Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) is a newly introduced global framework that improves the safety of tailings facilities in the mining industry, covering the entire lifecycle of a tailings facility. This framework and its impact were a major topic at the 2025 Mining Indaba.
GISTM has been developed to provide assurance to mining stakeholders that the unique risks associated with tailings storage facilities are being systematically and effectively managed. According to the GISTM website, this framework will be pushed for adoption in August 2025 when mining companies will have to comply with the new stringent safety framework.
To help make sense of GISTM and its implications for South African mining SRK Consulting, a mining and exploration consultancy, is educating its clients on the various aspects of the framework, most recently at the 2025 Mining Indaba. “Once considered almost entirely the domain of a specialised branch of civil engineering, the scope of managing tailings storage facilities (TSFs) is now considerably broader and more complex,” says John Stiff, a partner and principal engineering geologist at SRK Consulting, “the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) has fundamentally shifted the responsibilities of tailings engineers.” These shifts are important to understand how they make the mining sector safer.
GITSM is a tool for reducing risk to human life
“What was once an afterthought is now a departure point,” adds Stiff.
“The integration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) concerns now requires engineers to collaborate closely with multidisciplinary teams, including ESG professionals.” He goes on to say, “This holistic approach ensures that communities and ecosystems affected by mining activities are factored into operational planning from day one.”
Technical aspects
John Stiff, a partner and principal engineering geologist at SRK Consulting
At the same time, the GISTM has also tightened up requirements on the technical aspects of TSF design and management. The geotechnical risks related to these structures are well known, based on the failures that have occurred, he noted. “Over and above the focus on ESG, the GISTM also considers hydrological risks as well as the geo-environmental risks related to geochemistry and geohydrology,” he explained. “These now all need to be well integrated to build a full understanding of the broader risks associated with each TSF.” Mitigating these risks to human life and the environment then becomes a key aspect of the TSF design and operational philosophy. One of the steepest learning curves for tailings engineers has been closing knowledge gaps, he argued. Among the challenges of investigating older TSFs, for instance, are incomplete historical records – which can hinder accurate risk assessments. “Good record-keeping is vital, and the GISTM supports this with its requirement for a constantly updated knowledge base – ensuring that all relevant data is available to inform risk mitigation strategies,” he said.
Material changes
Franciska Lake, consulting partner and principal environmental scientist at SRK Consulting.
SRK Consulting partner and principal environmental scientist Franciska Lake concurred, highlighting the GISTM’s emphasis on responding to any material change in the various elements of the TSF. Protecting the safety of employees, communities and other stakeholders relies on diligent monitoring of conditions in and around the facility. “Changes occur constantly over the lifecycle of a TSF, and these need to be carefully monitored to assess their implications and to initiate change management where appropriate,” said Lake. “The standard specifically requires that knowledge about the social, environmental and local economic context of a TSF is updated at least every five years, or whenever there is a material change affecting the TSF or its social, environmental and local economic context, to facilitate ongoing safety and compliance.” A material change could be influenced by factors such as population migration into areas surrounding a TSF, which would increase the population at risk and therefore the potential consequences of a failure. Conversely, proactive measures taken by mines to comply with GISTM requirements can mitigate risk and thereby enhance TSF safety, effectively lowering the consequence of failure by reducing the extent of the inundation zone.
Early warning
The need to keep careful track of TSF-related changes on an ongoing basis highlights the importance of monitoring – where possible on a real-time or near-real-time basis. Stiff emphasised that early warning systems are particularly indispensable to TSF performance monitoring. “Identifying likely failure modes – and monitoring for early signs of instability – ensures that the right preventative action can be taken, and communities can be protected,” he noted. “Instrumentation and technology play a vital role here; this facilitates the development of real-time dashboards, for instance, so that accountable executives and emergency response teams can act quickly.” Technological innovation is also improving quantitative risk assessments, with a shift toward more robust, data-driven measures to cover all aspects of risk,” said Stiff. “This approach not only informs site-specific mitigation strategies but also drives the development of cost-effective remediation techniques.” He also pointed to advanced techniques being used for site characterisation, including sonic drilling and advanced sampling methods to understand tailings composition and foundation conditions.
Extended monitoring
Kavandren Moodley, principal environmental scientist at SRK Consulting
Kavandren Moodley, principal environmental scientist at SRK Consulting, added that GISTM has significantly enhanced the focus on monitoring efforts, extending beyond the boundaries of mining right areas to include surrounding regions, particularly within the inundation zone. This broader approach ensures a more comprehensive understanding of potential impacts and risks. “With the GISTM’s focus on mine-affected communities, there is a need to extend the monitoring function into the TSF’s inundation zones,” said Moodley. “This monitoring should be as close to real-time as possible, as material changes can occur rapidly in this zone – with significant implications for risk management and safety.” With the GISTM framework applying equally to planned and existing TSFs, new structures can mitigate risk through more robust and innovative designs. Stiff pointed out that mining companies raising finance for new developments will also be held to the standard’s higher levels of diligence by financial institutions and investors.
