Towards an inclusive model to address unsuccessful mine closures in South Africa

to legislative requirements, being merely governed by insufficient environmental regulations under the Mines and Works Act 27 (MWA) (Swart, 2003). In 1981 the Chamber of Mines (COM) published a document titled ‘The rehabilitation of land disturbed by surface coal mining’, which constituted the first notable contribution to environmental protection. This guideline was later referenced in the Minerals Act of 1991, which for the first time laid definite environmental burdens on the Mining Right Holder (MRH). The Minerals Act of 1991 was superseded by the current Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act Regulations (MPRDAR), which specify a regulatory process for mine closure applications and financial provisions. Notwithstanding, it is estimated that there are approximately 5700 derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa which will require 800 years to rehabilitate at a cost of R100 billion (Brown, 2007; Nzimande and Chauke, 2012). An investigation by the Auditor General (2009) identified and listed 5906 abandoned mines as of May 2008. As of 2011 no closure certificate had been issued under the Minerals Act of 1991 or the MPRDA (Botham, 2011), and mine closure has become the focus of mining companies, governments, and nongovernmental organizations (Laurence, 2000). Formal mine closure remains an elusive undertaking presenting various risks and significant liabilities affecting investor confidence, and threatening the viability of the mining industry in South Africa. This study was prompted by the increasing statutory pressure exerted on mines to achieve closure. It was believed that there are critical reasons for unsuccessful mine closures (van Druten, 2015). The study aimed to identify, categorize, and rank those reasons, and put forward considerations for improved mine closures.