1 Setting indicators for cumulative impacts David Brereton Centre 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 Increasing complexity 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 Bengalla Dartbrook 1995 – Bayswater No – Dartbrook (Longwall) 1998 – Bayswater No – Mt Arthur North 1907 – Muswellbrook 1944 – Muswellbrook O/C 1960 – Bayswater No – 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-valued  queried 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)

Regional Complaints

15 Township Complaints

16 SIMPLE TEMPORAL IMPACT – MUSWELLBROOK VISUAL EXPOSURE Unexposed Exposed 2004

17 Coal production and number of Muswellbrook residents employed in local mines

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.