“New TSFs designed under these guidelines will be inherently more robust and resilient to failure,” he explained. “At the same time, resilience is built not just on clever design but on operational diligence. It is about consistently applying the GISTM across all aspects of operations.”
Applying ALARP
Legacy facilities, however, present a range of challenges in the journey to GISTM compliance. “Older TSFs that were developed under outdated standards can be difficult to retrofit,” explained Stiff. “Nonetheless, mines are required to apply interventions that will bring risk levels ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP).” For the many thousands of TSFs that exist globally, applying ALARP involves understanding what is practical for each site, which varies significantly based on location, design, and operational history. He highlighted that the judicious application of the ALARP principle will add considerable resilience to the safety levels of TSFs – to address growing risks such as climate change.
“Cost and practicality will always be considerations,” he said,” but with better data and a consistent approach, we can achieve acceptable levels of societal and environmental risk.”
The GISTM is therefore providing a valuable framework within which new and legacy sites can be more effectively future-proofed for generations to come.
Emergency planning
Another aspect of GITSM is that it prioritises emergency planning rather than a reactive approach, while the technical aspects of this emergency planning framework are complex, it helps save lives.
Andries Fourie, principal technologist in disaster and risk management at SRK Consulting
According to Andries Fourie, principal technologist in disaster and risk management at SRK Consulting, there are complexities in the South African context that can create challenges in continuous compliance with GISTM. Principle 13 of the GISTM requires the owners or operators of a TSF to develop and apply a detailed Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan (EPRP), while Principle 14 deals with the long-term recovery process following a catastrophic TSF failure. “With its sensitivity to ESG, the GISTM specifies that the EPRP must be community-focused and must be co-developed with project-affected people,” explained Fourie. “To ensure that the EPRP can be effectively implemented, mines must also engage with public sector agencies, first responders, local authorities and other relevant institutions – to assess the capability of those emergency services that will respond in the event of a disaster.” Among those most affected by a TSF incident are people in the vicinity of the TSF, which may include informal settlements. He highlighted that, in the context of the country’s high unemployment rate, it is common that mining operations will tend to attract many people seeking economic opportunities – even if there is insufficient formal housing in the area. “Engagement with informal settlements can be complicated by the often fluid movement of people into and out of these areas,” he said. “Sound long-term engagement is often best conducted with the assistance from established leadership structures, and in many cases, these may not formally exist – or may change rapidly as people may not be permanently settled.” Fourie noted that this varied from the situation in certain European countries where he has conducted similar GISTM work, where communities around mines tended to be more stable and well-established. Basic municipal services are also often not available in mine communities in South Africa, which creates a greater reliance on the mine and can strain relations. “With these dynamics at play, it is sometimes difficult for mines to build constructive dialogue, understanding and trust with project-affected people,” he said, “and this is really the foundation for an effective EPRP process.” Moodley concurs, highlighting that the engagement of project-affected people in emergency preparedness and risk assessment is essential for enhancing overall risk management. “This approach deepens one’s understanding of actions to take in the event of a TSF failure, ultimately reducing the consequences of an emergency and improving safety outcomes,” says Moodley. “Establishing strong relationships with project-affected people is fundamental when discussing TSFs, as this is a sensitive topic requiring a solid foundation of trust for open dialogue.” He notes that, in SRK’s experience in the field, building this foundation is a gradual and ongoing process, which usually needs the guidance of specialist expertise and local experience. With time and consistent transparency, trust can be fostered, making disclosure a key element in strengthening the relationship between mines and project-affected people. 
In terms of EPRP implementation, Fourie said mines often face an added challenge in their engagements with local authorities and government agencies, who frequently lack disaster response capacity. This makes these bodies reticent to commit to the EPRP in the way that the GISTM envisages. “A meaningful EPRP really needs the mine to join hands with other relevant bodies who are mandated to provide disaster management services,” he said. “Where the capacity is not there, however, the responsibility upon mines can become even more onerous.” In these cases, one of the constructive responses taken by a large South African mining company has been to start helping local authorities to rebuild their capacity. After identifying the deficiencies, the company embarked upon a dedicated programme to empower municipalities to render the expected services for GISTM compliance. Moodley further highlighted the role of broader stakeholders, including environmental activists, who value greater engagement efforts. Building constructive relationships with these groups can enable mining companies to address social and environmental concerns more holistically and collaboratively, extending beyond direct project-affected communities. “This inclusiveness aligns with modern ESG expectations and strengthens a company’s social license to operate,” he said. “Disclosing information is one important aspect of a process that could transform activist scrutiny into productive dialogue.“ “It is important to understand that the GISTM is strong on the theme of engagement – and this implies building an EPRP collaboratively, rather than simply trying to impose a unilateral plan,” said Fourie. “For mines and practitioners working towards conformance with the GISTM, this means understanding the prevailing environment and working with project-affected people to make the plan relevant and effective.”
