Corporate sustainability reporting for water : water footprint, global reporting initiative and the water accounting framework

Three initiatives with respect to water reporting in the mining sector are compared in this paper to understand the quantities that are asked for by each initiative and the guidelines of those initiatives through means of a case study. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) was chosen because it has achieved widespread acceptance amongst mining companies and its water-related indicators are widely reported in corporate sustainability reporting. In contrast, the Water Footprint Network, which has been an important initiative in food and agricultural industries, has had low acceptance in the mining industry. The third initiative is the Water Accounting Framework, a collaboration between The Minerals Council of Australia and the Sustainable Minerals Institute of the University of Queensland. A water account had previously been created according to the Water Accounting Framework for the case study site, an open pit coal mine in the Bowen Basin. The resulting account provided consistent data for the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Water Footprint attributable to mining but in particular, a deficiency in the GRI indicator of EN10 reuse and recycling efficiency was illustrated quantitatively. This has far-reaching significance due to the widespread use of GRI indicators in mining corporate reports.

A robust methodological approach for mine site water accounting

Over the past decade, the mining industry has come to recognise the importance of water both to itself and to others. Water accounting is a formalisation of this importance that quantifies and communicates how water is used by individual sites and the industry as a whole. While there are a number of different accounting frameworks that could be used within the industry, the Minerals Council of Australia’s (MCA) Water Accounting Framework (WAF) is an industry-led approach that provides a consistent representation of mine site water interactions regardless of their operational, social or environmental context that allows for valid comparisons between sites and companies. The WAF contains definitions of offsite water sources and destinations and onsite water use, a methodology for applying the definitions and a set of metrics to measure site performance. The WAF is comprised of two models: the Input-Output Model, which represents the interactions between sites and their surrounding community and the Operational Model, which represents onsite water interactions. Members of the MCA have recently adopted the WAF’s Input-Output Model to report on their external water interactions in their Australian operations with some adopting it on a global basis. To support this adoption, there is a need for companies to better understand how to implement the WAF in their own operations. Developing a water account is non-trivial, particularly for sites unfamiliar with the WAF or for sites with the need to represent unusual features. This work describes how to build a water account for a given site using the Input-Output Model with an emphasis on how to represent challenging situations.

Alignment and differences between the Australian Water Accounting Standard and the Water Accounting Framework for the Minerals Industry

In 2012, the Bureau of Meteorology under the banner of the Water Accounting Standards Board released the Australian Water Accounting Standard 1 (AWAS 1). This standard has been in development since 2007 with key milestones being the release of the Preliminary Australian Water Accounting Standard in 2009, and the exposure draft of the Australian Water Accounting Standard in 2010. Throughout this period, the Minerals Council of Australia’s Water Accounting Framework has developed concurrently with the Australian standards and the standards have informed elements of the framework. However, the framework is not identical to the standard as the objectives between the two are different. The objective of the Water Accounting Framework is to create consistency in water reporting of the minerals industry and to assist companies reporting to corporate sustainability initiatives. The objective of AWAS 1 is to provide information to water management bodies to facilitate decisions about the allocation of water resources. Companies are to report on an annual basis, not only physical flows of water but contractual requirements to supply and obtain water, regardless of whether the transaction has been fulfilled in the reporting period. In contrast, the Water Accounting Framework only reports on flows that have physically happened. The paper will provide summary information on aspects of AWAS 1 that are most relevant to the minerals industry, show the alignment and differences between AWAS 1 and the Water Accounting Framework and explain how to obtain the information for the AWAS 1 reporting statements.

Water reporting using the water accounting framework

Water reporting is becoming increasingly common amongst minerals companies. The Minerals Council of Australia’s (MCA) Water Accounting Framework (WAF), co-developed by the Centre for Water in the Minerals Industry (CWiMI), provides a standard set of terms for water reporting. The WAF was established due to the need of the minerals industry to report on its water management consistently, rather than report using company-specific terms which can cause confusion and makes company comparisons impossible. The WAF consists of two models: The Input-Output Model, which represents interactions between a site and its surrounding community and environment, and the Operational Model, which represents the interactions within a site.

