Tailings management involves significant engineering, operational, environmental and social risks. Mining companies need to understand whether the measures intended to manage those risks are implemented and supported by appropriate evidence.
The Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) establishes 77 auditable requirements across 15 principles, covering the lifecycle of tailings facilities, including closure and post-closure.
Assessing implementation requires information from engineering, operations, environmental management, risk teams and other functions. Where this work depends on manual document collection and separate tracking processes, maintaining consistent assessments across facilities can require considerable coordination.
How can mining companies automate GISTM self-assessments?
AI-based GISTM assessment software can support several parts of the internal assessment process:
- Assess existing facility documentation against GISTM requirements.
- Identify requirements with sufficient, partial or missing supporting evidence.
- Retrieve source documents and passages behind assessment findings.
- Identify outdated or incomplete records requiring further review.
- Organise corrective actions and responsible owners.
- Reassess requirements as new evidence becomes available.
- Maintain consistent assessment records across multiple facilities.
beSirius supports these activities using existing company and facility documentation.
It does not replace technical monitoring, engineering analysis, independent auditing or professional judgement.
The distinction matters. A documentary assessment can identify insufficient evidence of a required control or process. It cannot independently establish whether a tailings facility is physically safe.
Why GISTM assessments matter for tailings risk management
The purpose of GISTM is closely connected to the prevention of catastrophic tailings failures and the protection of people and the environment.
The original Standard, published by UNEP, ICMM and PRI in 2020, requires operators to prioritise facility safety throughout the lifecycle.
GISTM addresses risk through several interconnected areas, including:
- Understanding facility-specific conditions and potential consequences.
- Engineering design, construction, operation and monitoring.
- Management responsibilities, governance and technical review.
- Engagement with potentially affected communities.
- Emergency preparedness, response and recovery.
- Public disclosure and accountability.
The Global Tailings Management Institute (GTMI) describes these requirements within six topic areas and 15 principles.
For mining operators, implementing these requirements involves different teams and records.
A facility's monitoring arrangements may be documented by its engineering team. Operating procedures may be maintained elsewhere. Independent reviews may identify recommendations requiring follow-up, while evidence of completed actions is held in a separate system.
An internal assessment needs to establish what these records demonstrate against the relevant GISTM requirements.
The value of a structured evidence assessment is that it helps distinguish documented implementation from matters that still require evidence, investigation or corrective action.
This supports management oversight. It does not replace the facility's engineering risk assessment.
Where manual GISTM assessment processes become difficult
Evidence is held across different functions
A single GISTM requirement may depend on documentation maintained by engineering, operations, environmental management or corporate governance.
Reviewers need to identify relevant records, confirm their applicability and assess whether they collectively address the requirement.
Where evidence is collected manually, this may involve repeated document requests and reconciliation of different versions.
Document availability does not establish implementation
An approved procedure provides evidence that a process has been documented. It may not demonstrate that the process has been implemented consistently.
Likewise, a completed technical review may contain recommendations that have not yet been resolved.
Assessors need to consider the supporting implementation records and the status of relevant findings, rather than relying solely on document titles.
Evidence gaps and implementation concerns require different responses
An unavailable document does not automatically mean that an activity was not performed.
Conversely, an existing document does not necessarily demonstrate that the underlying requirement has been implemented.
These situations require different follow-up actions.
Findings may be difficult to consolidate across facilities
A mining group may maintain common corporate tailings policies while its facilities have different operating conditions, monitoring arrangements and technical review requirements.
A common assessment framework can help organise results, but each facility still requires its own evidence and findings.
Previous assessments need to remain relevant
Material changes to facility conditions, supporting evidence or the status of corrective actions may affect the basis of earlier findings.
The GISTM's lifecycle approach makes ongoing review important. Operators should revisit assessments when relevant changes affect the implementation evidence or conclusions.
How beSirius automates GISTM evidence assessment
beSirius helps mining operators assess existing documents against GISTM requirements while retaining the evidence and rationale behind each finding.
The workflow connects requirement-level assessment, evidence review, gap identification and follow-up actions.
1. Assess existing facility evidence
The operator provides the relevant facility documentation.
This may include engineering studies, operating procedures, monitoring records, risk assessments, management policies, independent reviews and other supporting material.
beSirius checks the available evidence against GISTM's 77 requirements.
The assessment is based on the material provided. Missing documentation is identified for further review rather than automatically treated as proof of non-implementation.
2. Identify supported and unresolved requirements
For each requirement, the platform provides an assessment finding with supporting rationale and source references.
Teams can distinguish between requirements with identified supporting evidence and those requiring additional review.
The internal categories used to describe evidence coverage, such as supported, partially supported or missing, are not official GISTM conformance determinations.
They describe the status of the documentary evidence assessment.
