The standards’ preamble clarifies that it does not cover all considerations. It reads: “Issues have arisen in the development of the standard that are difficult to translate into an auditable industry standard for operators.
“These issues are more appropriately addressed through national and/or state level regulatory authorities, or through multilateral agencies working with the industry.”
The preamble gives the example of finding the owners of ‘orphaned’ mines and dams. In these cases, the accountable party is unclear, or the mine owner lacks the ability to carry out a clean up. Global governments have issued different guidance documents on how to treat such scenarios, which, combined with differing property laws, made a global standard unfeasible.
Davy continues: “We all agreed that two other aspects were beyond the scope of the review: detailed design criteria for tailings facilities and the exclusion of certain technologies.
“Our sense was that detailed technical design criteria for tailings dams are already covered by organisations such as the International Commission on Large Dams.
“From the outset, we agreed that the review would not look to exclude certain technologies such as upstream tailings facilities from future use. While individual governments may decide to make that choice, it would be inappropriate for the Review panel to do so.”
While it does not address all issues, Davy says he believes that the standards improve the global benchmark for good tailings practice. This still leaves operators to design their own procedures in order to achieve best practice but soon, this too will have worldwide guidance.
Davy continues: “ICMM is in the process of developing a Good Practice Guide for Tailings Management for members and the wider mining and metals industry, intended to support the implementation of good governance and engineering practices for tailings management across the lifecycle, including a performance-based, risk-informed approach where appropriate.”