1.1 The Context
3
has developed it. Common terms are good, best and, less often, leading practice.
Brehaut pointed out that even the term “emerging practice” has recently been used to
describe a practice that has been employed by some committed companies for over
20 years.
A strategic intent is required to meet the needs of modern society and allow miners
to pursue a sustainable future.
The keynote lecture added that:
the concern with most of such designations stems from how they were developed. At the
lowest level, it is a self-designation by an individual, company or an organization. Moving
up the scale, a committee of experts, usually under the umbrella of a mining association,
government or a professional body, is mandated to develop a set of practices or guidelines
based on their collective experience. Such efforts require a consensus at the committee level
and approval by the supporting organization. Because of varying degrees of commitment at
both the committee and approval level, this inevitably leads to a less than aggressive pushing
of the boundaries.
Self-identified common practices and even so-called “best practices” have failed in
preventing catastrophic failures.
If other stakeholders are involved, the resulting practices lead to the inclusion
of more demanding and detailed expectations, such as more specific guidance and
performance thresholds. The term “best practice” may be applicable to such situations. Leading practice should be forward-looking and defined as a practice that
goes well beyond the norm, providing the highest degree of commitment and/or a
significant improvement in risk reduction thus constituting a strategic intent (Hamel
and Prahalad 2005).
The bottom line is that existing self-identified good, best and leading practices
have failed and still fail to prevent catastrophic dam failures and significant progress
is required. Furthermore, the more general the description of a practice, the easier
it is for the less committed to claim they have adopted it. Therefore, this text aims
at tightening the definitions and requirements with the goal of seeing a significant
improvement in tailings management and risk reduction. Hence, through this book
we will use a ISO 31000-compliant glossary (see Sect. 14.1).
Twenty years ago (1997) Franco Oboni participated in a IUGS workshop in Honolulu
aimed at a first attempt to define a glossary of risk-related technical terms specific to
slopes and landslides. In short, the IUGS produced a glossary in “Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Slopes and Landslides” (Working group on Landslides, Committee
3
has developed it. Common terms are good, best and, less often, leading practice.
Brehaut pointed out that even the term “emerging practice” has recently been used to
describe a practice that has been employed by some committed companies for over
20 years.
A strategic intent is required to meet the needs of modern society and allow miners
to pursue a sustainable future.
The keynote lecture added that:
the concern with most of such designations stems from how they were developed. At the
lowest level, it is a self-designation by an individual, company or an organization. Moving
up the scale, a committee of experts, usually under the umbrella of a mining association,
government or a professional body, is mandated to develop a set of practices or guidelines
based on their collective experience. Such efforts require a consensus at the committee level
and approval by the supporting organization. Because of varying degrees of commitment at
both the committee and approval level, this inevitably leads to a less than aggressive pushing
of the boundaries.
Self-identified common practices and even so-called “best practices” have failed in
preventing catastrophic failures.
If other stakeholders are involved, the resulting practices lead to the inclusion
of more demanding and detailed expectations, such as more specific guidance and
performance thresholds. The term “best practice” may be applicable to such situations. Leading practice should be forward-looking and defined as a practice that
goes well beyond the norm, providing the highest degree of commitment and/or a
significant improvement in risk reduction thus constituting a strategic intent (Hamel
and Prahalad 2005).
The bottom line is that existing self-identified good, best and leading practices
have failed and still fail to prevent catastrophic dam failures and significant progress
is required. Furthermore, the more general the description of a practice, the easier
it is for the less committed to claim they have adopted it. Therefore, this text aims
at tightening the definitions and requirements with the goal of seeing a significant
improvement in tailings management and risk reduction. Hence, through this book
we will use a ISO 31000-compliant glossary (see Sect. 14.1).
Twenty years ago (1997) Franco Oboni participated in a IUGS workshop in Honolulu
aimed at a first attempt to define a glossary of risk-related technical terms specific to
slopes and landslides. In short, the IUGS produced a glossary in “Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Slopes and Landslides” (Working group on Landslides, Committee