7
human fatality. As stated above, the objective of the tailings
management component of TSM is to continually work
towards minimizing harm associated with both the physical
and chemical risks associated with tailings, including the
objective of zero catastrophic failures of tailings facilities.
The scope of the GISTM and TSM is very similar,
with some topics within the scope of the GISTM (com-
munity engagement, water management, climate change
adaptation) addressed in other TSM protocols and applied
to all aspects of the mine site and not just tailings. They
also address similar topics related to both governance and
technical/engineering aspects of tailings management,
well aligned with the list of topics provided above for the
Tailings Guide.
Differences Between the GISTM and TSM
The most significant difference between the GISTM and
TSM is that the GISTM applies only to tailings manage-
ment, whereas tailings management is just one component
of TSM with the other components applied across the
mine site as a whole, and not just to tailings facilities. For
example, both standards address community engagement
but the GISTM requirements only apply to tailings man-
agement while the TSM requirements apply to the mine
site as a whole, including tailings. This reflects that these
two standards have been developed for different purposes.
There are several other differences between the GISTM
and TSM:
• TSM has established mechanisms for third-party ver-
ification (TSM Initiative 2024c) supported by train-
ing, and established mechanisms for public report-
ing of results. Such mechanisms are not currently in
place for the GISTM and are to be developed by the
GTMI, once established.
• Use of the Table of Conformance provides a high
degree of detail and rigour in TSM performance
measurement. The GISTM provides little detail to
support performance measurement, leaving it to
those evaluating performance to determine what is
“good enough,” resulting in the potential for incon-
sistency in performance measurement. The ICMM
Conformance Protocols are helpful but do not pro-
vide additional detail or clarification beyond that
provided in the GISTM.
• Implementation of the TSM Tailings Management
Protocol is supported by the Tailings Guide and the
OMS Guide. The GISTM is not supported by a
guidance document. In 2021, the ICMM released
a Tailings Management: Good Practice Guide
which can be used to inform implementation of the
GISTM (ICMM 2021c). The Tailings Guide and
OMS Guide can also be used to support implemen-
tation of the GISTM.
• MAC and the TSM International Partners support
their members implementing TSM, including pro-
viding training, responding to questions, and clari-
fying interpretation of requirements, performance
measurement, etc. The ICMM similarly provides
training for its members, but since the GTMI is not
yet in place, there is currently no organization posi-
tioned to provide definitive responses to questions,
particularly regarding the interpretation of GISTM
requirements.
The greatest strength of the GISTM is perhaps not the
specifics of the standard itself, but the high-profile nature
of the GISTM and its backing by investors. This has helped
put responsible tailings management on the agenda of cor-
porate senior management and boards of directors in a way
that has never happened before. This includes some of the
largest mining companies in the world. Tailings manage-
ment, often treated as little more than an afterthought, has
gained much higher prominence in corporate priorities. In
turn, this has in some cases helped companies to leverage
increased funding for tailings management.* It is unclear
if this senior-level interest in tailings management can be
sustained, but it is unquestionably a positive outcome of
the introduction of the GISTM.
The greatest strength of the tailings management com-
ponent of TSM is the degree of integration of the require-
ments. TSM takes a highly integrated approach, with
the development and implementation of governance and
technical elements integrated into the Plan-Do-Check-Act
cycle of the tailings management system, helping to coor-
dinate people, resources, and activities to improve tailings
management. The GISTM has the elements and requires
development and implementation of a tailings manage-
ment system, but it does not provide a framework to inte-
grate all of these elements into the management system. In
a sense, the GISTM throws the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle
on the table without box art to show how they fit together.
TSM provides the box art and helps people to assemble the
puzzle.
• Integration of the people, resources, and activi-
ties related to tailings management is essential to
*This is no reference for this statement, but it is based on off
the record conversations that the author has had with numer-
ous representatives of various companies, including ICMM
members.
human fatality. As stated above, the objective of the tailings
management component of TSM is to continually work
towards minimizing harm associated with both the physical
and chemical risks associated with tailings, including the
objective of zero catastrophic failures of tailings facilities.
The scope of the GISTM and TSM is very similar,
with some topics within the scope of the GISTM (com-
munity engagement, water management, climate change
adaptation) addressed in other TSM protocols and applied
to all aspects of the mine site and not just tailings. They
also address similar topics related to both governance and
technical/engineering aspects of tailings management,
well aligned with the list of topics provided above for the
Tailings Guide.
Differences Between the GISTM and TSM
The most significant difference between the GISTM and
TSM is that the GISTM applies only to tailings manage-
ment, whereas tailings management is just one component
of TSM with the other components applied across the
mine site as a whole, and not just to tailings facilities. For
example, both standards address community engagement
but the GISTM requirements only apply to tailings man-
agement while the TSM requirements apply to the mine
site as a whole, including tailings. This reflects that these
two standards have been developed for different purposes.
There are several other differences between the GISTM
and TSM:
• TSM has established mechanisms for third-party ver-
ification (TSM Initiative 2024c) supported by train-
ing, and established mechanisms for public report-
ing of results. Such mechanisms are not currently in
place for the GISTM and are to be developed by the
GTMI, once established.
• Use of the Table of Conformance provides a high
degree of detail and rigour in TSM performance
measurement. The GISTM provides little detail to
support performance measurement, leaving it to
those evaluating performance to determine what is
“good enough,” resulting in the potential for incon-
sistency in performance measurement. The ICMM
Conformance Protocols are helpful but do not pro-
vide additional detail or clarification beyond that
provided in the GISTM.
• Implementation of the TSM Tailings Management
Protocol is supported by the Tailings Guide and the
OMS Guide. The GISTM is not supported by a
guidance document. In 2021, the ICMM released
a Tailings Management: Good Practice Guide
which can be used to inform implementation of the
GISTM (ICMM 2021c). The Tailings Guide and
OMS Guide can also be used to support implemen-
tation of the GISTM.
• MAC and the TSM International Partners support
their members implementing TSM, including pro-
viding training, responding to questions, and clari-
fying interpretation of requirements, performance
measurement, etc. The ICMM similarly provides
training for its members, but since the GTMI is not
yet in place, there is currently no organization posi-
tioned to provide definitive responses to questions,
particularly regarding the interpretation of GISTM
requirements.
The greatest strength of the GISTM is perhaps not the
specifics of the standard itself, but the high-profile nature
of the GISTM and its backing by investors. This has helped
put responsible tailings management on the agenda of cor-
porate senior management and boards of directors in a way
that has never happened before. This includes some of the
largest mining companies in the world. Tailings manage-
ment, often treated as little more than an afterthought, has
gained much higher prominence in corporate priorities. In
turn, this has in some cases helped companies to leverage
increased funding for tailings management.* It is unclear
if this senior-level interest in tailings management can be
sustained, but it is unquestionably a positive outcome of
the introduction of the GISTM.
The greatest strength of the tailings management com-
ponent of TSM is the degree of integration of the require-
ments. TSM takes a highly integrated approach, with
the development and implementation of governance and
technical elements integrated into the Plan-Do-Check-Act
cycle of the tailings management system, helping to coor-
dinate people, resources, and activities to improve tailings
management. The GISTM has the elements and requires
development and implementation of a tailings manage-
ment system, but it does not provide a framework to inte-
grate all of these elements into the management system. In
a sense, the GISTM throws the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle
on the table without box art to show how they fit together.
TSM provides the box art and helps people to assemble the
puzzle.
• Integration of the people, resources, and activi-
ties related to tailings management is essential to
*This is no reference for this statement, but it is based on off
the record conversations that the author has had with numer-
ous representatives of various companies, including ICMM
members.