Frequently asked questions
This section is concerned with frequently asked questions relating to post-mining regeneration.
If you have any suggestions for other FAQs you would like us to consider, please send it to us using the Contact Us option.
- Why do mines close?
- Why is post-mining regeneration important?
- Why is the local community important?
- Who is responsible for post-mining regeneration?
Why do mines close?
Economic minerals and metal ores occur in finite deposits. The economic life of a mine is strongly dependent on the market price of the commodity being mined. For most metals, for example, this is a global market; however, for products like limestone and aggregates local conditions more strongly influence the market price. Once the cost of extraction exceeds the return on selling the product, the mine operates at a loss, and if this condition continues for long enough, the mine will close despite the presence of ores or minerals remaining underground.
Any mine, wherever it is and whatever it mines, will close eventually; the difficulty is knowing precisely when as future economic conditions are notoriously difficult to predict. However, responsible mining companies start planning for closure at the earliest opportunity and the plans are revised regularly. In such cases, even when a mine closes unexpectedly earlier, sufficient investment in environmental and social mitigation measures should act to lessen the impact.
Why is post-mining regeneration important?
Poor closure practices in the past, extending back centuries in some cases, have had a negative impact on the public perceptions of the mining industry - ultimately leading to mistrust. As companies seek to develop new mines, increasingly, they require consent by the local communities which neighbour their intended operations. This legacy of mistrust is a tipping point blocking progress on a number of issues affecting the development of a more responsible mining industry – one in which all stakeholders have a role to play. Resolving bad practice in mine closure, and in dealing with orphaned and abandoned mines, unlocks the door to greater dialogue between different stakeholder groups on other mining and society issues.
Why is the local community important?
The local community is defined by those people most directly affected by a mining operation and its eventual closure. The impacts of mining can be both positive and negative: positive effects can include new employment opportunities both directly and indirectly, improved infrastructure and a range of socio-economic benefits; while negative effects may be caused by poor environmental management or activities that go against community values or create community conflict. Unlike other industrial sectors, mines often are located in remote areas where they constitute the bulk of the local economy and here closure may have a very large negative impact. Too often in the past, the negative impacts of a mining operation have outweighed the positives.
Increasingly, responsible companies are working with local communities to develop a robust relationship leading to a community sustainable development plan. Priorities and approaches will vary from site to site, as will capacities and resources. The strategy for mine closure needs to ensure that the local community participates fully in the identification and establishment of post-mining activities, they support the commitments and responsibilities of different groups and they work with the mine to ensure that the leadership and enterprise skills are developed adequately. Where the mine is abandoned, it is often leaders in the local community and local entrepreneurs who are motivated to take the initiative to mobilise action on regeneration. This is frequently in the face of substantial dereliction and high unemployment levels.
Who is responsible for post-mining regeneration?
This question has been at the crux of many of the controversies surrounding the mining industry. In recent years, pressure has come from a vareity of angles - legislation, expectations of communities, financial institutions, shareholders, NGO and media campaigns - for mining companies to take mine closure more seriously. The polluter pays principle is entrenched in law and reasonably widely accepted. Closure plans are increasingly addressing the socio-economic aspects of closure as well as the environmental.
The responsibility issue is much more complicated when the minesite, which may not have operated for decades or even centuries, continues to create negative impacts and society continues to pay the price for resources extracted generations ago. Who is responsible for regenerating mine sites where the owner is no longer traceable? The current industry stance is that it cannot take responsibility for these legacies, as it would then be held liable for the sins of others made at a time when society’s expectations were lower: Often these legacy sites conformed with the standards (whatever they were) at the time.
Many argue that funding to deal with mining legacy must come from the public purse. Priority should be given to those sites that affect public health and safety and where they have an on-going negative impact on water resources. But there are problems of equity, particularly in countries where the mined products were largely exported, and many local and regional governments have little or no access to funds for this type of remediation.
It seems likely that the most constructive approach to dealing with post-mining regeneration, particularly with legacy sites, is for public and private interests to work together and to share responsibility. Improving conditions at abandoned sites can provide significant social and environmental benefits with relatively small investment. All stakeholders have something to offer whether it be expertise, capacity, funding, creativity, etc. Trust, or rather the lack of it however, has been a major stumbling block to this.
The research of the Post-Mining Alliance has shown that in situations where there are no mining companies, often the local community or other unexpected players have, by acting through necessity, developed bespoke solutions to their own particular problems. The creativity and approaches hidden in such projects is a potentially major resource and an opportunity that has yet to be adequately tapped at a broader level.
Acrobat reader
Flash player
Share this page