On 13 August 2026, at around 17:30, the northern wall of Compartment 1B at Samancor’s Dikwena chrome tailings storage facility near Brits gave way. Almost all of the tailings stored in that compartment were released. The incident prompted an investigation by the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), the Limpopo-Olifants Catchment Management Agency and the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources
What caught my attention was not the failure itself. It was the picture forming around it.
Reporting by Daily Maverick noted that satellite imagery showed clear skies over the facility at the time of failure, suggesting that immediate rainfall was unlikely to have been the direct trigger. Investigations and expert commentary instead focused on the possibility that rainfall in the days before the collapse may have contributed to delayed water infiltration and elevated pore pressures within the facility.
A tailings specialist interviewed by Daily Maverick further noted that the original facility had been re-mined between 2019 and 2022 and that a newly designed facility began operating in 2024, raising questions that investigators will need to examine as part of the ongoing inquiry.
The cause is still under investigation. I am not assigning blame. My point is that a failure of this kind is rarely sudden in the data. It is sudden in the news.
That distinction is the entire case for monitoring and evaluation in mining.
M&E is not reporting.
Most mining companies treat M&E as a reporting obligation: a quarterly pack, a spreadsheet, a scramble before the audit. That framing is backwards. Monitoring and evaluation is a control system. Monitoring tells you what is happening now. Evaluation tells you whether what you are doing is working. Remove either, and you are managing a mine on assumptions.
The numbers tell a story about measurement.
ICMM’s Tailings Progress Report reported continued progress toward implementation of the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM), while also identifying facilities that had not yet achieved full conformance. The report highlights both the advances made across member companies and the remaining work required to close conformance gaps across tailings portfolios. Organizations citing these figures should reference the original ICMM report directly to ensure consistency with the latest reported results.
The strongest progress has been reported among facilities classified as having the highest potential consequences, reflecting the industry’s focus on reducing catastrophic tailings risks.
However, the report also indicates that additional work remains across other facility categories to achieve consistent implementation of the standard.
Regardless of the exact percentage, the underlying lesson is clear: any gap between policy and practice can only be identified, managed and closed if it is being measured.
Improvements cannot be demonstrated without evidence, and risks cannot be managed effectively if performance is not being monitored over time.
Why this matters more in mining than almost anywhere else.
The consequences are physical and permanent. The Brumadinho tailings dam failure in Brazil in January 2019 resulted in 270 deaths. In South Africa, the Jagersfontein tailings dam failure in September 2022 caused at least two confirmed deaths and displaced residents while destroying homes and infrastructure.
In both cases the industry’s response was the same: stronger standards, more disclosure, more oversight. All of it depends on data that is accurate, current and actually reviewed by someone with the authority to act.
M&E matters for three reasons. First, early warning: the difference between a finding and a disaster is usually measured in weeks. Second, audit readiness: a missing document can cost a certification. Third, access to capital: buyers and investors ask harder ESG questions every year, and “we care about sustainability” stopped being an answer some time ago.
Where it breaks, and how to fix it.
Most programmes do not fail for lack of commitment. They fail for lack of architecture: standards in one folder, policies in another, ESG data in spreadsheets, evidence somewhere nobody can find.
Fixing that is unglamorous. Map indicators directly to the standards that apply to each facility. Put every site on one live dashboard. Track each finding through to a corrective action, with closure evidence attached. Keep policy versions controlled so no site works from a stale document.
AI can accelerate every one of those steps, provided a human review and approves what it produces. Speed without oversight only gets you to the wrong answer faster.
Measurement is the cheapest insurance a mine can buy.
A wall does not fail without warning. It fails without witnesses. The mines still operating, certified and financed in 2030 will be the ones measuring properly in 2026.
One sourcing note: the Dikwena figures and the ICMM conformance data are from primary reporting (SAnews/DWS, Daily Maverick, ICMM).
By Alana van Wouw | BA / MSC/EMBA/FMVA /CBCA / BIDA | Due Diligence Specialist , ESG Specialist from Sustain Blueprint.
Our website : https://sustainblueprint.uk/