3. Connect findings to risk-related follow-up
An unresolved finding may reflect an unavailable record, incomplete evidence of implementation or a documented issue requiring technical attention.
These situations should not be treated identically.
beSirius keeps the requirement, available evidence and finding connected so the responsible team can determine the appropriate follow-up.
The platform does not independently assign engineering risk severity or determine whether a facility is safe.
4. Track improvement actions
Identified gaps can be connected to improvement actions, responsible owners and deadlines.
Teams can request additional records, document the necessary follow-up and reassess requirements when new information becomes available.
This connects the assessment finding to the work required to address it.
The operator remains responsible for determining, implementing and verifying appropriate corrective measures.
5. Apply a consistent process across facilities
A mining group can use the same GISTM assessment framework across multiple tailings facilities.
Each facility retains its own evidence, findings and improvement actions.
This allows teams to review assessment coverage and outstanding work across facilities while recognising differences in operating conditions and technical requirements.
Explore beSirius Tailings & GISTM Assurance
From an evidence gap to a risk-related action: an illustrative example
Consider a tailings facility being assessed against monitoring-related GISTM requirements.
The facility has a monitoring plan, inspection records, instrumentation data and a technical review containing several recommendations.
An automated documentary assessment could identify the following:
| Evidence reviewed | Illustrative finding | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Monitoring plan | Relevant evidence identified | Confirm coverage of applicable criteria |
| Inspection records | Incomplete records for the assessment period | Request additional documentation |
| Technical review | Outstanding recommendations identified | Refer to the responsible technical team |
| Corrective-action register | Closure evidence unavailable | Verify action status and supporting evidence |
This is an illustrative example, not an assessment of an actual facility or a prescribed GISTM scoring method.
The findings do not establish the physical condition of the facility.
For example, missing inspection records and unresolved engineering recommendations require different forms of investigation. Their significance depends on the applicable requirement, facility conditions and findings of qualified personnel.
Automated evidence assessment helps make these distinctions visible and traceable. The appropriate professionals remain responsible for determining their technical significance.
How to distinguish evidence gaps from operational risks
For internal evidence review, it is useful to distinguish between several situations.
The following categories are an illustrative assessment framework, not a classification prescribed by GISTM.
| Situation | What it means | Appropriate follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Missing evidence | A relevant record has not been identified | Locate or request the record |
| Insufficient evidence | Available documentation does not fully support the requirement | Check applicability and obtain additional evidence |
| Implementation concern | Available records raise questions about whether a required process has been carried out | Investigate with the responsible operational team |
| Technical or safety concern | Available information identifies an issue requiring specialist judgement | Refer for appropriate technical review and action |
These distinctions matter because the absence of documentation and the existence of an operational problem are not equivalent findings.
Neither should be assigned a risk severity solely on the basis of an automated documentary review.
The ICMM Tailings Management Good Practice Guide addresses the integration of governance and engineering practices for tailings management. It also distinguishes guidance on good practice from the conformance assessment process.
An evidence assessment is therefore one part of a broader system of tailings management and oversight.
How detailed should a GISTM self-assessment be?
GISTM contains 77 auditable requirements, but assessing them may require more detailed consideration than a checklist organised around those 77 headings.
The ICMM Conformance Protocols for GISTM, published in 2021, map the 77 requirements into 219 assessment criteria.
These criteria were developed to support operators and independent third parties in assessing implementation and demonstrating conformance.
The distinction is useful for internal assessment.
A broad requirement may contain several elements that need different evidence. A single document may support one element without addressing the others.
Operators should use the relevant version of the Standard and applicable assessment guidance to determine how their evidence needs to be evaluated.
The institutional framework is also developing.
The Global Tailings Management Institute oversees the independent assurance framework for GISTM, including auditing and certification arrangements. Its implementation documents provide further guidance and materials.
The ICMM protocols remain a relevant reference, but should not be presented as the only possible protocol governing every independent GTMI assessment.
Can existing internal tailings standards and evidence be reused?
Many mining operators maintain internal standards, procedures and assurance processes addressing tailings management.
Existing work may provide relevant evidence when assessing GISTM requirements.
However, internal requirements and GISTM may differ in scope, detail or applicability.
A requirement-level comparison can identify:
- Requirements addressing similar topics.
- Areas where existing internal requirements may provide relevant coverage.
- Differences requiring further assessment.
- Supporting evidence that may be relevant to both frameworks.
beSirius can compare internal tailings standards with GISTM and assess existing evidence against the applicable requirements.
This may reduce repeated document collection.
However, overlap between requirements does not establish formal equivalence or conformance. Evidence must still be evaluated against the relevant GISTM requirement and assessment scope.
How can mining groups maintain oversight across multiple tailings facilities?
