Sullivan, A & Willms, D 2026, 'Canadian and Australian regulatory comparisons in mine and tailings facility closure', in AB Fourie, G Boggs, J Heyes & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2026: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1-9, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_22
(https://papers.acg.uwa.edu.au/p/2615_22_Sullivan/)
Abstract: The closure of mines and tailings storage facilities (TSFs) is an area that has seen rapid advancement over the last few decades. With the beginning of the environmental movement in the 1960s, the mining industry has seen increased scrutiny from internal and external stakeholders, with increased expectations of long-term environmental performance. This in turn has given rise to an increase in regulations, technical guidance, disclosure and auditing mechanisms to demonstrate alignment with the increased expectations. 
Reviewing the different regulatory frameworks used globally shows the benefit of incorporating different approaches to regulation. Used alone, a command and control (CAC) approach which sets standards required, backed by legal consequences for failing to comply, offers strong protection as long as the standards imposed are set correctly. Self-governance, where groups, firms or individuals require specific behaviour (for example the Global Industry Standard for Tailings Management (GISTM) allows for experts with specialised knowledge to set targets, though enforcement is less consequential. 
Separately, these regulations offer a particular risk profile to communities and industry. Uniting regulatory strategies, however, such as where a country has tough environmental laws (CAC) combined with the country’s proponents following GISTM, can offer a unique value proposition. This offering balances different regulatory strengths and weaknesses, creating complementary benefits to both the public and proponents. This aligns with a global focus no longer just on the bottom line of the financial balance sheet, but also on the impact on the triple bottom line of economics, social and environmental accounting. 
This paper discusses how key legislative and industry tools have been used to offer the ability to compare the benefits and drawbacks of decisions and revise alternatives, as well as to offer some suggestions of areas that may require future improvement. It does this through an analysis of academic research, selecting jurisdictions with mature mining industries and having well-known examples of the regulatory regimes in question. Specifically, the question being asked is: what areas of closure need to be the focus of regulatory or best practice guidance for the next phase of refinement? In particular, areas of relinquishment and cost estimating appear to be key gaps across multiple regulatory jurisdictions that pose a challenge for industry regulators and mine owners to reach a common understanding of the criteria and standards of practice. 
The motivation for developing this paper is from an observed need to increase dialogue on this topic and provide an update on regulatory recent trends in Canada and internationally regarding tailings facility closure.