Faultlines in Mine Closure Planning in a Developing Country Context

Abstract

1 INTRODUCTION The global debate on the contribution of mining to sustainable development reached a high point with the publication of the report of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development project (MMSD, 2002) and the subsequent deliberations at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. This exposed a number of discontinuities between stakeholders. One of these is the difference between the conservation and stewardship focussed, northern country perspective, and the development focussed, southern country perspective. In the former, the term sustainability is often employed, while in the latter, the preference is for the term sustainable development, with emphasis often on the second word. The sustainability mindset is exemplified by organisations such as the Natural Step (see www.naturalsep.org) which argue for a target of no net transfer of material from the geosphere to the biosphere. This perspective is defensible in societies where most people have access to safe water and sewerage, live above the bread line and where what natural land cover remains is highly altered. The perspective is not as acceptable in societies where substantial infrastructural construction programmes are required to reduce mortality, morbidity and poverty. For such societies, substantial progress in development needs to occur before long-term sustainability can be achieved. This development obviously has to occur within the paradigm of sustainable development. In the developing societies of Southern Africa, mining can play an important role in providing the economic development required to reduce poverty. The contribution of mining to sustainable development must be considered and optimised throughout the mining lifecycle, from exploration through to post-closure, but it is during and after the closure phase of the mine's life that the greatest test of this contribution occurs. Mines close for a number of reasons, ranging from depletion of ore reserves, changes in market conditions through to environmental degradation, social upheaval or political instability. Several closure scenarios have been identified (Peck et al., 2005), including: • Ordered advance and completion – this is the best case scenario; integrated mine planning is followed from the pre-feasibility design up to depletion of the ore body, including decommissioning of infrastructure and rehabilitation of the mine site, resulting in physical and chemical stability of the site and alternative livelihood options for employees and the surrounding community. • Strategic revision of final operational period – desirable post-mining outcomes (such as those described above) are not originally included as objectives in mine plans, but are retro-fitted in the final years of the operation's life; the ease, effectiveness and efficacy with which these objectives are achieved are invariably lower than in the above case, but desirable outcomes can still be achieved. • Ordered retreat – mines are sometimes forced to close before their planned closure date due to changes in the viability of their operations; where adequate planning and provision for closure has occurred, adequate decommissioning and rehabilitation programmes can still be implemented. • Retreat in disarray – mines that are forced to close prematurely, without adequate closure planning and provisioning, invariably leave behind unrehabilitated surfaces and other mining legacies such as economic collapse and unemployment; this scenario may result in legal proceedings being brought against the company by the authorities to recover the costs of adequate rehabilitation works. • Dereliction of duty – in this case, companies engage in asset stripping to remove value that could be used to offset un-provisioned rehabilitation costs; criminal proceedings may be instituted by the state in extreme cases.