Integrating mine closure planning with environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities drawn from African and Australian practice

Abstract

Best practice mine closure planning and environmental impact assessment (EIA) principles share many common features. This research examined how mine closure planning relates to, and can be integrated with EIA by comparing practice in eight African and Australian jurisdictions. Emphasis was placed on key challenges and opportunities associated with: institutional arrangements for mine closure planning; financial mechanisms for mine-site closure and rehabilitation including abandoned/legacy mine-sites; transparency of mine closure planning and financing provisions; and regulation of artisanal and small-scale mining activity. Data was gathered through document analysis, interviews and interactions with practitioners from Western Australia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zambia. Issues associated with mine closure planning and rehabilitation under existing arrangements, and opportunities for improvement through existing EIA processes already in place in each jurisdiction are explored. All eight jurisdictions have appropriate regulatory provisions in place already, but implementation capacity remains a challenge. Opportunities for effective practice lie in using mine closure planning and EIA measures in an integrated fashion, avoiding duplication and enabling synergies in management to be realized.

Complexities with extractive industries regulation on the African continent: What has ‘best practice’ legislation delivered in South Africa?

“…These concerns for the South African context are also reflective of many other jurisdictions in the region (e.g. Morrison-Saunders et al, 2016) and seemingly also many others globally.…”

“…Hall and Hall (2015) urge a paradigm shift whereby a closed mine be looked at as an asset rather than a financial and environmental liability given the millions or possibly billions of dollars that been invested in the mine. Benefits or net positive outcomes should be realised for all stakeholders from effective mine closure planning especially affected community members whereby the ideal is to deliver enhanced quality of life or well-being beyond the mine life (Otto, 1997;MMSD, 2002c;Stacey et al, 2010;Davies et al, 2012;Morrison-Saunders et al, 2016). Many specific considerations will need to be addressed to accomplish this overall aim, and these will be particular or unique for a given site.…”

“…While a comprehensive environmental governance regime has been established in many African nations over the last two decades in conjunction with provisions for mine closure within mining legislation (Morrison-Saunders et al, 2016), it has apparently not permeated effectively into avoiding or managing ineffective or abandoned mine closures. The primary foci of country and legislative reform is on improving governance, attracting investment, and associated opportunities for harnessing resource development (African Union, 2009; United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and African Union, 2011;African Union Commission et al, 2012a;African Union Commission et al, 2012b;African Mineral Skills Initiative, 2013;African Union, 2013).…”

Does the integration of enviromental impact assessment and mine closure planning deliver effective mine closure plans in Western Australia?

“…EIA and mine closure planning have many goals and procedures in common such as identifying and assessing the environmental and social impacts of mining, putting in place appropriate mitigation, management and monitoring measures to address these impacts and consulting interested and affected parties (e.g. Otto 1997;Sánchez et al 2014;Morrison-Saunders et al 2016). Both involve the evaluation of dynamic natural processes which are often complex with poorly understood interrelationships and often limited baseline data for greenfield proposals, with an assessment process that takes place in a typically convoluted regulatory setting involving multiple stakeholders and individuals (Haymont 2012; Environment and Communications References Committee 2019).…”

“…Both are intended to commence as early as possible and continue throughout the lifecycle, employ adaptive management to maximise performance in unpredictable environments, and support sustainable development (International Association for Impact Assessment [IAIA] Transparency is important for accountability and to allow external evaluation of the validity of process and provision (Morrison-Saunders & Bailey 2000;McHenry et al 2015;Environment and Communications References Committee 2019). Perhaps unsurprisingly the similarities between EIA and mine closure planning lead Morrison-Saunders et al (2016) to remark that: "As such, the two processes should proceed hand in hand" (p. 118) and we were keen to explore how the two processes might be integrated in practice.…”