Purpose

The purpose of this evaluation is to report on the nine issues established by an evaluation plan approved
by the Mine Environment Neutral Drainage program (MEND) Board of Directors, and in addition, to
present findings on other important questions which arose during the course of the evaluation study.

Methodology

The methodologies used to gather information and opinions on the evaluation issues, as well as other
important questions for the study, consisted of four separate surveys, plus a review and analysis of
pertinent documentation. The surveys covered MEND participants and associates, attendees at several
MEND workshops, and a sample of junior mining companies.

Findings

The study findings can be summarized by issue as follows:

Issue 1: To what extent has MEND provided a comprehensive scientific, technical and
economic basis for the mining industry to predict long-term requirements for
reactive tailings and waste rock?

Before the establishment of MEND, many people in both industry and government knew of the
existence of acid mine drainage, but most had no clear idea of how to solve the problem. Experiences
at mine disposal sites were for the most part negative ones. MEND has produced a wide variety of
useful knowledge and technology?essentially a toolbox of potential solutions. Among these are the use
of water covers and dry covers for preventing AMD in both tailings and waste rock. A particularly
important outcome has been the development of a common understanding among participants, inasmuch
as it has allowed operators to take actions with greater confidence and to gain multi-stakeholder
acceptance more quickly. Opportunities remain to establish definitive prediction methods, as well as to
develop practical codes of practice which are acceptable within a legal framework.

Issue 2: What has been MEND’s contribution to reducing the harmful impacts on the
environment of acid mine drainage?

While, almost by definition, this question is impossible to answer in the short run, there are promising
indications that MEND’s efforts will help reduce harmful environmental impacts. We found a total of 17
individual sites where such impacts have already been mitigated. In addition, MEND’s work in the
distribution of knowledge, stimulation of further technology developments, provision of examples of
success, and improvement of general awareness both of the AMD problem and its potential solutions,
are all expected to result in future reductions in harmful environmental impacts.

Issue 3: Have MEND’s R&D products resulted in net reduced costs associated with
opening new mines, operating and closing existing mines, and in rehabilitating
abandoned mine sites?

MEND appears to have been successful in helping to reduce opening, operating and closing costs, at
least in some instances, because of the increased confidence and reduced risk associated with the
design and permitting phases. For five cases where respondents provided estimates of cost reductions
due to MEND’s work, the total savings amounted to approximately $340 million. However, in some
cases, costs may have been increased due to the improved knowledge MEND has provided about the
real potential for AMD generation which otherwise might have gone unsuspected. MEND does not
appear to have contributed as yet to cost reductions in the rehabilitation of abandoned or orphan sites,
probably because relatively little is being spent on such efforts.

Issue 4: In what manner and to what extent has MEND contributed to setting more
realistic regulatory requirements, and to making the regulatory process less
complex and more efficient?

MEND has not had any direct effect upon the wording of regulations, but the knowledge and
understanding it has produced have been incorporated into policy in at least two provinces. Its major
and very significant impact has been in providing this information to all stakeholders, including operators,
regulators and consulting engineers, and thereby reducing uncertainties and increasing confidence among
all concerned; and by facilitating an improved relationship between operators and regulators so that now
the behaviourial norm is cooperation rather than confrontation. The complexity of the regulatory
process has increased to some extent because of the increased and more sophisticated knowledge
provided by MEND, but this knowledge has at the same time made it possible to manage the
complexity.

Issue 5: Has the design and delivery of MEND influenced its performance? What are the
lessons learned?

MEND serves as a strong internationally-recognized model of government-industry cooperation. The
organizational structure and collaborative nature of the initiatives received unparalleled (in our
experience) praise in this regard. Future opportunities exist to streamline MEND and to improve both
its project management system and its outreach to non-participants, building on its record of
collaboration to ensure continued positive, practically-focused work.