The robustness of mine water accounting over a range of operating contexts and commodities

Communicating the mining industry’s water use is fundamental to maintaining its social license to operate but the majority of corporate reporting schemes list indicators. The Minerals Council of Australia’s Water Accounting Framework was designed to assist the minerals industry obtain consistency in its accounting method and in the definitions of terms used in water reporting. The significance of this paper is that it shows that the framework has been designed to be sufficiently robust to describe any mining/mineral related operation. The Water Accounting Framework was applied across four operations over three countries producing four commodities. The advantages of the framework were then evident through the presentation of the reports. The contextual statement of the framework was able to explain contrasting reuse efficiencies. The Input-Output statements showed that evaporation was a significant loss for most of the operations in the study which highlights a weakness of reporting schemes that focus on discharge volumes. The framework method promotes data reconciliation which proved the presence of flows that two operations in the study had neglected to provide. Whilst there are many advantages of the framework, the major points are that the reporting statements of the framework, when presented together, can better enable the public to understand water interactions at a site-level and allows for valid comparisons between sites, regardless of locale and commodity. With mining being a global industry, these advantages are best realised if there was international adoption of the framework.

Globalising water accounting : lessons from the globalisation of financial reporting

Water management is a matter of global concern. To underpin sound management of water scarcity and quality issues requires high quality, consistent, understandable and credible information. In a world first, accounting and water industry experts in Australia have developed a system of water accounting as an accounting sub-discipline, analogous to financial accounting to guide national and intra-national decision-making. With a conceptual framework and a Preliminary Australian Water Accounting Standard in place, Australia’s approach is being evaluated internationally within the water and mining industries. Its fate as a discipline will depend upon regulatory politics as well as the intellectual and practical rigour of the system and the rate of its adoption. In this paper, we explore the application to water accounting of regulatory theories that have been valuable to gaining an understanding of financial accounting standards development. We predict the international path of the water accounting a sub-discipline of accounting, as an outcome of political forces.

Regulatory theory insights into the past, present and future of general purpose water accounting standard setting

Purpose – Accounting and water industry experts are developing general-purpose water accounting (GPWA) to report information about water and rights to water. The system has the potential to affect water policies, pricing and management, and investment and other decisions that are affected by GPWA report users' understanding of water risks faced by an entity. It may also affect financial returns to accounting and auditing firms and firms in water industries. In this paper the authors aim to examine the roles of the accounting profession, water industries and other stakeholders in governing GPWA. Recognising that the fate of GPWA depends partly upon regulatory power and economics, they seek to apply regulatory theories that explain financial accounting standards development to speculate about the national and international future of GPWA.

Design/methodology/approach – Official documents, internal Water Accounting Standards Board documents and unstructured interviews underpin the authors' analysis.

Findings – The authors speculate about the benefits that might accrue to various stakeholder groups from capturing the GPWA standard-setting process. They also suggest that internationally, water industries may dominate early GPWA standards development in the public interest and that regulatory capture by accounting or water industry professionals will not necessarily conflict with public interest benefits.

Practical implications – Accounting for water can affect allocations of environmental, economic, social and other resources; also, accounting and water industry professional standing and revenues. In this paper the authors identify factors influencing GPWA standards and standard-setting institutional arrangements, and thereby these resource allocations. The paper generates an awareness of GPWA's emergence and practical implications.

Originality/value – This is an early study to investigate water accounting standard-setting regulatory influences and their impact.

A comparison of three models for mine water management

Water management is vital for mine sites both for production and sustainability related issues. Effective water management is a complex task since the role of water on mine sites is multifaceted. Computers models are tools that represent mine site water interaction and can be used by mine sites to inform or evaluate their water management strategies. There exist several types of models that can be used to represent mine site water interactions. This paper presents three such models: an operational model, an aggregated systems model and a generic systems model. For each model the paper provides a description and example followed by an analysis of its advantages and disadvantages. The paper hypotheses that since no model is optimal for all situations, each model should be applied in situations where it is most appropriate based upon the scale of water interactions being investigated, either unit (operation), inter-site (aggregated systems) or intra-site (generic systems).

