Analytical review examines water use regulation in the mining sector, highlighting challenges in implementing sustainable practices.
The growing pressure on water resources as well as Kazakhstan’s international obligations under Agenda 2030 predetermine the need for urgent upgrading of water infrastructure at domestic industrial enterprises. Meanwhile, in the absence of objective hydro-ecological data and regulatory univocacy, the adoption of technological solutions on mine and quarry water treatment is associated with water-related risks for the mining industry. These factors have triggered the preparation of this analytical review aimed at broader informing the stakeholders on the matter. The study’s fundamental methodology is based on the scientific-theoretical (ideological) comparison of the existing legal framework pertaining to water use regulation with the institutional policy assumed under Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6) “Clean water and sanitation”. The integrated SDG Indicator 6.4.2. SDG “Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available freshwater resources” has served the key aspect of the study, as its cross-cutting nexus with other SDG 6 indicators allows a comprehensive assessment of whether Kazakhstan’s national water-related strategies are properly executed in terms of sustainable water governance. The study’s findings show that despite a fairly complete integration of the SDGs into Kazakhstan’s national legislation their actual implementation in the form of valid environmental standards requires a critical re-assessment through the lens of potential practical application, in particular, guiding mining enterprises in identifying the corresponding BATs (best available technologies/techniques). The deficiencies of environmental standards stem from poor interdepartmental interaction, vague understanding of responsibilities as well as the formal nature of industrial and research communities’ participation in the elaboration, expert assessment and scientific support of targeted lawmaking.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ponomareva et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: