1

Life-of-Mine 2014 Conference

Paper Number: 8.00

Maturity of jurisdictional abandoned mine programs in Australia based on web-accessible information

Unger, C J1, Lechner, A M2, Walton, A3, Glenn, V4, Edraki, M5 and Mulligan D R6

1. MAusIMM, CP(Env) Senior Research Officer, Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072. Email: c.unger1@uq.edu.au 2. Honorary Research Fellow, Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072. Email: a.lechner@uq.edu.au 3. Research Assistant, Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072. Email: coolbluekoala@hotmail.com 4. Research Officer, Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072. Email: v.glenn@uq.edu.au 5. Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072. Email: m.edraki@uq.edu.au 6. FAusIMM Professor and Director, Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072. Email: d.mulligan@uq.edu.au

2

ABSTRACT

In Australia, responsibility for abandoned mines can be unclear. With a few exceptions, state and territory

governments have become responsible for abandoned mines on crown land and private landholders are

responsible for abandoned mines on freehold land. Abandoned mines pose risks and opportunities across

the full suite of sustainability themes (environmental, human health and safety, socio-economic and

community development) after mining ceases.

Across Australia there are over 50,000 abandoned mines recorded, ranging in size from individual shafts to

large polluting open-cut mines. Addressing the safety and environmental impacts of these sites, as well as

the socio-economic development opportunities of significant rehabilitation projects, requires the

implementation of effective policies and programs. Qualitatively defined graded scales or ‘rubrics’ have been

used for many years in student assessment, and increasingly in the performance assessment of other

sectors (Davidson, 2005). While risk-based maturity models have been used for safety prioritisation

(Westrum, 1993; Hudson, 2007; Commonwealth of Australia, 2008; Hancock, 2010) and evaluation of

organisational development (Esteves et al., 2010), this paper is the first to adapt maturity models for

evaluation of abandoned mine rehabilitation programs in Australia.

In this paper we used indicators based on the national policy for abandoned mines to assess the maturity of

abandoned mine programs. Fourteen elements of maturity were identified (Unger et al., 2012) under the five

chapters of the national policy for abandoned mines (MCMPR/MCA, 2010). Jurisdictions were then

evaluated and ranked on their maturity on the basis of information that was web-accessible. Information

transparency of abandoned mines policies and programs is in itself one element of the maturity chart. Each

jurisdiction in Australia was compared with each other and with a Canadian jurisdiction; the British Columbia

(BC) Crown Contaminated Sites Program (CCSP) representing leading practice (Unger, 2009; Unger et al.,

2012).

Our research found that in some jurisdictions in Australia there is little or no information on abandoned mine

programs or individual abandoned minesites on government websites, while other jurisdictions provided very

detailed program information on planning, funding and implementation. Each jurisdiction in Australia, for

which web-based information was available, had some elements where they were more mature than other

Australian jurisdictions. For some elements, maturity ranked equivalent to the BC CCSP, but most Australian

jurisdictions were less mature. There was only one element where a single Australian jurisdiction ranked

higher than the BC program in maturity. Public access to legacy mine policies, programs, priorities and

funding information via departmental websites, are easier to find in some jurisdictions, indicating progression

toward greater transparency and more mature programs. A systematic approach to monitoring and

evaluating abandoned mines programs is essential for accountability as such an approach can demonstrate

liability reduction over time, and continual improvement. The maturity model approach can provide both a

measure of progress over time as well as a tool to support the implementation of the national policy for

abandoned mines (MCMPR/MCA, 2010).

3

INTRODUCTION

Within Australia, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland rely heavily upon the mining

sector for economic growth and development. These three states have a mining contribution of 35.2%, 19%

and 9.9% mining contribution of Gross State Product, respectively (Australian Government, 2013).

Significant growth in Western Australia and Queensland over the last few years has placed growing

demands on regulatory personnel focussed on the approval of numerous new mines and upstream

petroleum industries (e.g. coal seam gas extraction in Queensland), some of which are large with complex

approval processes. It is perhaps in the context of this growth that increasing focus is being applied to mining

legacies, in particular abandoned mines, of which Australia is estimated to have in excess of 50,000 (Unger

et al., 2012). Inquiries and audits are revealing knowledge gaps in the area of mining legacy; e.g. quantifying

full liability and responsibilities as well as jurisdictional ambiguity over responsibilities and an absence of

legislation to set the standard for their management (Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, 2012).