Issue 6: To what extent have the technology transfer activities of MEND succeeded in
informing the target audiences about the issues of acidic drainage and about the
technologies which can deal with the problem? To what extent is decisionmaking
on acid mine drainage now based more on science and technology
considerations as a result of MEND?

MEND has successfully reached its target audiences in the mining field with the efforts it has developed
to date. The workshops MEND presents have been particularly successful: a comparison of the level
of satisfaction of their participants with a standard benchmark, established for 20 Canadian technology
centres, showed that MEND workshops scored higher than average. Decision-making on acid mine
drainage is, at least to some extent, based more on scientific considerations, but sociological inputs
probably remain pre-eminent. Future opportunities exist to more fully develop technology transfer
products and services, and to ensure that all stakeholders, including non-operators such as
environmental regulators, are fully informed about MEND’s activities and outputs.

Issue 7: Has MEND influenced the image and credibility of the mining industry regarding
protection of the environment? In what manner and to what extent has MEND
contributed to enhancing Canadian leadership internationally in the science and
technology of the prevention of acid mine drainage?

MEND has not attempted to exercise a public relations function, and perhaps as a result, has not
influenced the general public’s opinion of the mining industry to any significant extent. It has had a small
positive effect upon some environmental groups, which however seem to retain a sceptical attitude
toward the mining industry. On the other hand, MEND is credited for having considerably enhanced
Canada’s international reputation in this area, particularly because of the example it has set of
commitment to solving the AMD problem and of cooperation among stakeholders. Opportunities still
exist to improve the industry’s image in the eyes of outsiders, but this perhaps should be left to the
companies rather than to MEND.

Issue 8: What should be MEND’s focus until its anticipated completion in 1997?

The three top priorities identified through our consultations with stakeholders were:

• to finish up current projects and outstanding work and to plan for future efforts, so as not to lose
  the impetus and momentum that has been generated over the past years;
• to complete and publish an integrated manual covering the entire range of acid mine drainage
  topics, so as to provide a practical and useful code or handbook of knowledge and practices
  for acceptable mine design and operation; and
• to continue and extend the existing technology transfer initiatives

Issue 9: Is there unfinished business or changing circumstances that would suggest a need
for future phases of MEND beyond 1997? If so, how should MEND be
constructed and delivered, and what are the cost implications?

There appears to be significant unfinished business warranting continued collaborative efforts in AMD
research; a few examples are biological effects and treatment methods, long-term behaviour of covers,
and prediction modelling. Most of those we consulted favoured an ongoing program such as MEND,
featuring the dissemination of information by personal contacts (workshops, conferences, etc.), as well
as through an organized and systematic data communication system which would include both electronic
media and traditional printed reports. The preferred organization was a scaled-down committee
structure with a secretariat or central staff group roughly the size of the present one. Most considered
that all the existing stakeholders should continue to participate and to provide funding (at the current
level or somewhat lower), but that industry should be prepared to pay all costs if absolutely necessary.

Overall Conclusions

Our study found that MEND has developed an exemplary model of public-private cooperation which
has fostered increased cooperation and confidence in the Canadian mining sector and marketplace, with
respect to acid mine drainage prevention and treatment. (See Appendix F for a description of
MEND’s role in Canada’s mining technology infrastructure.) This has led to some significant early
benefits in mining operation cost reductions and improved environmental protection practices, though a
longer time frame for evaluation will be required to judge the full economic and environmental impacts.

In integrating the unsolicited comments from interviewees and from the associates, we found that the
bottom line was a solid vote of confidence for the way MEND has been structured and
managed, and particularly for the committee officers and the Secretariat. Irrespective of what
respondents thought the next step should be, they were generally very favourable toward the existing
organization.

An opportunity exists to build on the positive relationships fostered by MEND to continue to seek to
pursue AMD science-related issues, technology transfer, and an improved regulatory environment.
Figure 1 on the following page summarizes findings by the performance framework established for the
program at the outset of the study.

The recommendations of this evaluation study are discussed under section 5.0,
Recommendations.