LIFE-OF-MINE 2014 CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 16–18 JULY 2014 449 MINING LEGACIES – DEFINING TERMS AND UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM :LWK QR FRRUGLQDWHG RU VWDQGDUGLVHG SROLF\ RQ OHJDF\ PLQHV QDWLRQDOO\ RU HYHQ VKDUHG GHﾀQLWLRQV for common terms, it is important to establish these clearly. Traditionally and confusingly, terms for mining legacies have been used interchangeably, as well as to delineate different aspects. This lack of clarity has been evident for some, with the 2003 Management and Remediation of Abandoned Mining Legacies – Understanding Life-of-Mine Across Time and Space M Pepper 1 , C P Roche 2 and G M Mudd 3 ABSTRACT The Australian mining industries approach to life-of-mine planning has improved considerably in recent decades. It now needs to be matched by, and embedded in, mining governance systems that utilise a comprehensive whole-of-mine-life approach within a MXULVGLFWLRQDO LQGXVWU\ DQG UHJLRQDO UHJLPH UDWKHU WKDQ MXVW IRFXVLQJ RQ VSHFLﾀF LPSDFWV LQ isolation. The need for a more comprehensive approach is supported by the many mining legacies, from historic, recent and some operating mine sites around Australia. There are sites that are leaving enduring environmental, community and public health impacts that are yet to be accurately assessed. While a number of these sites in Australia are estimated to be more than 50 000, this is probably an underestimation, with a lack of data and different state-based approaches complicating attempts to quantify mining legacies as a national issue. Qualitative assessments about the extent and nature of mining legacy impacts on nature and communities across Australia are also required if we are to understand and avoid ongoing and future mining legacies. This paper commences with an exploration of mining legacies as an umbrella term for previously mined, abandoned, orphan, derelict or neglected sites. This is followed by a discussion of the current status of mining legacies as an Australia-wide issue, contrasting the Australian response with overseas examples. Common themes from past workshops are explored recognising that mining legacies are a growing public policy issue and identifying key ingredients for a successful response. Supporting this, and based on national data which re-enforces the need for action, is the changing scale and intensity of mining in Australia that, while lowering costs for mine operators, increases the liability that may eventually fall to the state if mine sites are not rehabilitated effectively. Though a national issue, mining is a state and territory responsibility, so the current approach to mining legacies is then examined state-by-state. Given the widespread application and recent changes to bonds and levies in Western Australia (WA) and the Northern Territory (NT) the merits of both are examined ZLWK UHIHUHQFH WR VSHFLﾀF FDVH VWXGLHV 'HVSLWH WKH FXUUHQW GLYLVLRQ RI UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG GLYHUVLW\ RI DSSURDFKHV KRZHYHU PLQLQJ OHJDFLHV UHPDLQ D VLJQLﾀFDQW DQG JURZLQJ SUREOHP with a recognised need and repeated call for cooperation and coordination at a national and LQWHUQDWLRQDO OHYHO )XWXUH DFWLRQ LV DGGUHVVHG LQ WKH ﾀQDO VHFWLRQ ZLWK UHIHUHQFH WR OLDELOLW\ responsibility, industry reputation, regulation and leadership. 1. MAusIMM, Mining Legacies Project Oicer, Mineral Policy Institute, PO Box 6043, Girrawheen WA 6064. Email: mia.pepper@ccwa.org.au 2. Executive Director, Mineral Policy Institute, PO Box 6043, Girrawheen WA 6064. Email: charles.roche@mpi.org.au 3. Senior Lecturer/Course Director – Environmental Engineering, Monash University, Clayton Vic 3800; Chair, Mineral Policy Institute, PO Box 6043, Girrawheen WA 6064. Email: gavin.mudd@monash.edu.au