Applying effort to abandoned mines rehabilitation requires a long-term perspective and a good

understanding of their causes, impacts, legal and technical solutions. Focussing on abandoned mine

rehabilitation may expose the past poor practices and inadequate regulation which neither industry nor

government want emphasised. Increasing community expectations over time and greater demand for land

access articulated in the Multiple Land Use Framework (SCER, 2012) apply tensions, in existing and new

mining regions. Abandoned mines are used as examples of the failure of the regulatory process to protect

the environment and communities (Queensland Audit Office, 2014). Their existence undermines trust in both

governance and the industry and can result in the withdrawal of the ‘social licence to operate’.

Against this background, the Australian government [through the Department of Resources, Energy and

Tourism, now the Department of Industry under the Standing Council for Energy and Resources (SCER)]

within the Coalition of Australian Governments (COAG), the mining industry (represented by the Minerals

Council of Australia) and state jurisdictions collaborated to develop the “Strategic Framework for Managing

Abandoned Mines in the Minerals Industry” (MCMPR/MCA, 2010). This Strategic Framework defines

abandoned mines as: “…mines where mining leases or titles no longer exist and responsibility for

rehabilitation cannot be allocated to any individual, company or organisation responsible for the original

mining activities” (MCMPR/MCA, 2010).

By closing prematurely, abandoned mines have incomplete rehabilitation. They can also be called ‘derelict’,

‘orphan’, ‘former’ or ‘legacy’ mines and may have different definitions in each jurisdiction. As there is no

individual, company or organisation responsible for managing abandoned mines, this task falls to the

government and private landholders. In the case of Australia, this responsibility is borne largely by state and

territory jurisdictions, although there are some abandoned mines that are the responsibility of the Australian

government.

The management of abandoned mines in Australia came to the fore at the 2003 “Abandoned Mine

Workshop” (Bell, 2003) which recommended Australia develop a national strategy for managing abandoned

mines. In December 2010, the Strategic Framework for Managing Abandoned Mines in the Minerals Industry

(MCMPR/MCA, 2010) was produced jointly by the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources

4

(MCMPR) and the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA). The MCMPR consisted of the Australian and New

Zealand Government Ministers for Resources, Energy and Tourism, and state and territory ministers with

responsibility for minerals and petroleum. MCMPR no longer exists and its functions were devolved to SCER

(Standing Council for Energy and Resources).

At a national level, the Strategic Framework (MCMPR/MCA, 2010) was prepared to encourage convergence

of state and territory jurisdictions on the following aspects;

• Site inventories and data management;

• Improved understanding of liability and risk relating to abandoned mines;

• Improvement in performance reporting;

• Standardisation of processes and methodologies; and

• Knowledge and skills sharing across jurisdictions.

Three jurisdictions (Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania) had formal abandoned mine programs

prior to the completion of the 2010 Strategic Framework. Since 2010, Western Australia and the Northern

Territory have introduced new policies to address mining legacies. Despite this, very few jurisdictions have

up-to-date inventories that are publicly accessible and nor do they have a transparent process to assess

risks and prioritise sites at a jurisdiction-wide level. Performance reports on completed jurisdictional

programs are hard to find. However, it is possible to find reports on specific abandoned mine sites and

rehabilitation projects in some jurisdictions.

The aim of this paper is to propose a maturity model of leading practice abandoned mine management. This

model has been trialled via a web-based search of jurisdictions in Australia to demonstrate maturity of

programs and to support jurisdictions by plotting where they are positioned now, and where they want to be

in the future. Through further testing and refinement, with input from jurisdictional abandoned mine

managers, the model could be applied by jurisdictions in Australia. Furthermore, globally there is significant

interest in this research to help developing nations to evaluate and address gaps or weaknesses in policies,

legislation and programs. Finally, we provide recommendations for addressing abandoned mines in the

Australian context.

MATURITY MODEL BACKGROUND

The maturity model approach for risk management has been successfully used around the world to evaluate

safety and elements of socio-economic maturity. Progress through maturity phases to achieve leading

practice systems have been described by Westrum 1993 and Hudson 2007 and the Commonwealth

Government in its leading practice sustainable development series (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008). Five

phases of maturity are applied, progressing from the least mature ‘vulnerable’ category through to ‘reactive’,

‘compliant’, ‘proactive’ and ‘resilient’ (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008). The more mature an organisation

or program, the more robust the systems are to proactively address impacts with evaluation and auditing

combined with open communication to continually improve those systems.

