Mine Closure Planning: A Key Part of the ‘S’ in ESG
Mar 21, 2022
This article was originally published in the Bowen Basin Mining Club 2021 Yearbook and has been republished on this site with permission.
—-
Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG)
Investors are increasingly seeking out companies that rate highly in terms of ESG; that is, the measurement of a company’s Environmental, Social, and Governance impact, adherence, and ethic. The reputation and transparency of a company has become an important part of the decision of investors in a world that is now scrutinised and discussed to the nth degree, on social media or in the 24-hour news cycle.
—-
ESG is proving itself to be an important corporate evaluation tool across all industries. It’s also an increasingly popular (and necessary) focus in the resources sector. Meeting Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria is fast becoming what sets competition apart and entices investors to provide critical financial backing for projects.
Investors are increasingly seeking out companies that rate highly in terms of ESG; that is, the measurement of a company’s Environmental, Social, and Governance impact, adherence, and ethic. The reputation and transparency of a company has become an important part of the decision of investors in a world that is now scrutinised and discussed to the nth degree, on social media or in the 24-hour news cycle.
The troublesome part of the ESG tool is the measurement of the Social criteria. Environmental impact and Governance adherence is addressed and measured through stringent legislation and regulations set out for resources companies, including the Environmental Protection Act 1994, Mineral Resources Act 1989, and a company’s policies and Code of Ethics.
Meeting obligational, legislative, and ethical standards is part and parcel of extractives from the first day of planning until the day of closure. However, Social is a far more recent criteria for companies to address, and is certainly not fully woven into mine closure legislation, despite it being an ethical obligation in itself.
Social Ethics in Mine Closure
When we think of extractives, coal mining is largely the first thing that comes to mind. This is largely due to the sudden race towards renewable energy, which has divided communities and stakeholders in their opinions about the future of coal in Australia. Investors are keenly aware of this division, which is why the social impact and reputation of a company in visibly volatile times can be what tips the scales.
Whilst the global demand for coal is high, mine closures still inevitably happen, and these closures are a critical moment in the development of a company’s reputation and social obligation. Acceptance of a company within its communities plays a big part in the success of current and future projects.
It comes down to the bottom line – investment potential. Investors are increasingly seeking out companies that rate highly in terms of ESG. Whilst each area of ESG is a standalone criterion, there is crossover and a reliance on each other for support and to form an overall reputational image. Governance and Environmental criteria have long been embedded in company strategy and operation. Social should be as well, at minimum in the form of Social Impact Assessments, not only in planning and during operation, but particularly in mine closure planning.
Communities benefit in so many ways from the coal mines they support. The economy gets a boost, jobs are created, infrastructure improves – then the mine closes and it’s all whisked away. These small communities cannot support the loss of jobs, loss of income, and damage to all the small businesses that provided services to the mines and their employees.
Social Impact Assessments in Mine Closure
A Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is the formal process of understanding the social effects a project or company has on its communities. This process identifies the social issues of a community, the part the company or project will play within those communities and issues, and the action plan for enhancing positive outcomes and mitigating negative outcomes.
Glencore’s Clermont Mine Closure Preparedness Project
Glencore’s Clermont Mine is anticipated to close in 2027. Wall Planning & Environmental Consulting recently worked with Glencore to prepare the Social Impact Assessment for the Clermont Mine Closure Preparedness Project. Glencore’s mine closure planning protocol states:
“Social transition or mine closure recognises the risks associated with local dependence on the mine and consequently creates opportunities to encourage the development of sustainable post-closure options…This shall include:
(a) Identification of community concerns, needs, opportunities, risks and impacts associated with the site closure; and
(b) An outline of community strategies and social involvement plants focusing on enhancing socio-economic capacity, prosperity and sustainable development of the communities that avoids dependency on a Glencore Coal Assets Australia Operation closure.”
As an integral part of the SIA, we held comprehensive engagement and community consultation that included workshops, mine site tours and focus groups to understand the views of the community and inform Glencore’s activities in preparing for closure.
Meeting obligational, legislative, and ethical standards is part and parcel of extractives from the first day of planning until the day of closure. However, Social is a far more recent criteria for companies to address, and is certainly not fully woven into mine closure legislation, despite it being an ethical obligation in itself.
So, how can we measure something that is seemingly intangible?
When we think of extractives, coal mining is largely the first thing that comes to mind. This is largely due to the sudden race towards renewable energy, which has divided communities and stakeholders in their opinions about the future of coal in Australia. Investors are keenly aware of this division, which is why the social impact and reputation of a company in visibly volatile times can be what tips the scales.
Whilst the global demand for coal is high, mine closures still inevitably happen, and these closures are a critical moment in the development of a company’s reputation and social obligation. Acceptance of a company within its communities plays a big part in the success of current and future projects.
