5.1 Introduction

If not managed optimally, the environmental and social impacts associated with mining have the potential to affect both the physical environment and our key stakeholders. Sustainable development and social incidents can materially impact Gold Fields’ ability to receive or renew its regulatory licences to operate as well as societal acceptance of our operations. The potentially adverse reputational impacts of such incidents are also significant.

In our 2015 Group Performance Scorecard (p12), we have grouped these issues under the topic of Social Licence to Operate, which focus on the following material issues to the business:

  • Environmental stewardship, comprising Energy and Carbon management, Climate change, Water, Waste and Mine Closure
  • Societal acceptance, comprising Stakeholder engagement, Community relations and Shared Value and Human rights

Environmental stewardship

Gold Fields’ approach to environmental management is determined by relevant local legislation and regulations, our sustainable development framework, as well as the ISO 14001 international environmental management standard, the ten principles of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) and the UN Global Compact. All the Group’s operations are certified to ISO 14001.

During 2015, the Group spent US$35 million on environmental management (2014: US$27 million). Total gross mine closure liabilities in 2015 were estimated at US$353 million (2014: US$391 million) (p103).

In 2014 and 2015, we implemented four new Group-level guidelines, which reflect the sustainable development priorities for Gold Fields and are discussed in detail in this section.

These are:

  • Energy and carbon management (p92)
  • Water management (p97)
  • Mine closure management (p103)
  • Community relations and stakeholder engagement (p108)

A summary of the Group guidelines can be found on the Gold Fields’ website at www.goldfields.com/sus_ guide.php. These guidelines will help ensure the application of consistently good environmental management practices across the Group while allowing a degree of regional adaptation to suit local circumstances.

To ensure Group-wide conformance with the guidelines, each operation conducted self-assessments to ascertain the levels of conformance with the guidelines. Action plans have been put in place to address any gaps during 2016.

Operational level grievance mechanisms as well as regular community relations and stakeholder engagement forums allow stakeholders to communicate environmental issues and complaints against the Company.

Environmental incidents
Gold Fields reports environmental incidents using a Level 1 (most minor) to 5 (most severe) scale1. Gold Fields has not recorded any Level 4 or 5 environmental incidents in the past five years thereby achieving our target of zero Level 4 and 5 incidents.During 2015, we did, however, experience 67 Level 2 environmental incidents (2014: 58) and five Level 3 environmental incidents (2014: four). Though we reduced the number of Level 3 incidents, we failed to meet our 2015 target of reducing the number of Level 3 incidents by 50%. These targets (zero Level 4 and 5 incidents and 50% annual reduction in Level 3 incidents) have been retained in 2016. The details of the Level 3 incidents – at our South Deep mine in South Africa and the Tarkwa mine in Ghana – were as follows:

  • South Deep, 24 August: The mine noted ongoing exceedences of the authorised limits for ammonia nitrogen and suspended solids during the daily discharge of treated sewage effluent into the Leeuspruit river (as authorised by South Deep’s water use licence) due to two of the aerators not operating. The aerators were repaired
  • South Deep, 12 October: The mine noted ongoing exceedences of the authorised limit for ammonia during the daily discharge of treated sewage plant effluent into the Leeuspruit, again due to a non-operational aerator. The aerator was repaired. In order to prevent a recurrence of aerator related issues, the planned maintenance schedule has been enhanced
  • Tarkwa mine, 16 June: The left track of an excavator lifted a piece of rock that struck the hydraulic shut-up valve. About 1,544 litres of hydraulic oil was spilled, which was collected and all contaminated material was disposed of in accordance with the mines waste management procedures
  • Tarkwa mine, 8 October: Approximately 2,939 litres of oil was spilled when an excavator’s hydraulic hose underneath the counter-weight burst. This occurred when the excavator got bogged down while working in a pit. The oil and contaminated material was promptly cleaned up in accordance with the mines waste management procedures and the hose replaced
  • Tarkwa mine, 8 November: The right track of an excavator lifted a piece of rock that perforated the fuel tank of the excavator. About 1,200 litres of fuel leaked into the ground and was trapped in an in-situ layer of an impermeable dyke. The contaminated soils were then dug up for appropriate disposal
1 Levels 1 and 2 involve minor incidents or non-conformances, with negligible or short-term limited impact. A Level 3 incident results in limited non-conformance or non-compliance that result in ongoing but limited environmental impact. Level 4 and 5 incidents include major non-conformances or non-compliances, which could result in long-term environmental harm, with company or operation-threatening implications and potential damage to company reputation.

