Session 6C
ABSTRACT
The mining industry, both in Australia and globally, strives to minimise risks associated with mine project development, with tailings management being a key area of public and regulatory scrutiny. While compliance with national and state legislation governing the design, operation, and closure of tailings storage facilities is mandatory, leading international best practices extend beyond regulatory requirements to ensure the highest standards of safety, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility. Numerous global and Australian mining companies elect to follow international practices to enhance and strengthen their management approaches, reduce reputational risks, and improve relationships with stakeholders.
The Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM or the Standard) and the Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) Tailings Management Protocol (TSM TMP or the Protocol) are internationally recognised frameworks that guide best practices in Australia. GISTM was developed as a global benchmark for tailings governance, while the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), in collaboration with the Mining Association of Canada (MAC), has adapted and adopted MAC’s TSM TMP to align with the Australian mining context.
It is not unusual for medium to major mining companies and investor groups (including those operating in Australia) to commit to implementing both the Standard and the Protocol. Junior companies, as members of the MCA, may also align their tailings storage facility (TSF) governance with international good practice to unlock funding or meet the expectations of downstream markets, but best practice is now widely considered to be GISTM.
Both frameworks share a common objective – to minimise risk and enhance accountability while addressing the key environmental, social, governance (ESG), and technical aspects of tailings management. However, conforming with both standards concurrently can be challenging for mining companies as differences in structure, implementation, and reporting requirements between the standards adds complexity. Given that regulatory compliance remains obligatory, understanding the synergies and distinctions between these frameworks is essential to streamline conformance efforts, reduce duplication, and enhance operational efficiency.
To understand the application of the Standard and the Protocol it is important to recognise the background and the drivers behind their development.
The GISTM was developed collaboratively with Principles for Responsible Investors (PRI, investors), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM, industry body, mining companies and associations) to strengthen existing practices through the integration of social, environmental and technical considerations throughout the full life cycle of a TSF. It is a governance standard that supplements, rather than replaces, existing technical TSF management standards.
The Standard was published in August 2020 as a response to the unprecedented loss of life following the catastrophic Brumadinho TSF failure in 2019 when 259 people were confirmed dead and 11 people remain missing. The erosion of trust in mining companies (including major companies such as Vale and other ICMM members) as a result of the incident required immediate action from the industry but with oversight from trusted bodies. As of January 2024, over half of the mining sector (by market capitalisation) was committed to implement the Standard (The Church of England, 2024).
The Protocol is part of the Towards Sustainable Mining initiative that began as a project of the MAC in 2004 and was the first initiative globally to require site-specific reporting with external verification. As of April 2025 there are eight other national mining associations outside of Canada that have adopted the TSM initiative (MAC, 2025) including MCA. The TMP, among other TSM protocols and guides, frames the TSM commitments to responsible mining. The Protocol is applied to TSFs in commercial production and to inactive TSFs in the closure and post-closure phases of the life cycle as well as to facilities on long-term care and maintenance.
For both the Standard and Protocol, the technical expertise, engineering excellence and accountability for TSF management are fundamental requirements and cannot be compromised. At the same time the objectives of the documents of achieving ‘zero harm to people and the environment’ (for GISTM) and ‘zero catastrophic failures… and no significant adverse effects on the environment or human health’ (for the Protocol) are multidisciplinary in nature and require much broader consideration of ESG factors.
However, while the Protocol refers to other TSM protocols for some components (with four topics covered – Indigenous and Community Relationships, Climate Change, Water Stewardship, and Crisis Management and Communication Planning), all conformance indicators for the Protocol itself are focused on technical and governance aspects to ensure effective and safe function of the TSF during the commercial production stage. In terms of ESG factors, the GISTM goes beyond the engineering and technical excellence and requires consideration of topics that are outside the purely technical parameters, such as human rights, an integrated knowledge base that comprises surrounding environmental and social characteristics, and disclosure of the information to public.
Conformance to both the Protocol and GISTM can be demonstrated by self-assessment and through third party validation. However, self-assessment for GISTM must address all requirements of the Standard, whereas the TSM TMP requires conformance with five technical governance indicators. With the similar requirements to the engineering and operational procedures control in the Protocol and Standard, the conformance to both frameworks require an additional effort to meet the GISTM broader ESG expectations.
AUTHORS
- Kate Vershinina, SRK Consulting
- Ludovic Rollin, SRK Consulting
- Heather Thomson, SRK Consulting