5

Abandoned mine challenges and opportunities are multi-disciplinary nature. Safety, stability, environmental

and potential health impacts must be evaluated and managed. Post-mining values must also be understood

if socio-economic development can be derived from these sites, in the form of further mineral extraction,

heritage conservation and tourism, skills development through training and education and employment and

alternative innovative uses (Pearman, 2009; Unger, 2009).

Jurisdictional programs for abandoned mine management will exhibit different phases of maturity. Each

element of an abandoned mine program can be used to map the development of an integrated, systems-

based approach. The maturity model allows strengths and weaknesses to be identified in jurisdictional

abandoned mine management as well as evaluation of program maturity against international leading

practice. Finally, the maturity model provides an indication of step-wise improvements that could be taken by

each jurisdiction on their path to maturity (Unger et al., 2012).

Drawing on information from the Australian and international setting, an abandoned mine maturity model was

developed for the Australian context (Unger et al., 2012). The abandoned mine maturity model presented in

this research illustrates a novel application of the maturity model concept. It allows strengths and

weaknesses to be identified in the current approaches to abandoned mine management taken by each

jurisdiction and the evaluation of this against current international practice. Finally, it provides an indication of

step-wise improvements that could be taken by each jurisdiction on their path to maturity.

The maturity model has the capacity to map a program’s ‘journey’ from poorly structured toward an

integrated, systems-based approach to management. The model highlights that effective risk management

systems involve several step changes. This maturity model includes two broad elements common to

evaluation rubrics (Davidson, 2005), namely evaluative criteria and merit determination. Evaluative criteria

reflect the aspects of performance that are the focus of the model. Merit determinations are categories used

to assess performance for each of the evaluative criteria.

Fourteen evaluative criteria were identified to define maturity elements of jurisdictional abandoned mine

programs based on leading practice programs reviewed (Unger, 2009; Unger et al., 2012). These elements

are aligned with the five chapters of the Strategic Framework (MCMPR/MCA, 2010) to help transform the

Strategic Framework into an implementation plan. The evaluative criteria were identified in the Strategic

Framework as the components required for successful management of an abandoned mine program. These

components range from data management and risk assessment to sharing information (Table 1).

Within the maturity model, these evaluative criteria are classified into five levels of maturity ranging from

vulnerable and reactive to accepting, proactive and resilient. Based on these classifications, the maturity

chart assessment can be used to highlight areas of strength and conversely areas of poor performance;

jurisdictional planning can then focus on the next step to continually improve programs. Table 2 shows the

expanded category descriptors for each level of maturity ranging from reactive to proactive.

METHODS

Using only internet sources, we undertook a search of abandoned mine program information for each

jurisdiction in Australia, as well as for British Columbia, Canada for comparison. From this research, each

6

element was ranked and a brief explanation was provided. Relevant web links were also included in the

ranking spreadsheet. Where there was uncertainty between two categories such as ‘2 or 3’, then a midway

score was assigned (e.g. 2.5).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A review of global leading practice abandoned mine management was used to inform the development of a

maturity model for all Australian jurisdictions. This model was trialled using a web-based search of

jurisdictions in Australia by one of the co-authors of this paper during the first half of 2013. This Research

Assistant was a recent arts graduate hence this review reflects what an ‘educated member of the public’

might find during a web-search with little or no background knowledge of abandoned mines.

Each jurisdiction was ranked on the basis of web-accessible information. The scores from the web-based

search were plotted for each of the seven jurisdictions in Australia (Figures 1-7) and for British Columbia in

Canada (Figure 8).

It was apparent that some jurisdictions were more mature in some elements than others. For example,

Western Australia (Figure 6) ranked highest for element 1 ‘data and information management’, due to their

comprehensive WABMINES database. The Northern Territory (Figure 7) showed evidence of methods of

prevention of mining legacies, with detailed planning and data evident on two particular sites, Mt Todd1 and

Rum Jungle. The former is the responsibility of the NT government and the Australian Government is

responsible for the latter, with Rum Jungle managed by the NT under a National Partnership Agreement2.

Figure 8 shows that for British Columbia, most maturity scores were higher than those for Australian

jurisdictions. The accessibility of web-based information on the BC CCSP was enhanced by the availability of

biennial performance reports. It was difficult to find performance reports on abandoned mine programs in

Australia.

The Queensland Abandoned Mine Land Program (AMLP) web page had an ‘overview’ explaining its

abandoned mine program with five abandoned mines and two shaft capping programs. Since the web-based

review (Figure 1), a link has been added to address ‘AMLP innovative solutions’ where two projects are

summarised. There is also a new link to enable a member of the public to ‘Report an abandoned minesite’.