Group environmental performance

  2015     2014    2013  
Environmental incidents (Level 2) 67     58   49  
Environmental incidents (Level 3) 5     4   3  
Water withdrawal (Mℓ)1 35,247     30,207   30,302  
Water discharge (Mℓ) 18,4922     11,620   2,5268  
Gross closure costs (provisions) (US$m) 353     391   355  
CO2 emissions (scope 1 and 2 ) ('000 tonnes)5,7 1 323     1 258   1 235  
CO2 emissions (scope 3 ) ('000 tonnes)5,7 431     436   496  
Electricity (MWh)1 1,322,353     1,338,074   1,382,105  
Diesel (TJ)1 6,930     6,066   5,509  
Carbon emission intensity (tonnes CO2-e/oz)3 0.59     0.55   0.61  
NOx, SOx and other emissions (tonnes)4 21,073     20,084   17,942  
Cyanide consumption (tonnes)6 7,820     10,660   13,660  
Mining waste ('000 tonnes) 167,357     138,522   190,007  
Materials ('000 tonnes) 145     144   176  

1 The numbers disclosed only include our operations, as regional and the corporate head offices are not considered to be material
2 Granny Smith has authorisation to discharge ground water into Lake Carey and the Tarkwa mine treats and discharges the water from its heap leach facilities into the environment. At Damang, water was pumped from the inactive Rex pit, treated via a series of ponds and trenches for pH adjustment before being discharged into an ambient water body
3 Scope 1 and 2 only
4 Numbers differ in comparison to what has been reported in previous years due to applying air emission conversion factors that are based on global averages as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
5 The CO2 emissions numbers include head offices
6 Reduction in cyanide consumption is due to campaign milling at St Ives, as well as change in ore type and business improvement initiatives at Tarkwa
7 Scope 1 emissions are those arising directly from sources managed by the company. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions generated in the production of electricity used by the company. Scope 3 emissions arise as a consequence of the activities of the company, such as air travel
8 No water was discharged at our St Ives and Agnew mines in 2013, while the closure of the South Heap Leach at Tarkwa also led to a drop in water discharged

Societal acceptance
The success of our business is critically dependent on our relationship with key external stakeholders that determines both our regulatory environment and our social licenses to operate. These stakeholders include governments at a national, regional and local level and, above all, the communities that host our mines. We, therefore, devote considerable resources and energies to securing and maintaining these licences.

This is not merely a compliance-based approach but one that seeks to ensure that we secure the long-term support and acceptance of governments and communities through the sustainable development of our mines and projects. We believe that we do indeed generate and share significant value for the societies in which we operate.

Our total value distribution, graphically depicted on page 10, details the value creation at Group level as well as in our four countries of operation.

Despite a third year of considerably lower gold price environment, in 2015, Gold Fields continued to distribute a similar level of value (compared with the prior years) to a wide range of stakeholders, including employees, host governments, host communities, businesses and suppliers as well as the providers of capital.

In 2015, our total value distribution – reported according to World Gold Council methodology – was US$2.401 billion (2014: US$2.650 billion), with 69% going to businesses and suppliers (2014: 69%), 8% to governments (2014: 7%), 17% to employees (2014: 18%), 5% to capital providers (2014: 5%) and 0.5% on Socio-economic Development (SED) spend
(2014: 1%) – mostly in host communities. The slight decline in the total value distribution was largely due to a cutback in spending with business suppliers and partners amid lower operational expenditures.