A company managing several tailings facilities needs both facility-specific assessment information and a consistent way to review outstanding work across the organisation.
A structured assessment process can help management answer:
- Which facilities have completed an internal documentary assessment?
- Which requirements have insufficient supporting evidence?
- Which findings require additional records or specialist review?
- Which corrective actions remain open?
- Where do similar evidence gaps appear across multiple facilities?
- Which assessments need updating following new information?
These questions provide visibility into evidence coverage and follow-up status.
They should not be confused with a comparative ranking of physical facility safety.
GISTM itself requires a facility-specific approach to risk and management throughout the lifecycle, as established in the original Standard.
A common assessment process therefore needs to preserve the context of each facility.
beSirius supports this by connecting GISTM findings to facility evidence and associated improvement actions.
What should mining operators look for in GISTM assessment software?
Not every digital tool used in tailings management performs the same function.
Technical monitoring systems, engineering analysis tools and documentary assurance platforms address different activities.
When evaluating software for internal GISTM evidence assessment, operators should consider whether it can:
- Assess actual facility documentation against requirements, rather than simply store manually entered answers.
- Provide the source documents and rationale supporting each finding.
- Distinguish missing or insufficient evidence from other unresolved issues.
- Support follow-up actions and reassessment as evidence changes.
- Maintain separate facility records within a consistent assessment framework.
- Help identify reusable evidence across internal standards and GISTM.
- Preserve human review and the responsibilities of qualified professionals.
The ICMM Good Practice Guide emphasises both governance and engineering practices in responsible tailings management.
Documentary assessment software can support oversight and evidence review. It cannot replace the technical systems and professional expertise needed to understand facility conditions.
GISTM self-assessment and independent assurance are different processes
An internal assessment helps an operator review implementation evidence, identify outstanding questions and prepare information for further review.
An independent assessment is a separate process.
The GTMI is responsible for overseeing an assurance framework under which tailings facilities are independently audited and certified against GISTM.
Software-supported internal evidence reviews should not be presented as equivalent to those independent processes.
It is also important not to assume that any open corrective action automatically establishes non-conformance.
Outstanding actions must be considered in the context of the relevant requirements, applicable assessment protocol and supporting evidence.
The final determination belongs within the appropriate assessment and assurance process.
From periodic assessments to better visibility of outstanding risks and actions
GISTM implementation involves engineering, operational controls, governance and ongoing review.
An effective internal assessment helps operators understand what the available evidence demonstrates, where further review is needed and which actions remain unresolved.
Where these processes depend on manual document searches and disconnected records, maintaining a consistent assessment history across facilities can be difficult.
Automating the documentary assessment process makes it easier to trace findings to source material, revisit requirements when evidence changes and maintain visibility of outstanding work.
The objective is not to automate engineering judgement or replace independent assurance.
It is to make the evidence, gaps and required follow-up clear enough for the responsible teams to act.
See how beSirius supports Tailings & GISTM Assurance
Frequently asked questions
Can GISTM self-assessments be automated?
Parts of the documentary assessment process can be automated. AI software can compare available documents with requirements, identify insufficient supporting evidence and produce source-linked findings for human review. Technical verification and independent assurance remain separate activities.
How does automated GISTM assessment support tailings risk management?
It helps operators identify evidence gaps and maintain visibility of unresolved findings and improvement actions. These findings can inform follow-up by the appropriate technical and operational teams. Documentary assessment does not directly measure the probability of facility failure.
What is the difference between GISTM evidence-assessment software and tailings monitoring software?
Evidence-assessment software reviews available documents and records against requirements. Monitoring systems collect, process or present operational and instrumentation information used to understand facility conditions. These functions are different and can be complementary.
How many requirements does GISTM contain?
GISTM contains 77 auditable requirements organised under 15 principles and six topic areas, as confirmed by the GTMI.
The 2021 ICMM Conformance Protocols provide 219 more detailed assessment criteria.
Can AI determine whether a tailings facility conforms to GISTM?
AI can help organise and assess documentary evidence, but it cannot independently determine physical facility safety or replace the relevant professional and independent assessment processes.
Can the same GISTM assessment framework be used across multiple facilities?
Yes. Operators can use a common requirement framework while maintaining facility-specific evidence, findings and actions. Each facility still requires assessment in the context of its own conditions and applicable requirements.
Can existing evidence be reused across GISTM and internal tailings standards?
Potentially. Evidence already collected for internal standards may be relevant to GISTM. Its applicability must be checked against the specific requirements and assessment scope rather than assuming formal equivalence.
Does an outstanding corrective action automatically mean a facility is non-conformant?
Not necessarily. The significance of an open action depends on the requirement, the applicable conformance protocol, the nature of the action and the supporting evidence. A formal assessment must consider these factors.