New South Wales’ Derelict Mines Program webpage contained links to the current program of works. Since

the web-based review (Figure 2), the formation of a Mine Rehabilitation Advisory Council (MRAC) was

announced. The MRAC will provide advice to the Minister on strategic rehabilitation issues including “to

oversight the Derelict Mine Committee (which will act as a sub-committee) to assist in prioritising and

informing the work of both the Council and Committee3”. This indicates potentially wider engagement on the

issue of mine rehabilitation including mining legacies. An initial review of Victoria yielded no abandoned mine

information. However, other search terms, such as ‘contaminated land’, proved more effective because

mining legacies were grouped with other contaminated land (similar to BC, Canada). The subsequent

1 http://www.nt.gov.au/d/mttodd/

2 http://www.nt.gov.au/d/rumjungle/

3 http://www.resources.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/476686/Attachment-to-MOC13-4397-TAB-H-Mine-Rehabilitation-

Advisory-Council-Draft-Charter-v1.3.pdf

7

ranking for Victoria was therefore based on a search under contaminated land (Figure 3). Tasmania (Figure

4) had a detailed webpage showing cross-functional engagement with a Trust Fund Committee which

provides advice to the Minister on the management of the Trust Fund. This committee is comprised of four

government departments, the Crushed Stone Association and the Tasmanian Minerals Council. However, it

was difficult to quantify the amount of rehabilitation work undertaken each year. In South Australia (Figure 5)

there is a Mine Completion group and one former minesite, Brukunga, featured strongly under abandoned

mine management. Western Australia (Figure 6) has announced the formation of a Mine Rehabilitation

Advisory Panel since the web-based review4. The Northern Territory (Figure 7) has made progress to

establish a mining legacy fund and team in 20135.

During the ranking process it was apparent that the researcher needed to know all of the possible

terminology for abandoned mines in order to find relevant information. The search phrase ‘abandoned mines’

is not used by all jurisdictions. As mentioned above, some jurisdictions combine abandoned mines with other

sources of contamination under ‘contaminated land’ programs (i.e. Victoria, Australia). Also ‘orphaned mines’

is a term more often used in Canada than Australia, where the owner of a mine is not known. The term

‘derelict mines’ is applied in New South Wales and the Northern Territory refers to ‘legacy sites’.

Some information was difficult to find or absent during the web search. For example few websites recorded

the total liability of abandoned mines. It is not clear whether this liability was known or unknown but it was

rarely if ever available via the websearch of mines’ departments who are the primary agencies to have

responsible for mining legacies in Australia.

A search of other government webpages highlight references to abandoned mine liability. For example the

Queensland’s Commission of Audit, interim report (QCA, 2012) estimated Queensland’s abandoned mine

liability as being approximately $1 billion. The NSW Auditor-General has noted that the Contaminated Land

Management Act 1997 excludes approximately 500 derelict mines which are the responsibility of the Derelict

Mines Program. This program “may represent the largest category of contamination liability for the New

South Wales Government” (Audit Office of NSW, 2011, p13). While the value of this liability is not provided it

is stated that the “few million dollars allocated annually to this program are substantially inadequate” (Audit

office of NSW, 2011, p13). While accrual accounting requires governments to fully account for its liabilities

and assets, abandoned /legacy mine liabilities are either embedded in jurisdictional financial reports or

absent. In contrast, in British Columbia, Canada, liabilities and liability reduction from rehabilitation programs

have been reported in biennial performance reports since the Auditor-General’s report in 20026 (CCSP,

2012; CCSP, 2014).

The annual expenditures on Australian abandoned mine programs are rarely available on abandoned mine

program web pages. As a result, researchers and the public cannot easily assess how much of the total

liability is being addressed each year. Performance reports containing the level of detail and transparency of

those produced by the British Columbia CCSP (2012, 2014) are not available in Australia. Risk assessment

and prioritisation processes are difficult to find in the public domain. Thus, it is worth noting that this web-

4 http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/15851.aspx

5 http://newsroom.nt.gov.au/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewRelease&id=11057&d=5

6 http://bcauditor.com/PUBS/2002-03/Report5/Contsites.pdf

8

based review makes some assumptions based on the information provided. Wherever quantitative data are

not available, subjectivity can be a factor in the ranking.

