When the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) was launched in August 2020, it was widely regarded as a watershed moment for the mining industry. Developed by UNEP, PRI, and ICMM in the aftermath of the catastrophic Brumadinho failure, its objective was clear: achieve zero harm to people and the environment.
More than five years after its implementation, the industry has undergone significant structural and organizational change. However, as any geotechnical professional knows, updating organizational charts and completing conformance assessments does not automatically change the physical reality of a Tailings Storage Facility (TSF).
So where has GISTM genuinely improved safety, and where does it still fall short of its ambitions? An objective review reveals progress on both fronts.
How GISTM Has Improved Tailings Management
GISTM’s greatest achievement may not be technical. It may be cultural. The standard has elevated tailings management from a site-level operational concern to a boardroom-level business risk.
1. Increased Accountability Through Governance
Prior to GISTM, accountability for tailings safety was often fragmented and buried within multiple layers of operational management. GISTM fundamentally changed that by establishing clear, non-transferable responsibilities:
- Accountable Executive (AE): A senior executive with direct access to corporate leadership who is accountable for facility safety.
- Engineer of Record (EoR): A formally designated technical authority responsible for design, construction intent, and ongoing performance.
- Independent Review Boards: External technical review is elevated from a best practice to an expected component of governance.
This framework has significantly reduced the ability of senior leadership to claim ignorance regarding critical risks, resource constraints, or deferred investments in tailings safety.
2. Greater Transparency and Risk Visibility
Principle 15 of the GISTM requires public disclosure of key facility information, including consequence classifications, governance structures, and independent review outcomes.
This transparency has driven operators to examine their portfolios more rigorously. Facilities classified as “High,” “Very High,” or “Extreme” consequence can no longer remain largely invisible to investors, insurers, regulators, or local communities. As a result, tailings risk has become far more visible and more difficult to ignore.
3. Lifecycle and Closure Thinking
Historically, closure planning was often treated as a future problem. GISTM shifted the conversation by requiring lifecycle planning from the earliest stages of project development.
Operators are now expected to demonstrate that facilities can remain safe and stable over the long term, accounting for factors such as climate change, extreme weather events, seismic loading, and post-closure monitoring requirements.
This represents a meaningful change in how tailings facilities are planned, designed, and funded.
Where GISTM Still Faces Challenges
While the GISTM has significantly improved risk awareness and governance, translating its 15 principles and 77 requirements into physical improvements on the ground remains challenging.
1. The Legacy Facility Problem
Designing a new facility to meet modern standards is one thing. Bringing a 40-year-old facility into alignment is something else entirely.
Many legacy facilities were constructed using now-outdated design approaches, incomplete site characterization data, or foundation conditions that would not meet today’s expectations. Retrofitting these facilities to satisfy current seismic, hydrologic, and consequence-based requirements can be technically difficult (if not all but impossible) and financially daunting, to say the least. This is where the concept of ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) is supposed to come into play. A good topic for a future article.
For many operators, achieving full compliance is less a “project” than an ongoing process of risk reduction and adaptation.
2. The Resource Gap Across the Industry
While major mining companies have generally committed substantial resources toward implementation, they represent only a portion of the global mining sector.
Many mid-tier, junior, and state-owned operators face significant challenges in assembling the multidisciplinary teams, technical expertise, monitoring systems, and financial resources required to fully implement GISTM.
In some organizations, implementation has also contributed to “assurance fatigue,” where personnel spend increasing amounts of time responding to audits, reviews, and reporting requirements rather than conducting field inspections, analyzing data, and managing operational risks.
3. Compliance Does Not Guarantee Safety
Perhaps the greatest risk associated with any large management framework is the emergence of “checking-the-box” compliance.
A facility may have a well-documented Tailings Management System (TMS), an appointed Accountable Executive, comprehensive reporting dashboards, and a schedule of reviews. Yet if critical monitoring data is not acted upon, if construction verification is inadequate, or if emerging risks are not addressed in a timely manner, the physical risk remains.
True tailings safety is not achieved through documentation alone. It depends on rigorous engineering, effective monitoring, timely decision-making, and a strong operational culture that prioritizes risk management every day.
The Verdict
Has GISTM made tailings management safer?
In many respects, yes. The industry is improving.
The standard has created a common framework for accountability, transparency, and risk management that did not exist at the same level a decade ago. It has elevated tailings governance to the executive level and strengthened industry-wide awareness of risk. I see this at every site I work at.
However, standards do not engineer dams. People do.
The next phase of GISTM’s evolution will depend less on establishing governance structures and more on ensuring that those structures translate into meaningful technical execution, field verification, and sustained investment where it matters most: at the facility itself.
The challenge for the coming decade will be ensuring that compliance and conformance remain tools for improving safety rather than ends in themselves.