1

Setting indicators for cumulative impacts

David BreretonCentre for Social Responsibility in Mining

The University of Queensland

Social and Economic Impacts of Mining Forum

Emerald 17 May 2006

2

Project Management

• Conducted by:Centre for Social Responsibility in

Mining (CSRM)Centre for Water in the Mining

Industry (CWiMI)

• Funded by Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP)

• Overseen by an industry steering committee – representatives of each of the five mines in Muswellbrook Shire

3

Project Objectives

• Develop a framework for assessing and monitoring the ‘cumulative’ social, environmental and economic impacts of coal mining.

• Undertake a preliminary assessment of cumulative impacts in the Upper Hunter, using Muswellbrook as a case study.

• Deliver a process that could be applied to other areas where there is a concentration of mining activity.

4

Definition

In the mining context, cumulative impacts are the environmental, social and economic effects associated with a group of mines acting over space and time on a system with defined boundaries.

5

Typology of Cumulative Impacts

SPATIAL TEMPORAL

extent

simple

intensity

Incre

asin

gco

mple

xity

LINKED

intensity

triggered

associative

6

Project Background

• Previous CSRM study in 2004 in Muswellbrook indicated:

There were local concerns about more mines moving closer to the town of Muswellbrook

community stakeholders tended to talk about ‘the mines’ rather than individual operations

the mines reported and managed impacts individually – no overall picture provided of how the industry was impacting on/contributing to the community

The term ‘cumulative impacts’ was widely used, but not clearly defined or understood

7

Location of Project

8

Aerial View of Muswellbrook and Surrounding Area

(Showing Water Monitoring Points)

9

Timeline for Coal Production in Muswellbrook

Saleable Production 1986-2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

Year

MtP

A

1998 - Bengalla

1994 - Dartbrook

1995 – Bayswater No.3

1996 – Dartbrook (Longwall)

1998 – Bayswater No.2

2002 – Mt Arthur North

1907 – Muswellbrook1944 – Muswellbrook O/C1960 – Bayswater No. 21983 – Drayton

10

Muswellbrook Streetscape

11

What We Did

1. Consulted with a broad cross-section of stakeholders to identify what they saw as the main impacts of mining – both positive negative – on the area

2. Ascertained what data were collected by the mines and other organisations (e.g. ABS, regulators, local council)

3. Convened an ‘expert group’ to help us better understand how mining was impacting on the area and how this could be measured

4. Selected some impacts for more intensive analysis – based largely on data availability

12

What we found

• Community stakeholders and ‘experts’ were largely in agreement about priority impacts for monitoring (except for biodiversity).

• The local mining industry generally agreed that these issues were important, but: thought that the positive impacts of mining were

often under-valuedqueried whether mining was the cause of some

of the negative impacts attributed to it (e.g. dust)

• Mines collected and reported a lot of data, but it was very difficult to aggregate; only limited data available from other sources

13

Aspects Examined

1. Environmental amenity (complaints, visual impact)

2. Environmental: water quality, land disturbance

3. Economic (employment related impacts)

4. Social (income distribution, social networks, community spend of mines)

14

1994 1996 1998

2000 2002 2004

Regional Complaints

15

Township Complaints

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

No

. C

om

pla

ints

16

SIMPLE TEMPORAL IMPACT – MUSWELLBROOK VISUAL EXPOSURE

1989 1995

2000

Unexposed

Exposed

2004

17

Coal production and number of Muswellbrook residents employed in

local mines

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Time

Em

plo

ymen

t

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pro

du

ctio

n

Coal MiningEmployees(All M'Brook)

TotalEmployment(5 Mines)

Total MtPA (5Mines)

759

1036

18

Developing Cumulative Impact Indicators• Engage with key stakeholders to identify

monitoring priorities – indicators need to be locally relevant

• Define the boundaries - these may vary depending on the type of impact and the region

• Develop technical standards and data management & access protocols

• The aim should be to supply information that can be used to help assess the impacts of existing and proposed new developments, and of the effectiveness of management strategies

• Recognise that monitoring is expensive and will require considerable organisational effort – and new coordination structures

19

Conclusions

• Cumulative impacts are important, but not well understood

• Existing corporate and regulatory reporting and monitoring processes make it very difficult to get a handle on these impacts

• Cumulative impacts take a variety of forms and may be region-specific – there are no ‘one size fits all’ indicators

• Developing workable and meaningful indicators will take time and effort, but it is important to get started

• Effective management of cumulative impacts will require a collective approach by mines and companies and engagement with communities, local government, regulators and other land users.