The detail of abandoned mine programs available online for each jurisdiction varies and the level of

abandoned mine program transparency is likely to confound true estimates of maturity. For example an

abandoned mine program could have a very comprehensive webpage despite little progress being made to

address obstacles to reduce liabilities ‘on the ground’. Conversely, a jurisdiction may be undertaking

significant strategic planning with whole of government consultation, together with legislative and other

amendments in order to improve their capacity to prevent new legacies as well as to manage and fund

existing mining legacies. However because they are not yet ready to release or announce this information

publicly, there may be little information which is web-accessible.

APPLICATION AND NEXT STEPS

This review has highlighted that some jurisdictions received much higher scores for certain evaluative criteria

than others and presumably these jurisdictions have a high level of expertise in these areas. Cross-

jurisdictional dialogue in this instance can conserve limited resources in order to share knowledge within

Australia and to link jurisdictions to leading practices overseas.

The next step with this research is to invite jurisdictions to evaluate their own maturity because there may be

progress on mine policies and specific projects which are not revealed by this research. Such a test of the

maturity model (Table 2), would also evaluate its utility. Jurisdictions would be invited to provide comments

and improvements on the model elements and indicators for scoring. This approach would enable those

managing abandoned mines, who know what their jurisdiction has done and still needs to do, to rank their

maturity with greater accurately based on a more complete dataset. Research could begin to document the

forms of evidence needed to verify each level of maturity for each element. While some jurisdictions in

Australia have had abandoned mine programs for many years, others are just commencing. For those

jurisdictions just commencing a new program, this research provides an opportunity to test the applicability of

this maturity model during the development stages. The model could be improved with input from

jurisdictions. Subsequent reviews of abandoned mine program maturity could be undertaken to evaluate

progress over time.

Mature leading practice programs are characterised by being proactive, transparent and well resourced.

They take a whole of government approach in order to capture all sustainability elements, and then initiate

the changes needed. Mature programs engage specialist expertise and stakeholders to achieve the

objectives. Jurisdictional programs which have a detailed and current inventory of jurisdiction-wide

abandoned mines are more mature than those which lack this foundational knowledge. Mature jurisdictions

will also apply a risk and opportunity assessment methodology to prioritise sites, resources and

investigations. Risk evaluation and management will be guided and supported by legislation and policies

which prevent negative legacy creation and manage existing legacies. The values of abandoned mines need

to be evaluated and stakeholders engaged in order to effectively understand and embrace the opportunities

for socio-economic development post-rehabilitation. Partnership opportunities with stakeholders can occur

9

when common values are recognised and collaboration encouraged. Collaboration can also yield new

funding opportunities. Communication and networks facilitate knowledge sharing and support continual

improvement. The current mining industry professionals by being engaged in both legacy site and active site

management have the potential to share knowledge across sector boundaries – industry, government,

consulting and research (AusIMM, 2013; Unger 2013).

Less mature programs may be given a head-start when research into more mature programs, here in

Australia and overseas, is undertaken. An understanding of strengths and weaknesses of related programs

in other jurisdictions can inform emerging legislation and policy. In some instances the adaption of existing

guidance and tools may save a jurisdiction from re-inventing systems from the beginning. While each

jurisdiction is unique, inventory methods, risk tools, knowledge of efficient methods for shaft capping and so

on can be shared nationally. The ultimate aim is to progressively reduce the environmental and socio-

economic liabilities from cumulative negative legacies which exist and provide sustainable post-mining land

uses for future generations. Non-Government Organisations, landholders and other community members

have roles where their local knowledge and community needs are brought into the planning process. This

research highlights that there is much to be learned from leading practices overseas and one model which

could be adapted to Australia is the National Orphaned /Abandoned Mine Initiative (NOAMI7). This Canadian

initiative formed in 2001, established cross-jurisdictional collaboration to identify common challenges and

then to address them. These included;

Building a National Inventory;

Community Perspectives;

Setting Standards and Rational Expectations - Links to Workshop Proceedings;

Ownership and Liability Issues; and

Identification of Funding Models.

Our maturity model provides a basis for development of an ‘Implementation Plan’ for the Strategic

Framework (MCMPR/MCA, 2010). As a precedent, the Australian government implemented the National

Mine Safety Framework (DRET, 2009). The jurisdictional maturity model for abandoned mine management

could include the development of appropriate support tools to assist knowledge sharing and progression of

abandoned mine programs along the path to maturity. Targets would need to be set and performance

measures agreed. Once the maturity model has been used to highlight areas of strength and conversely

areas of poor performance, planning can then focus on the next step to continually improve programs. In

order for an Implementation Plan for abandoned mine management across Australia to be effective,

leadership at a national level is required. Also needed is a commitment from state/territory governments as

well as the mining industry. The Standing Council on Energy and Resources led the development of the

Strategic Framework (MCMPR/MCA, 2010) and is the logical entity to lead the governments toward its

implementation in line with the Multiple Land Use Framework (SCER, 2013) in mining regions.

