Influence, Rules And Post-Closure Sustainability: Who Will Govern After The Gates Are Closed?

There is a credible, cogent, and responsible argument that mining can be part of a sustainable future in countries with freely elected governments, transparent and enforceable laws, a closure plan with an adequate bond, and a small handful of other measures. This perspective, built largely upon the understanding of mining as a temporary use of the land, is coupled with a growing understanding of economic diversification as a tool to level out the ‘bust’ side of the boom and bust cycle. There are verifiable signs of progress that the sector has, at least in some venues, begun to embrace this view of ‘sustainability’ both in philosophy and practice. While laudable, there remains a conundrum not yet fully explored. It is conceivable that companies can fulfill all legal requirements, practice corporate responsibility in its broadest and most liberal interpretation, and yet leave behind, after the gates are closed and the lights turned off, a situation which is not only unsustainable, but far worse off than before mining started. Having observed this outcome, repeatedly, some critics have concluded that all mining should be stopped. Others recommend that it be vastly curtailed until regulatory regimes are re-vamped, communities fully empowered, and companies brought to heel. Yet others, including many within the industry, are looking to hold back this dark prospect with peer pressure, branding and competition for good will. In this paper, I propose to focus on this discontinuity, that gap wherein the chain of logic breaks and reasonable policies, reason-able choices, reasonable actions, may fail to deliver expected results. I suggest that any meaningful definition of post-closure sustainability must include the concept of human welfare, and increasingly, human security, over and above meeting the requirements of law, beyond retaining shareholder value and reputation, beyond discussions of subsequent land use and diversified employment. I suggest that self-determination, that ability of a people to hold for themselves the vision of their own future, and to have a sense of their power to implement it, may be both the most difficult and the single most important determinant of long-term sustainability in a community. The particulars will vary; a Canadian junior or an Australian multinational, a highly regulated state in the American west or a ‘failing state’ in Africa’s west, gold or sand and gravel. But the recommendation is the same: this must be a collective endeavor, a shared responsibility involving some combination of government, companies, communities, local and international NGOs (non-governmental organizations), each contributing in the ways most able.