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

who should act and where?

that must be advanced with all possible haste is the prioritization of “hot-spots” in each country and description of potential impacts associated with each of them, in particular impacts that may cause trans-boundary tensions and security risks. 6.2 operational sites what are the key issues regard- ing operational mining sites? The many operational mining sites in the region have great potential to become mining legacies. In this discussion’s context it is important to note that an abandoned or orphaned site should be considered to include both the physical aspects (the mine site) and the social aspects (the stake- holders). That enhancement of all options to ensure ad- equate mine closure is vital. While mines that are in the middle of their operating life have signifi- cant opportunities to ensure best practice closure, operating mines that are close to the end of their economic life have limited options available. The preservation of ongoing activities at potential legacy sites in order to allow ongoing site reclama- tion may be an important – if not critical – strat- egy in ensuring improved outcomes. Where mine operators have become insolvent, or are unable to finance the costs of reclamation, responsibilities revert to the State, however State run initiatives may not be the most efficient or effective manner in which to reclaim or make safe sites. That the frameworks and capacity to implement Mining for Closure approaches as outlined in this document are not yet in place in the region, yet it is such approaches that are required to address many of the challenges. That current mining operations have not yet adopt- ed Mining for Closure approaches in SEE/TRB. why should these issues be dealt with? That adequate policy and/or regulatory frameworks are absent or in their infancy.

Governmentswill need to lead thewaybecause it isnot practically possible to apply the “polluter pays” prin- ciple in dealing with most abandoned or orphaned sites. The original operators have long disappeared, the commodities produced have been consumed and the taxes paid have been incorporated in general rev- enues. It appears that there is no real alternative to the allocation of public funds to deal with the worst sites. However few governments, let alone most gov- ernments in SEE/TRB, have the resources or the ex- pertise to take on physical and financial responsibility for dealing with orphaned (or abandoned) sites. The costs of ameliorating the most difficult problems may also need to be spread among parties that would ben- efit the most from the solutions to the problems. Collaborative ventures between stakeholders will be vital in order to deal with abandoned and or- phaned mining sites in SEE/TRB. Key actors have been identified as being policy makers and legis- lators at all levels of government, companies, the investment community, local communities and non-governmental organizations. Responsible parties for abandoned sites should be involved in the process and financial accountability within practical limits where they can be identified. In the context of SEE/TRB, “collaborative involve- ment” strategies may be more productive than li- ability actions. when should these actions be taken? There is significant potential for ongoing deteriora- tion in the regional risk situation. This is due in part, to the cessation of industrial activities with- out planned closure measures (be it as a result of socio-economic turbulence, or for other reasons). Cessation of activities is often associated with rap- id deterioration in the condition of waste storage areas in the absence of maintenance activity and/ or any form of monitoring. There are numerous abandoned or “temporarily abandoned” sites in the region that are gradually (or even rapidly) deterio- rating with commensurate increase in risks to both local communities and international relations. Action needs to take place as soon as is practicable.

Dealing with these issues is required to best serve the interests of all mining stakeholders.

Actions and sites for action must be prioritised. All sites cannot be dealt with immediately. The action

66

MINING FOR CLOSURE