We have learned from NOAMI and other leading practice initiatives (Unger et al., 2012) that industry,

government and other stakeholder collaboration is necessary for good outcomes. Gaps in knowledge as well

7 http://www.abandoned-mines.org/home-e.htm

10

as inadequacies in policies and legislation must systematically be addressed for holistic programs to persist

over time, especially when changes of government and shifts in the demand for Australia’s mineral

resources superimpose other priorities on the mining sector and governments. Inter-generational equity

requires a long term vision and persistent effort to address the negative legacies from mining, not only in

Australia but also globally.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation and volunteers as this research is

currently unfunded by industry, government or philanthropic sources. The MCA and Northern Territory

Government provided sponsorship, which offset the costs for the 2012 Managing Mining Legacies Forum,

held at the CMLR. The Churchill Trust funded the travel expenses of the lead author in 2009 to research

leading practice abandoned mine rehabilitation and post-mining land use overseas.

REFERENCES

Audit Office of NSW, 2011, Financial Audit: Volume Six 2011: Focus on Environment, Water and Regional

Infrastructure, Audit Office of New South Wales, 163pp, viewed 23 April 2014,

http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/226/01_Volume_Six_2011_Full_Report.pdf.aspx

AusIMM, 2013, Abandoned Mines Policy Statement, AusIMM, viewed 23 April 2014,

http://www.ausimm.com.au/content/docs/policy/abandoned_mines_policy_June_2013.pdf

AWPA (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency), 2013, Resources sector skills needs,

Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 290pp, viewed 23 April

2014,http://www.awpa.gov.au/publications/Documents/Resources%20sector%20skills%20needs%202013%

20final.pdf

Bell, L C (ed), 2003, Management and remediation of abandoned mines, Australian Centre for

Environmental Research (ACMER), Brisbane, viewed 23 April 2014

http://www.jktech.com.au/sites/default/files/knowledge-transfer/other/AbandonedMinesTableofContents.pdf

CCSP (Crown Contaminated sites program), 2012, Biennial report, Crown Land Opportunities and

Restoration Branch Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 32pp, viewed 23 April 2014,

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/clad/ccs/cabinet/reports/12_CLORB_Biennial_Report.pdf

CCSP (Crown Contaminated sites program), 2014, Biennial report, Crown Land Opportunities and

Restoration Branch Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 32pp,

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/clad/ccs/cabinet/reports/2014_CCSP_Biennial_Report.pdf

Davidson, J, 2005, Evaluation Methodology Basics – the nuts and bolts of sound evaluation, SAGE,

Thousand Oaks, CA.

11

DRET (Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism), 2008, Leading Practice Sustainable Development

Program for the Mining Industry Risk Assessment and Management Commonwealth of Australia, 85pp,

viewed 23 April 2014, http://www.innovation.gov.au/resource/Documents/LPSDP/LPSDP-RiskHandbook.pdf

DRET (Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism), 2009, National Mine Safety Framework (NMSF)

Implementation Report, 87pp, viewed 23 April

2014,http://industry.gov.au/resource/Mining/NationalMineSafetyFramework/Pages/default.aspx

Esteves, A M, Brereton, D, Samson, D, Barclay, M, 2010, Procuring from SMEs in local communities: A

Good Practice Guide for the Australian Mining, Oil and Gas sectors, Centre for Social Responsibility in

Mining, The University of Queensland, 72pp, viewed 23 April

2014,http://www.csrm.uq.edu.au/docs/4361%20CSRM%20SME%20Report%20Email%20V2.pdf

Government of Western Australia, 2012. Mining Rehabilitation Advisory Panel [online], Department of Mines

and Petroleum. Available from: <http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/15851.aspx>.