It comes down to the bottom line – investment potential. Investors are increasingly seeking out companies that rate highly in terms of ESG. Whilst each area of ESG is a standalone criterion, there is crossover and a reliance on each other for support and to form an overall reputational image. Governance and Environmental criteria have long been embedded in company strategy and operation. Social should be as well, at minimum in the form of Social Impact Assessments, not only in planning and during operation, but particularly in mine closure planning.
Communities benefit in so many ways from the coal mines they support. The economy gets a boost, jobs are created, infrastructure improves – then the mine closes and it’s all whisked away. These small communities cannot support the loss of jobs, loss of income, and damage to all the small businesses that provided services to the mines and their employees.
The key to social ethics in mine closure planning is proactive sustainability. Let’s not whip the rug out from under our communities – let’s leave a positive legacy.
A Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is the formal process of understanding the social effects a project or company has on its communities. This process identifies the social issues of a community, the part the company or project will play within those communities and issues, and the action plan for enhancing positive outcomes and mitigating negative outcomes.
A SIA is about successfully becoming a PART of the community, helping that community to strengthen and grow, but also ensuring growth and development during the life of the mine is sustainable upon mine closure.
Glencore’s Clermont Mine is anticipated to close in 2027. Wall Planning & Environmental Consulting recently worked with Glencore to prepare the Social Impact Assessment for the Clermont Mine Closure Preparedness Project. Glencore’s mine closure planning protocol states:
“Social transition or mine closure recognises the risks associated with local dependence on the mine and consequently creates opportunities to encourage the development of sustainable post-closure options…This shall include:
(a) Identification of community concerns, needs, opportunities, risks and impacts associated with the site closure; and
(b) An outline of community strategies and social involvement plants focusing on enhancing socio-economic capacity, prosperity and sustainable development of the communities that avoids dependency on a Glencore Coal Assets Australia Operation closure.”
As an integral part of the SIA, we held comprehensive engagement and community consultation that included workshops, mine site tours and focus groups to understand the views of the community and inform Glencore’s activities in preparing for closure.
The SIA addressed the following key issues:
Health and Community Wellbeing
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Housing and Accommodation
Local Business and Industry
Employment / Workforce
Measuring the Intangible
It’s certainly not unreasonable to point out that the social aspects of a community can be complex and aren’t something that can be easily measured on a scale. The subtle and incredibly personal nuances of each community dictate that social measures need to be highly tailored to suit the community and increase positive impacts.
It may not be truly possible to measure social impact on a scale, but strict criteria should be addressed to ensure that companies and projects are properly accountable for the impacts they have on their host community.
The ‘measurement’ of the criteria is, perhaps, more of an action plan:
Familiarity
Have you thoroughly researched all social aspects of your community?
Do you believe that you truly understand and know your community?
Are you continually being an active part of your community?
Accountability & Responsibility
How ARE you socially impacting your community?
Is your impact positive or negative?
How can you address and MITIGATE the negative impacts?
Are you transparent within the project and role in your community?
Are you taking responsibility for both positive AND negative impacts?
Are the positive impacts on your community SUSTAINABLE?
What happens to your community after your project is gone?
Notice how I said ‘your community’? The simple truth is this: If you are impacting a community in any way, then you are a PART of that community.
You’re squarely wrapped up in the complex web of connections. The role of a company in a community should be to strengthen the web by boosting positive, sustainable social impacts and community involvement.
So, What’s Next?
ESG is definitely ‘front of mind’ at the moment. Standards Australia is in the process of creating a measurable criteria for social impact, highlighting its critical value. Mining companies around the world, like Glencore, are beginning to expand their use of Social Impact Assessments to look beyond the life of the mine and their continued impact on their communities.
With the rapidly growing development of a collective social conscience, the goal is that there be mandatory accountability for social impact in the resources sector – not just in the development and life of the mine, but beyond closure.
Let’s protect and sustainably strengthen our communities, providing a clear plan for their future.
—
Community and stakeholder consultation DONE RIGHT – contact Wall Planning Group today.
Health and Community Wellbeing
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Housing and Accommodation
Local Business and Industry
Employment / Workforce
While 2027 is still a while away, the project includes ongoing collaboration with Glencore to design and deliver the Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP) that addresses workforce management, housing management, health and community wellbeing, local business and industry and adaptive reuse of infrastructure.
It’s certainly not unreasonable to point out that the social aspects of a community can be complex and aren’t something that can be easily measured on a scale. The subtle and incredibly personal nuances of each community dictate that social measures need to be highly tailored to suit the community and increase positive impacts.
It may not be truly possible to measure social impact on a scale, but strict criteria should be addressed to ensure that companies and projects are properly accountable for the impacts they have on their host community.
The ‘measurement’ of the criteria is, perhaps, more of an action plan:
Familiarity
Have you thoroughly researched all social aspects of your community?
