5 minute read
MINING Key focuses in new tailings standard
Key Focuses in New Tailings Standard
Mines have for decades had to comply with the prevailing legislated environmental regulations, however the revised Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management has shifted the ground.
Advertisement
BY SRK CONSULTING*
Responding to a new world of expectations, the standard demands a more systematic integration of environmental monitoring into the tailings management system. This means that technical reporting on (TSFs) must now include an environmental component to improve the way that tailings storage risks are managed. While the stability and integrity of the structure are key to tailings storage facilities safety concerns, risks like seepage and contamination plumes are also highly relevant to both safety and environmental sustainability. Although environmental reporting in TSF quarterly reports is improving, the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) demands that action plans are developed, and that these are proactively implemented in an integrated way.
The GISTM calls for environmental – along with social and local economic – impacts to be assessed on an ongoing basis, so that any material changes can be addressed using best practices in adaptive management. Effective monitoring is therefore vital, including a regular review of the effectiveness of monitoring efforts. This way, mines can continuously assess whether their monitoring equipment – including its location and application – and their associated sampling programme are providing data that is valuable to decision-making. To remain cost-effective, monitoring requires the judicious allocation of resources based on scientifically valid analysis of results.
The monitoring focus needs to be on areas of potential risk, which the data can help to identify over time. These efforts can assist in both highlighting risks and in mitigating them. Seepage points around a TSF, for instance, might be picked up by inspections or sensors, that will inform further investigation to determine whether there are any associated risks or impacts. Similarly, potential contaminants might be identified which need to be contextualised against baseline studies; this baseline data, often augmented over many years, is a valuable resource that needs to be well managed as part of every mine’s knowledge base.
The GISTM highlights the need for mines to maintain an interdisciplinary knowledge base. Monitoring of environmental risks requires disciplines like geochemistry, hydrogeology,
hydrology, hydropedology and porous media hydraulics. While these focus on risk mitigation, there are still further disciplines involved in relation to TSF failure, such as disaster management and engineering response and recovery. Specialised expertise is also required to identify and monetise biophysical and ecological resources that provide valuable ecosystem services to local communities and broader society. These assessments are relevant to livelihood resilience, economic risk, resettlement costs and ongoing community engagement.
Closer collaboration between engineering, environmental and social disciplines is required, with channels of communications that allow information to be shared, including the data from these disciplines’ respective monitoring efforts. Ideally, a tailings management system must incorporate relevant environmental data, preferably in real time.
The GISTM also firmly links environmental threats with socio-economic risks – which are often managed by separate departments within a mine’s management structure. If these departments operate in silos, it will be challenging to achieve the integrated approach that the standard requires.
*Written by Franciska Lake, Jacky Burke, Justin Walls, Matthew Law from SRK Consulting
Click on the GISTM link
It’s probably not by chance that the first principle of the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) is to “respect the rights of project-affected people” and to “meaningfully engage them at all phases of the tailings facility lifecycle”. This social focus reflects not only the potential vulnerability of communities close to tailings storage facilities (TSFs), but also aligns with the broader trend to integrate ESG factors into tailings management.
While social engagement with project-affected people is a well-established practice in various permitting, licensing and authorisation processes, the GISTM requires engagement that endures for the operational life of the tailings facility and into closure – which in turn implies the need for a social engagement plan for the lifetime of the mine and beyond. Such engagement should extend to all stakeholders, including regulators, local government, traditional authorities, landowners, communitybased organisations, local communities and the broader public.
This engagement should form part of the mine’s Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS), which the GISTM in turn requires to be incorporated into – or to at least inform – the Tailings Management System (TMS). This presents one of the initial transitions that mining operations will have to make to comply with the GISTM and to ensure that on-site responsibilities are aligned, collaboration is fostered and the two sub-systems of an ESMS – the social and the environmental – are integrated with engineering aspects on site.
The effective integration of engineering, socio-economic and environmental aspects will require a coalescence of data and skills sharing between these spheres. And so in this way, engineers will be better equipped to understand and anticipate socio-economic risks, and to disseminate relevant information in a stakeholderfriendly format, which will build trust and respect between mine operations and stakeholders.
One underlying concern that is key to TSF-related social engagement is the potential for, and implications of, catastrophic failure. It is thus critical for mining operations to understand community dynamics in order to prepare effective emergency response and recovery plans for these eventualities. This is just one example which social engagement can help to address. Others include the identification of risk factors, planning for spatial or economic displacement, social vulnerability, resettlement and compensation as well as livelihood restoration.
Aligning with GISTM requirements will include ongoing surveillance programmes that identify changes in social systems and valuable ecosystem services to communities. As part of impact identification and mitigation, there is also a need to establish direct mechanisms for stakeholders to share their unique knowledge and understanding of the area. Social engagement related to TSF management needs to build trust and stakeholder capacity, demonstrating a respect for human rights that informs management decisions throughout the TSF lifecycle.
