Independent Articles

‹ Back

Is GISTM Being Applied as Intended—or Just “Complied With”?

GISTM has moved the tailings industry forward. Full stop. It has raised expectations for governance, accountability, and lifecycle thinking in a way that many of us would have called “impossible” a decade ago.

But here’s the uncomfortable question I keep coming back to:

 

Are we applying GISTM in a way that improves safety outcomes—or are we increasingly optimising for a conformance outcome?

 

This isn’t a criticism of the Standard’s intent. It’s a challenge about how it is being implemented and assessed in the real world.

 

1. “International Best Practice” is Not a Design Basis

GISTM often requires alignment with international best practice, without naming specific technical standards or minimum reference frameworks.

 

That global flexibility is useful—different jurisdictions and facility types need different tools. But it also creates a practical problem:

 

Two facilities can claim alignment with “best practice” while using very different technical baselines, levels of conservatism, and evidence quality.

 

When auditors and Operators don’t share the same “minimum bar,” conformance becomes harder to compare across assets and organisations.

 

Discussion point:
Should GISTM application require a simple, auditable “technical basis register”—a short, controlled list of the actual codes, guidelines, and methodologies used per facility (plus any deviations and why)?

 

2. The “Nominal EoR” Problem: One Person, Twenty Facilities

GISTM’s Engineer of Record (EoR) role is meant to be a cornerstone of assurance. The Standard expects the EoR to have the experience, skills and time to fulfil the role.

 

But in practice, I’ve seen a pattern emerging in parts of the industry:

A company has one suitably qualified engineer. That person becomes the EoR for five, ten… sometimes twenty facilities.

 

The work still gets done—by teams, subcontractors, juniors, or rotating consultants—but the EoR becomes a “portfolio sign-off point,” not a deeply engaged oversight function.

 

To be clear: delegation isn’t the problem. The problem is when oversight becomes too thin to be meaningful, and we all pretend the label “EoR” automatically equals control.

 

Discussion point:
Should GISTM application include an auditable EoR “capacity statement” per facility—time allocation, oversight cadence, triggers for involvement, and evidence that design intent and deviations were actually reviewed?

 

3. The Quiet Threat to Independence: Payment Pressure

This one is sensitive, but it’s real.

 

Some Operators delay payment to consultants, or withhold fees during critical decision periods. Sometimes it’s admin. Sometimes it’s “commercial.” And sometimes—let’s be honest—it can feel like pressure to make findings more palatable.

 

When payment becomes a lever, independence suffers. Even the most ethical engineers are human, and it creates a subtle incentive: don’t be too difficult if you want to get paid.

 

GISTM already recognises the need to protect people who raise concerns and reduce procurement-led influence in safety-critical roles. But it doesn’t clearly call out commercial coercion as an assurance-integrity risk.

 

Discussion point:
Should unresolved commercial interference (including payment leverage linked to outcomes) be treated as a governance non-conformance—meaning you can’t credibly declare conformance while technical independence is being constrained?

 

A Practical Way Forward (Without Rewriting GISTM)

My view is that we don’t need a new standard. We need a stronger “application layer.” Here are four simple tools that would make conformance more credible:

 

    1. Standards & Methods Selection Register (per facility)

    2. EoR Capacity & Coverage Statement (portfolio load, time allocation, oversight plan)

    3. Oversight Evidence Pack (minutes, review logs, deviations, closure of actions)

    4. Commercial Interference Reporting Pathway (protected escalation, materiality test, documented resolution)

 

These don’t add “red tape.” They make it harder for paper systems to substitute for real oversight.

 

Over to You

I’m genuinely interested in perspectives from Operators, EoRs, reviewers, auditors, and regulators:

 

• Should “best practice” remain flexible—or do we need minimum reference frameworks?
• What’s a reasonable EoR portfolio size, and should it vary by consequence classification?
• Where do we draw the line between commercial disputes and coercion?
• If independence is compromised, what should happen to a conformance declaration?

 

Leave a comment—agree, disagree, or tell me what I’m missing.

— Yoshlin Govender (CEO & Tailings Expert)