Building social impacts into mine closure criteria

Vidette has over 11 years of experience as a social scientist, with a background in sociology, development and management, as well as psychology While much of the South African mining industry recognises the benefits of strong mine closure governance, the typical approach has some way to go in adequately addressing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By Dr Vidette Bester*

Analysing several mine closure plans that are inw the public domain shows that the criteria commonly applied by South African mining companies to mine closure tend to focus on environmental rehabilitation or mine reclamation. By contrast, those criteria related to social closure are less well developed and applied; indeed, this is not a problem specific to South Africa, but can be observed in the mining sector globally.

South Africa’s long history of mining has shown how important the sector is to national economic development. Today, local legislation places specific requirements on mines’ contribution to the socio-economic development of mine-associated communities and labour-sending areas. Mines must also conduct broad-based stakeholder engagement to address downscaling and retrenchment. However, social mine closure criteria – and the mechanisms for achieving an effective social transition to mine closure – are not legally required.

What is therefore essential at this stage is a framework for developing social mine closure criteria and mechanisms, to further enhance the potential of mines to direct their sustainable development policies, plans and programmes within their areas of influence. To support the effectiveness of these criteria, such a framework should also align with the UN SDGs.

The concept of social transitioning toward mine closure is certainly not new to the mining sector. The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) released its Planning for Integrated Mine Closure Toolkit in 2008, and updated it in 2019. The ICMM’s Closure Maturity Framework – published in 2020 – also helps operations to understand their status and performance towards implementing social closure in each stage of the mine’s life cycle.

In the context of declining employment levels since 2012, mine closure in South Africa has to a great extent been neglected. This has highlighted the need for better closure planning, especially the incorporation of social aspects that could foster alternative livelihood opportunities not dependent on mining.

A reflection of the seriousness of this issue is the fact that there are close to 6 000 abandoned, derelict or ownerless mines in the country. According to the most recent data, only 803 closure certificates were issued by government for prospecting rights, mining permits and mining rights between 2011 and 2016. This means that the industry’s decline – most notably in the gold segment – has led to environmental and

social impacts that arise from a lack of planning and rehabilitation.

In recent decades, the mining sector has built considerable capacity in the environmental field, improving its performance in this regard. However, the industry’s strengths in environmental and engineering sciences tend to overlook or exclude social specialists – leading to the closure planning process being dominated by technical considerations. By the time social specialists are involved, many social issues may have been ignored – leaving little time for proper studies and public engagements. Related to this, a significant barrier to incorporating social closure criteria is that mines and mine closure professionals tend to consider closure as an isolated event – needing attention only when the mine reaches the end of its life. A more holistic view would highlight the fact that closure is rather a continuation of the mine’s life cycle. As such, the decisions made during the mine’s life could support a successful social transitioning during mine closure.

Also, the fragmented and siloed approach that is often taken toward social aspects of closure means that sustainable development objectives do not comprehensively deal with the post-closure scenario by considering current social impacts. For instance, communities are dependent on mining activities

for employment, services and a market for local businesses. In addition, mines have historically also fallen into the trap of industrial paternalism – providing mine employees with services such as housing and healthcare. Mines’ contribution towards community upliftment has been partly in response to a lack of government resources to provide municipal and social infrastructure, instead of creating sustainable communities beyond the life-of-mine.

Given this historical legacy and the significant focus on mines’ social licence to operate, there is a pressing need to develop or update a framework for social closure in the South African context. The authors therefore conducted a study to explore what a social mine closure framework would entail. Among the findings was that there are three management objectives that are key to defining the criteria for effective mine closure. The first is to manage the effects created by the loss of direct employment at the mine. The second is to manage the loss of local procurement, and third is to manage the reduced contributions to community development programmes.

It is vital that each mine develop its own objectives, relevant to its context, in consultation with key stakeholders and host communities. The objectives can then be used to refine the tasks necessary to implement, monitor and update the mitigation measures allowing the mine to relinquish tenure and liability at the site.

Importantly, these actions should be practical and achievable within the mine’s remaining lifespan. How near the mine is to closing will affect how it pursues these objectives. For example, a mine that is close to downscaling would need to prioritise the first objective, focused on the effects of retrenchments and the associated loss of income. Mitigating activities could include the development and implementation of a skills audit for employees – to improve their employment prospects elsewhere in mining or other sectors. Employees could be assisted in investing retrenchment packages wisely, or in starting businesses related to post-mining land-use programmes.

In terms of the second objective of managing the loss of local procurement, mitigating activities could include diversifying the mine supply chain through supplier mapping. Social closure criteria would reflect the desired outcome of this – identifying the degree of dependence of key suppliers, and exploring how they might be empowered through gaining access to alternative markets.

To mitigate the impact of the mine’s reduced investment in development programmes and local infrastructure – the third objective – social closure criteria need to outline a future scenario in which these programmes are more self-sustainable. This could involve implementing co-production projects at inception, or consulting with the Department of Minerals and Energy on sector-specific programmes to address gaps in access to services and facilities.

This framework for developing social mine closure criteria needs to be well integrated into mine closure plans – and it is imperative to pursue social mechanisms for closure as early as possible. To be successful, these strategies need to be based on a collaborative framework for engagement. Effective social transitioning to a post-mining phase will require community and government buy-in and cooperation throughout the life-of-mine.

This article is based on a paper presented by Dr Vidette Bester at the Mine Closure 2022 conference in Brisbane, hosted by the Australian Centre for Geomechanics. The paper was co-authored by Jessica Edwards, SLR Consulting, UK, and Ashleigh Maritz, SRK Consulting, South Africa.

*Dr Vidette Bester is a senior social scientist at SRK Consulting.