Using the SWAP to connect water, human rights and mining

It is important that industries’ water interactions respect the human right to water. Historically, within the mining industry there has been a disconnect between the management of sites’ internal water interactions and the consequences of their external impacts, including human rights impacts. This poses a challenge for the mining industry as it attempts to put the Ruggie Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights into practice, particularly as United Nations has recently recognised the human right to water. A technical framework such as the Minerals Council of Australia’s Water Accounting Framework (WAF) can help to bridge this disconnect and to integrate human rights considerations into business practice by connecting a site’s external and internal water interactions and by encouraging regular monitoring of performance. However, at present the connection is limited since the WAF lacks the capability to formalise a site’s social water context. This work presents the Social Water Assessment Protocol (SWAP), a scoping tool consisting of a set of questions organised into taxonomic themes that capture a site’s social water context and that can be combined with the WAF to better connect human rights with mine water interactions.

Improving the accuracy of mine site water balances through improved estimation of runoff volumes

A mine site water balance is important for communicating information to interested stakeholders, for reporting on water performance, and for anticipating and mitigating water-related risks through water use/demand forecasting. Gaining accuracy over the water balance is therefore crucial for sites to achieve best practice water management and to maintain their social license to operate. For sites that are located in high rainfall environments the water received to storage dams through runoff can represent a large proportion of the overall inputs to site; inaccuracies in these flows can therefore lead to inaccuracies in the overall site water balance. Hydrological models that estimate runoff flows are often incorporated into simulation models used for water use/demand forecasting. The Australian Water Balance Model (AWBM) is one example that has been widely applied in the Australian context. However, the calibration of AWBM in a mining context can be challenging. Through a detailed case study, we outline an approach that was used to calibrate and validate AWBM at a mine site. Commencing with a dataset of monitored dam levels, a mass balance approach was used to generate an observed runoff sequence. By incorporating a portion of this observed dataset into the calibration routine, we achieved a closer fit between the observed vs. simulated dataset compared with the base case. We conclude by highlighting opportunities for future research to improve the calibration fit through improving the quality of the input dataset. This will ultimately lead to better models for runoff prediction and thereby improve the accuracy of mine site water balances.

Social water assessment protocol : a step towards connecting mining, water and human rights

The human right to water has recently been recognised by both the United Nations General Assembly and the Human Rights Council. As the mining industry interacts with water on multiple levels, it is important that these interactions respect the human right to water. Currently, a disconnect exists between mine site water management practices and the recognition of water from a human rights perspective. The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) Water Accounting Framework (WAF) has previously been used to strengthen the connection between water management and human rights. This article extends this connection through the use of a Social Water Assessment Protocol (SWAP). The SWAP is scoping tool consisting of a set of questions classified into taxonomic themes under leading topics with suggested sources of data that enable mine sites to better understand the local water context in which they operate. Three of the themes contained in the SWAP – gender, Indigenous peoples and health – are discussed to demonstrate how the protocol may be useful in assisting mining companies to consider their impacts on the human right to water.

A robust methodology for developing an operational systems view of mine water interactions

The Minerals Council of Australia’s (MCA) Water Accounting Framework (WAF) is an industry lead initiative to enable cross company communication and comparisons of water management performance. The WAF consists of two models, the Input-Output Model that represents water interactions between an operation and its surrounding environment and the Operational Model that represents water interactions within an operation. Recently, MCA member companies have agreed to use the Input-Output Model to report on their external water interactions in Australian operations, with some adopting it globally. The next step will be to adopt the Operational Model. This will expand the functionality of the WAF from corporate reporting to allowing widespread identification of inefficiencies and to connect internal and external interactions. Implementing the WAF, particularly the Operational Model, is non-trivial. It can be particularly difficult for operations that are unfamiliar with the WAF definitions and methodology, lack information pertaining to flow volumes or contain unusual configurations. Therefore, there is a need to help industry with its implementation. This work presents a step-by-step guide to producing the Operational Model. It begins by describing a methodology for implementing the Operational Model by describing the identification of pertinent objects (stores, tasks and treatments), quantification of flows, aggregation of objects and production of reports. It then discusses how the Operational Model can represent a series of challenging scenarios and how it can be connected with Input-Output Model to improve water management.

A mass balance accounting procedure for estimating contributions to water quality /

Bibliography: p. 12.

Continued operation of a 25-raingage network for collection, reduction, and analysis of precipitation data for lake michigan diversion accounting : water year 2009 /

"Final Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District."