Hancock, M G, 2010, Risk Management Systems for Communicable Diseases in the Papua New Guinean

Mining Industry: Maturity Models - Paths for Development, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, The University of

Queensland, Brisbane

Hudson, P, 2007. Implementing a safety culture in a major multi-national, Safety Science, 45:697-722

MCMPR/MCA (Ministerial Council on Mining and Petroleum Resources/ Minerals Council of Australia), 2010,

Strategic Framework for Managing Abandoned Mines in the Minerals Industry, 44pp, viewed 23 April 2014,

http://www.innovation.gov.au/resource/Mining/Documents/StrategicFrameworkforManagingAbandonedMines

.pdf

New South Wales Government, 2013. Mine Rehabilitation Advisory Council: draft charter [online], Trade and

Investment, Resources and Energy. Available from:

http://www.resources.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/476686/Attachment-to-MOC13–4397-TAB-H-

Mine-Rehabilitation-Advisory-Council-Draft-Charter-v1.3.pdf

Northern Territory Government, 2013a. Overview of the former Mount Todd mine site [online], Department of

Mines and Energy. Available from: <http://www.nt.gov.au/d/mttodd/>. [Accessed: 23 April 2014]

Northern Territory Government, 2013b. Overview of the former Rum Jungle mine site [online], Department of

Mines and Energy. Available from: <http://www.nt.gov.au/d/rumjungle/>. [Accessed: 23 April 2014]

Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, 2002. Managing contaminated sites on provincial lands,

report 5 [online]. Available from: <http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2002/report5/managing-contaminated-

sites-bcprovincial-lands>

Pearman G, 2009, 101 Things to do with a Hole in the Ground, Post Mining Alliance, Cornwell UK

12

Queensland Audit Office, 2014, Environmental regulation of the resources and waste industries, Report 15:

2013-14, The State of Queensland, Brisbane, 77pp, viewed 23 April 2014,

https://www.qao.qld.gov.au/files/file/Reports%20and%20publications/Reports%20to%20Parliament%202013

-14/RTP15Environmentalregulationoftheresourcesandwasteindustries.pdf

Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, 2012, Final Report, March 2012, Queensland Floods

Commission of Inquiry, Brisbane, 658pp, viewed 23 April 2014,

http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/11698/QFCI-Final-Report-March-

2012.pdf

QCA (Queensland Commission of Audit, 2012, Interim report, June 2012 Queensland Government, 220pp,

viewed 23 April 2014, http://www.commissionofaudit.qld.gov.au/reports/interim-report.pdf

Standing Council for Energy and Resources (SCER), 2013, Multiple Land use Framework and Background

Document, December 2013, http://www.scer.gov.au/workstreams/land-access/mluf/

Unger, C J, 2009, Leading practice abandoned mine rehabilitation and post-mining land use, Churchill

Fellowship report, 76pp, http://www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/UNGER_Corinne_2009.pdf

Unger, C J, 2012, Managing Mining Legacies forum, 16-17 July 2012, Report, September 2012, 52pp,

http://www.cmlr.uq.edu.au/Portals/0/MMLF/MML%20forum%20report.pdf

Unger, C, 2013, Annex to The AusIMM Abandoned Mines policy statement Abandoned Mines: an overview

of current status and AusIMM members’ perspectives the AusIMM Sustainability Committee, AusIMM,

viewed 23 April 2014,

http://www.ausimm.com.au/content/docs/policy/abandoned_mines_discussion_paper_June_2013.pdf

Unger C, Lechner A M, Glenn V, Edraki M, Mulligan, D R, 2012 Mapping and Prioritising Rehabilitation of

Abandoned Mines in Australia, Life of Mine 2012: Maximising Rehabilitation Outcomes: 10 - 12 July 2012,

Brisbane, Australia, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 259-65,

http://www.cmlr.uq.edu.au/Portals/0/MMLF/LOM%20Paper%20Unger%20et%20al%20July%202012.pdf

Van Holthe, W, 2013. Mining Management Act passed [online], media release. Available from:

<http://newsroom.nt.gov.au/mediaRelease/8347>. [Accessed: 23 April 2014]

Westrum, R, 1993, Cultures with requisite imagination, in Wise, J A, Hopkin, V D, Stager, P (Eds),

Verification and validation in complex man-machine systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 401-416

.

13

FIGURES FIG 1: Jurisdictional maturity for abandoned mines – Queensland

FIG 2: Jurisdictional maturity for abandoned (derelict) mines – New South Wales

0

1

2

3

4

51 data/info mgmt

2 jur-wideknowledge

3 site-specific data

4 LLP to addressAMs

5 LPG to preventAMs

6 Risk Assessment

7Leadership/capacity

8 funding

9 beneficial land use

10 heritage cons

11 secondary mining

12 partnerships

13 stakeholder eng

14 comms/networks

Queensland

0

1

2

3

4

51 data/info mgmt

2 jur-wide knowledge

3 site-specific data

4 LLP to address AMs

5 LPG to prevent AMs

6 Risk Assessment

7 Leadership/capacity

8 funding

9 beneficial land use

10 heritage cons

11 secondary mining

12 partnerships

13 stakeholder eng

14 comms /networks

New South Wales

14

FIG 3: Jurisdictional maturity for abandoned mines (in contaminated land) – Victoria

