9
CONCLUSIONS
Tailings facilities can pose significant risks to human health
and the environment, and mining companies that produce
tailings need to ensure that those tailings are responsibly
managed. This can be very challenging, given that tailings
facilities are expected to continue to meet performance
objectives for decades to centuries while being subject to a
myriad of physical, technical, environmental, and societal
changes. Owners must also deal with a range of technical,
environmental, and social factors that can influence deci-
sion-making and tailings management outcomes, many of
which are beyond the owner’s control, and need to come to
grips with the human elements that impact decision-mak-
ing. Given this range of challenges, tailings management is
more than just an engineering exercise. Owners need effec-
tive governance to support and facilitate good engineering.
Standards for tailings management can help to provide
a firm foundation to support responsible tailings manage-
ment by setting expectations for best practice and stan-
dards of care. They can be important tools to help ensure
that the risks associated with tailings are reduced, and that
remaining risks are effectively managed, provided that the
standards are effectively designed, including addressing the
appropriate governance and technical topics, and provided
that they are properly implemented.
There are two standards in widespread international use
to support responsible tailings management – the tailings
management component of TSM and the GISTM. TSM is
a comprehensive standard covering a range of environmen-
tal and social topics related to mining, including tailings
management, while the GISTM is focused on tailings man-
agement. The GISTM and the tailings management com-
ponent of TSM are closely aligned with many similarities,
from the overall objectives to the governance and technical
topics addressed. There are also many differences between
these two standards: each has strengths and weaknesses and
each has gaps.
Effective and comprehensive implementation of either of
these standards will help owners improve tailings management
and achieve the goal of minimizing harm.
However, no matter which of these standards an owner
chooses to implement, it is vital that implementation does
not become a box-checking exercise. The objective is not
to achieve conformance with either, or both of these stan-
dards. There is a risk that conformance leads to compla-
cency or a lack of impetus for continual improvement.
Standards are just a tool to help achieve the real objective -
managing tailings responsibly, preventing catastrophic fail-
ures and minimizing harm. Achieving that objective means
not just complying -it means striving for excellence in tail-
ings management.
REFERENCES
[1] Church of England Pensions Board and Sweden’s
Public Pension Funds Council on Ethics (2019). Call
for new independent mine safety system to address
tailings dam failures. Press release issued 2019-01-31.
https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media
/news-and-statements/call-new-independent-mine
-safety-system-address-tailings-dam.
[2] Church of England Pensions Board (2024). The
Investor Mining and Tailings Safety Initiative.
https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leader
ship-and-governance/national-church-institutions
/church-england-pensions-board/pensions.
[3] Davy, A. (2021). Personal communications with
Aidan Davy, Chief Operating Officer and Director,
Environment Programme, International Council on
Mining and Metals.
Table 2. Strengths of TSM compared to the GISTM, based on MAC’s analysis. This is specific to the TSM requirements and
guidance for tailings management, rather than TSM as a whole
TSM GISTM
Explicitly addresses both physical and chemical risks. Primarily focused on physical risks and no requirements
explicitly address chemical risk. Conformance may be possible
without adequately addressing chemical risks.
Emergency planning is required for all tailings facilities to
address a range of potential emergencies.
Emergency planning is required only for credible flow failure
scenarios.
Engineer-of-Record (EoR) is required for all tailings facilities. EoR is only required for facilities with high, very high, or
extreme consequence classification.
Independent review is required for all tailings facilities,
commensurate with risk profile. This is likely to result in multi-
person review board in cases where it would not be required by
the GISTM.
Multi-person review boards are only required for tailings facilities
with very high or extreme consequence classification. For all
others, a single person can provide independent review.
CONCLUSIONS
Tailings facilities can pose significant risks to human health
and the environment, and mining companies that produce
tailings need to ensure that those tailings are responsibly
managed. This can be very challenging, given that tailings
facilities are expected to continue to meet performance
objectives for decades to centuries while being subject to a
myriad of physical, technical, environmental, and societal
changes. Owners must also deal with a range of technical,
environmental, and social factors that can influence deci-
sion-making and tailings management outcomes, many of
which are beyond the owner’s control, and need to come to
grips with the human elements that impact decision-mak-
ing. Given this range of challenges, tailings management is
more than just an engineering exercise. Owners need effec-
tive governance to support and facilitate good engineering.
Standards for tailings management can help to provide
a firm foundation to support responsible tailings manage-
ment by setting expectations for best practice and stan-
dards of care. They can be important tools to help ensure
that the risks associated with tailings are reduced, and that
remaining risks are effectively managed, provided that the
standards are effectively designed, including addressing the
appropriate governance and technical topics, and provided
that they are properly implemented.
There are two standards in widespread international use
to support responsible tailings management – the tailings
management component of TSM and the GISTM. TSM is
a comprehensive standard covering a range of environmen-
tal and social topics related to mining, including tailings
management, while the GISTM is focused on tailings man-
agement. The GISTM and the tailings management com-
ponent of TSM are closely aligned with many similarities,
from the overall objectives to the governance and technical
topics addressed. There are also many differences between
these two standards: each has strengths and weaknesses and
each has gaps.
Effective and comprehensive implementation of either of
these standards will help owners improve tailings management
and achieve the goal of minimizing harm.
However, no matter which of these standards an owner
chooses to implement, it is vital that implementation does
not become a box-checking exercise. The objective is not
to achieve conformance with either, or both of these stan-
dards. There is a risk that conformance leads to compla-
cency or a lack of impetus for continual improvement.
Standards are just a tool to help achieve the real objective -
managing tailings responsibly, preventing catastrophic fail-
ures and minimizing harm. Achieving that objective means
not just complying -it means striving for excellence in tail-
ings management.
REFERENCES
[1] Church of England Pensions Board and Sweden’s
Public Pension Funds Council on Ethics (2019). Call
for new independent mine safety system to address
tailings dam failures. Press release issued 2019-01-31.
https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media
/news-and-statements/call-new-independent-mine
-safety-system-address-tailings-dam.
[2] Church of England Pensions Board (2024). The
Investor Mining and Tailings Safety Initiative.
https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leader
ship-and-governance/national-church-institutions
/church-england-pensions-board/pensions.
[3] Davy, A. (2021). Personal communications with
Aidan Davy, Chief Operating Officer and Director,
Environment Programme, International Council on
Mining and Metals.
Table 2. Strengths of TSM compared to the GISTM, based on MAC’s analysis. This is specific to the TSM requirements and
guidance for tailings management, rather than TSM as a whole
TSM GISTM
Explicitly addresses both physical and chemical risks. Primarily focused on physical risks and no requirements
explicitly address chemical risk. Conformance may be possible
without adequately addressing chemical risks.
Emergency planning is required for all tailings facilities to
address a range of potential emergencies.
Emergency planning is required only for credible flow failure
scenarios.
Engineer-of-Record (EoR) is required for all tailings facilities. EoR is only required for facilities with high, very high, or
extreme consequence classification.
Independent review is required for all tailings facilities,
commensurate with risk profile. This is likely to result in multi-
person review board in cases where it would not be required by
the GISTM.
Multi-person review boards are only required for tailings facilities
with very high or extreme consequence classification. For all
others, a single person can provide independent review.