268
16 One Final Word
Mitigating strategies for operational and tactical risks should be identified for
inclusion in the design and management system and to provide the basis for strong
management control and regulatory oversight. Mitigation strategies that involve corporate policies and decision should be clearly pinpointed and described. However, it
should be noted that such approval rests on assumptions related to the interpretation
of guidances supporting the design process, the effectiveness of a company’s governance system and the effectiveness of regulatory oversight. None of the above will
be ethically valid if any kind of conflict of interest or complacency is in the way of
the risk assessor.
The risk assessor should be neutral and directly or indirectly independent of the
owners, promoters or engineers of the project/operation; he should report to the
highest level of the board (i.e., the CEO and CFO and not to a sub-committee).
If the mining community is not capable of better evaluating and communicating
risks or does not show pertinent actions and care SLO and CSR will not be fostered
and decay.
It is time for mining companies, governmental agencies to benefit from better
understanding the risks it is exposed to and exposes the public to.
Furthermore, we have to consider that:
• Unless proper methodologies are used it will be very difficult to evaluate progress,
as factors such as climate change, seismicity and increase in population will further
complicate the situation.
• Public outcry and hostility toward the mining industry, fueled by the diffusion of
Information and Communication Technology will likely increase.
• As we stated in 2016, the effects of any risk mitigation program will only become
visible over long-time spans, because any portfolio will contain mitigated and
unmitigated (legacy) dams.
• During that time the public, regulators and legal authorities will perceive at best a
status-quo, with obvious nefarious consequences to the owners and operators.
16 One Final Word
Mitigating strategies for operational and tactical risks should be identified for
inclusion in the design and management system and to provide the basis for strong
management control and regulatory oversight. Mitigation strategies that involve corporate policies and decision should be clearly pinpointed and described. However, it
should be noted that such approval rests on assumptions related to the interpretation
of guidances supporting the design process, the effectiveness of a company’s governance system and the effectiveness of regulatory oversight. None of the above will
be ethically valid if any kind of conflict of interest or complacency is in the way of
the risk assessor.
The risk assessor should be neutral and directly or indirectly independent of the
owners, promoters or engineers of the project/operation; he should report to the
highest level of the board (i.e., the CEO and CFO and not to a sub-committee).
If the mining community is not capable of better evaluating and communicating
risks or does not show pertinent actions and care SLO and CSR will not be fostered
and decay.
It is time for mining companies, governmental agencies to benefit from better
understanding the risks it is exposed to and exposes the public to.
Furthermore, we have to consider that:
• Unless proper methodologies are used it will be very difficult to evaluate progress,
as factors such as climate change, seismicity and increase in population will further
complicate the situation.
• Public outcry and hostility toward the mining industry, fueled by the diffusion of
Information and Communication Technology will likely increase.
• As we stated in 2016, the effects of any risk mitigation program will only become
visible over long-time spans, because any portfolio will contain mitigated and
unmitigated (legacy) dams.
• During that time the public, regulators and legal authorities will perceive at best a
status-quo, with obvious nefarious consequences to the owners and operators.