As the 2026 Investing in African Mining Indaba is in full swing in Cape Town, Insight Terra’s Alastair Bovim believes tighter governance of tailings facilities, with greater emphasis on evidence and accountability, should be high on the agenda.
The Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM), introduced in 2020 following the Brumadinho disaster, set a new global benchmark. Image credit:
Diego Baravelli,
CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Recent tailings failures in the region have made the stakes clear.
The industry has moved from talking about standards to testing whether they are actually being met on the ground.
That requires clear governance, professional judgement, and reliable data that can support day-to-day decisions.
While technology alone will not fix governance, without it, many good intentions remain unverifiable.
Organisations that make that shift will not only reduce risk but will also rebuild trust.
Frameworks and best practices are essential, but outcomes ultimately depend on how consistently they are applied.
The real challenge is translating global principles into practical decisions at site level.
Current frameworks
The Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM), introduced in 2020 following the Brumadinho disaster, set a new global benchmark.
Its requirements make clear that tailings safety is as much about governance and social responsibility as it is about engineering. And progress is visible.
At least 67% of International Council on Mining and Metals members report full compliance, and the highest consequence sites show strong uptake, yet conforming on paper is not the same as proving compliance continuously across a facility's lifecycle.
That distinction is now being tested.
The Global Tailings Management Institute (GTMI) has begun independent auditing work from its Johannesburg headquarters, which shifts the burden from voluntary reporting to auditable evidence.
Moving toward independent assessment does not imply a lack of commitment from operators.
It reflects how complex these systems have become.
As facilities grow larger and interact with wider catchments and communities, confidence increasingly depends on evidence that can be independently tested.
Continious monitoring
Tailings facilities are living systems.
Water levels fluctuate, pore pressures evolve, deposition patterns shift, and extreme weather increasingly tests original design assumptions.
Without continuous, integrated monitoring, even well-designed facilities can drift into risk without obvious warning.
Static, retrospective reporting is no longer enough.
Making monitoring actionable — turning signals into clear decisions, and decisions into documented, accountable actions — is the critical step.
Operators must be able to show the chain of evidence from sensor, to trigger, to action, and to outcome. That chain of custody is what separates compliance from credible assurance.
The digital tools
Digital continuity matters more than novelty.
Platforms that bring together instrument feeds, satellite observations, geotechnical models and governance workflows make it possible to present a single, auditable record of a facility’s state and the decisions made in response.
Crucial to this credible evidence is disciplined data governance — fixed records of sensor readings, time-stamped triggers, and a clear audit trail that links an alert to the action taken.
At their best, these systems do not replace professional judgement; they support it by making the rationale behind actions transparent and traceable.
The practical benefits are straightforward: earlier warnings, faster and better-targeted interventions, and a defensible audit trail that reassures communities, boards, insurers and regulators.
South Africa’s SANS 10286
The direction of travel is clear.
South Africa’s SANS 10286, the national code for tailing and residue facilities, is being revised to align more closely with global practice, reflecting a broader shift towards demonstrable governance.
Many jurisdictions in Southern Africa look to South African standards and professional practice when updating their own frameworks, so the regional impact will be significant.
As Africa supplies an increasing share of the minerals that underpin the energy transition, having world-class standards and the digital platforms that enable responsible scaling becomes critical infrastructure.
This is not a burden. It is a way to attract responsible investment and to protect communities that live downstream of these facilities.
Standards do not prevent failures on their own.
People do, supported by systems that make risk visible early and action possible in time.
If the sector is serious about zero harm, it must be prepared to show how it achieves that every day.