FIG 4: Jurisdictional maturity for abandoned mines – Tasmania

0

1

2

3

4

51 data/info mgmt

2 jur-wide knowledge

3 site-specific data

4 LLP to address AMs

5 LPG to prevent AMs

6 Risk Assessment

7 Leadership/capacity

8 funding

9 beneficial land use

10 heritage cons

11 secondary mining

12 partnerships

13 stakeholder eng

14 comms /networks

Victoria

0

1

2

3

4

51 data/info mgmt

2 jur-wide knowledge

3 site-specific data

4 LLP to address AMs

5 LPG to prevent AMs

6 Risk Assessment

7 Leadership/capacity

8 funding

9 beneficial land use

10 heritage cons

11 secondary mining

12 partnerships

13 stakeholder eng

14 comms /networks

Tasmania

15

FIG 5: Jurisdictional maturity for abandoned mines – South Australia

FIG 6: Jurisdictional maturity for abandoned mines – Western Australia

0

1

2

3

4

51 data/info mgmt

2 jur-wide knowledge

3 site-specific data

4 LLP to address AMs

5 LPG to prevent AMs

6 Risk Assessment

7Leadership/capacity

8 funding

9 beneficial land use

10 heritage cons

11 secondary mining

12 partnerships

13 stakeholder eng

14 comms /networks

South Australia

0

1

2

3

4

51 data/info mgmt

2 jur-wide…

3 site-specific data

4 LLP to address AMs

5 LPG to prevent…

6 Risk Assessment

7…

8 funding

9 beneficial land use

10 heritage cons

11 secondary mining

12 partnerships

13 stakeholder eng

14 comms /networks

Western Australia

16

FIG 7: Jurisdictional maturity for abandoned (legacy) mines – Northern Territory

FIG 8: Jurisdictional maturity for abandoned mines (Crown Contaminated Sites Program) – British Columbia

0

1

2

3

4

51 data/info mgmt

2 jur-wide knowledge

3 site-specific data

4 LLP to address AMs

5 LPG to prevent AMs

6 Risk Assessment

7 Leadership/capacity

8 funding

9 beneficial land use

10 heritage cons

11 secondary mining

12 partnerships

13 stakeholder eng

14 comms /networks

Northern Territory

0

1

2

3

4

51 data/info mgmt

2 jur-wide knowledge

3 site-specific data

4 LLP to address AMs

5 LPG to prevent AMs

6 Risk Assessment

7 Leadership/capacity

8 funding

9 beneficial land use

10 heritage cons

11 secondary mining

12 partnerships

13 stakeholder eng

14 comms /networks

British Columbia, Canada

17

TABLES

TABLE 1: Elements of a mature abandoned mine program integrated with Strategic Framework (MCMPR/MCA, 2010)

MATURE PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Str

ate

gic

fra

me

wo

rk

1 Data/Information management

Ch

ap

ter

2:

Da

ta

co

lle

cti

on

an

d

ma

na

ge

me

nt

2 Jurisdiction-wide knowledge of health, safety,

environment, and socio-economic impacts

3 Site specific rehabilitation and management plans for

high risk sites

4 Leadership' Legislation, Policy and guidance to

address AMs

Ch

ap

ter

3:

risk

as

se

ss

me

nt

an

d

ma

na

ge

me

nt 5 Legislation, policy and guidance to prevent new AMs

6 Risk assessment and prioritisation of programs

7 Abandoned mine program leadership and

capacity/skills

8 Funding; sources, mechanisms & resources

9 Focus on beneficial post-mining land/water uses

Ch

ap

ter

1 v

alu

ing

ab

an

do

ne

d m

ine

s

10 Heritage conservation -indigenous cultural and

industrial

11 Secondary mining opportunities

12 Resourcing in partnership

Ch

ap

ter

4

Res

ou

rcin

g

an

d

pa

rtn

ers

hip

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

13 Stakeholder engagement at jurisdiction level

14 Communication & networks

Ch

ap

ter

5

Info

rma

tio

n

sh

ari

ng

an

d

‘le

ad

ing

pra

cti

ce

’

18

TABLE 2: Jurisdictional maturity model for abandoned/legacy mine management

19