Do you believe that you truly understand and know your community?
Are you continually being an active part of your community?
Accountability & Responsibility
How ARE you socially impacting your community?
Is your impact positive or negative?
How can you address and MITIGATE the negative impacts?
Are you transparent within the project and role in your community?
Are you taking responsibility for both positive AND negative impacts?
Are the positive impacts on your community SUSTAINABLE?
What happens to your community after your project is gone?
Notice how I said ‘your community’? The simple truth is this: If you are impacting a community in any way, then you are a PART of that community.
You’re squarely wrapped up in the complex web of connections. The role of a company in a community should be to strengthen the web by boosting positive, sustainable social impacts and community involvement.
It can be easy to forget that the community that makes up the web is actually also a part of a larger web. How you impact even a tiny community can have a profound impact on your future projects and place within the larger web, too.
ESG is definitely ‘front of mind’ at the moment. Standards Australia is in the process of creating a measurable criteria for social impact, highlighting its critical value. Mining companies around the world, like Glencore, are beginning to expand their use of Social Impact Assessments to look beyond the life of the mine and their continued impact on their communities.
With the rapidly growing development of a collective social conscience, the goal is that there be mandatory accountability for social impact in the resources sector – not just in the development and life of the mine, but beyond closure.
Let’s protect and sustainably strengthen our communities, providing a clear plan for their future.
—
Community and stakeholder consultation DONE RIGHT – contact Wall Planning Group today.
Share
Our founder, Renee Wall, has brought her international experience to the Queensland region. Renee is a planning professional with over 20 years experience in the planning sector, specialising in the delivery of major projects.
Quick Links
Latest news
Written by Anthony Elliott In April 2024 the Queensland Government foreshadowed a mandatory renewable energy code of conduct to ensure communities get a fair share of Queensland’s renewable energy boom. So, what is the scale of the boom for Queensland? Well, big. Estimates in the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan pegged the investment at $62 Billion between 2022 and 2035, creating 100,000 jobs. Renewable energy investment, approvals and projects will need to move without delay in the next 11 years to catapult Queensland from the current rate of 27% renewable energy production to the targets of 50% by 2030, 70% by 2032 and 80% by 2035. The new code aims to set “Set standard for social licence and regional community priorities”. This includes “demonstrating tangible benefits for communities, and improvements to infrastructure, jobs, local economy, the environment and social fabric”. The case for a new code is compelling. In February 2024, the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner’s (AEIC) Community Engagement Review was publicly released and sent a strong signal that community engagement was not meeting community expectations. This included: 92% were dissatisfied with the extent to which project developers engaged with the local community 85% were dissatisfied with the explanations provided by the project developers in response to their questions 89% stated that the information they received from project developers was not relevant to the concerns they raised 85% of stated that their concerns were not addressed in a timely manner. The code is currently being co-designed with industry collaborators and a Community/Customer Outcomes Group, supported by the Energy Charter and Queensland Renewable Energy Council. The code will require renewable energy developers engage genuinely with landholders and communities when developing, building and operating new generation and storage projects. Renee Wall, Director of Wall Planning Group said ”The timing of this announcement by the government means that all planned and existing renewable energy projects in Queensland need to take a closer look at the social impact on community, and engage more deeply with communities before, and during the project lifecycle. Other large scale projects in Queensland’s many Renewable Energy Zones may also need to consider the cumulative social and community impact of their projects, alongside renewable energy projects.” As the first state mandatory code of conduct for renewable energy developers the code will set the benchmark for Community Engagement policy in Australia. ------------------- Wall Planning Group is a Queensland based planning firm specialising in supporting the delivery of major energy, resources, and development projects including project management, master planning, social impact assessment, and community engagement.
Cattle plays a massive part of Queensland's agricultural industry and economy. With the need for cattle feedlots growing, Wall Planning Group (WPG) have obtained approvals for numerous feedlot projects across Queensland. Need feedlot approval? Here is what you need to know. Feedlots and Environmental Approvals When submitting a feedlot development application for approval, it can be a little more time consuming than many people anticipate. Where a lot of development applications may only deal with local Council, approval for a cattle feedlot can involve meeting legislative requirements of multiple State Government agencies. One prime example is an Environmental Authority (EA) . Cattle Feedlots exceeding 150 standard cattle units (SCU) are considered an Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) under the Environmental Protection Regulation 2019 and so require an Environmental Authority approved by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF). In addition, many farms are situated along state-controlled roads and railway corridors, others may have threatened species of flora or fauna, and some may have critical wetlands and waterways. These, and others, can require submissions of applications with the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) . This is why it is recommended that a town planner be hired to carry out the application process. WPG have the connections, knowledge, and experience to know exactly what needs to be addressed and how best to address it.
The post Feedlot Development Approvals appeared first on Wall Planning Group.