation cover was needed to prevent further erosion. The total area of the tailings dam surface requiring repair and vegetations was about 123,000 square metres.” 89. For instance, Gilles Tremblay (personal communication: Nat- ural Resources Canada, 2005, 2 August) reports that in Quebec a number of projects have utilised used paper mill sludge as cover material. 87. Much of the content in this section is derived directly from a position paper put forward by Fritz Balkau of UNEP DTIE Paris (2005b).

53

MINING FOR CLOSURE