Who’s steering the tailings ship when the executives are missing from the room and the risk keeps rising faster than the dams they're meant to govern?

At the Life of Mine | Mine Waste and Tailings Conference 2025 in Brisbane, a panel of experts sat down to tackle the hard questions around how the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) is being implemented and assured across the mining sector. What emerged was a candid, sometimes uncomfortable, but ultimately constructive dialogue on accountability, ambition, and the unfinished work of tailings reform.

Facilitated by Dr Kevin Spencer, Principal Engineer at BHP, the panel brought together a diverse mix of voices: Professor Deanna Kemp, Director of the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining at the University of Queensland; Mr Mark Cutifani, Chairman of Vale Base Metals; Ms Angelica Amanda Andrade, HDR Scholar at CSRM SMI UQ; Ms Fernanda Maluly Kemeid, Manager SME Major Hazards at Rio Tinto; Dr Peter Chapman, Technical Director (Tailings) at WSP; and Mr Chris Gimber, Partner at ERM.

The accountable executive in the spotlight

The most compelling moment came when Peter questioned the absence of senior decision-makers at the conference:

"How many Accountable Executives are actually here today?" he asked. The silence in the room spoke volumes.

It was a direct challenge to the GISTM’s requirement that each tailings facility have an Accountable Executive with ultimate responsibility for ensuring safety and compliance. Peter described two ends of the spectrum: leaders who walked into technical meetings unfiltered and genuinely wanted to understand risk, and those who only showed up for curated slide decks.

"The intent of the Accountable Executive role was to circumvent structural filters and get to the truth. But if they’re not in the room, how are they supposed to lead?"

Deanna built on this, encouraging more vertical integration across leadership ranks:

"Accountable Executives need to be working harder. It’s not just about internal oversight. They should be coming together across companies to take an industry-wide view.”

Mark, who has led some of the world’s largest mining companies, didn’t hold back:

"The problem is that integration isn’t happening at the top. Technical and social work are happening in silos. Senior leadership must connect the dots and empower people with the right decisions. That’s what leadership is.”

Fernanda offered a note of optimism, pointing to her experience at Rio Tinto:

"I've seen a big shift. In my role, I’ve had more access and support from senior leadership than ever before. Something has changed.”

Still, the panel’s consensus was clear: the leadership energy that surged after the Brumadinho disaster has faded, and the gap between intent and implementation remains wide.

Social engagement isn’t optional

Angelica, speaking from both personal and academic experience, reminded the room why engagement matters. A native of Brumadinho, she has lived the consequences of failure. Her research at UQ explores how community participation in tailings management can reduce risk.

"There are pockets of excellence," she said. "But I also see engagement being reduced to consultation or perception surveys. That’s not meaningful.”

She stressed that true engagement is about reducing vulnerability, not just improving optics.

Fernanda added that the technical side still has room to grow:

"We need more tailings engineers on site, understanding social context. I’ve done the training, but it’s not enough. We need continual learning.”

Consequence classifications under pressure

The panel also examined whether companies are gaming the system by downplaying consequence classifications. Peter said he’d seen both scenarios attempts to downgrade classifications to reduce governance burdens, and cases where new data justified more conservative initial assumptions.

“If you’re building at the top of a dam, the consequence goes up. That’s not a failure, that’s just physics. A higher consequence category doesn’t mean something’s wrong. It just means it needs more attention, stronger systems, a bit more scrutiny. That’s the whole idea. If it’s classified as extreme, then put more eyes on it, more governance around it. That’s not a bad thing. But there’s a financial impact, and that’s always going to be a challenge.”

Fernanda described Rio Tinto’s experience working on legacy sites:

"We went conservative from the outset, assuming worst-case scenarios. As we gathered more data, we could scale things back appropriately.”

Angelica pointed out that consequence classifications often miss human factors:

"People living in inundation zones who’ve never had emergency training - that’s a knowledge gap. And it’s a gap with real consequences.”

Building a knowledge base that lasts

Chris and Deanna both spoke passionately about the need for enduring knowledge systems.

"There’s been a lot of innovation in data visualisation and spatial systems," Chris said. "But we need to maintain that momentum."

Deanna raised a powerful question:

“What knowledge do operators need to genuinely understand and manage the unique risks of each tailings facility, and are we being ambitious enough in how we build and use that knowledge?”

Mark brought it full circle:

"The most important work we can do as an industry is to make sure the pieces fit together - socially, technically, institutionally. That’s where leadership needs to step up.”

A space for uncomfortable truths

Kevin, who moderated with humility and focus, closed the session with a reminder that the space they had created wasn’t always comfortable - but it was necessary.

The panel didn’t produce a blueprint. But it did surface something rarer: honesty, accountability, and a shared recognition that the mining industry still has a long way to go before tailings risk is truly managed in ways that centre not just structures, but people.

If the panel left one thing beyond doubt, it was this: we need to ask tougher questions - especially the ones that make us uncomfortable.