Applying a regional land use approach to mine closure: opportunities for restoring and regenerating mine-disturbed regional landscapes

Abstract

Historically, mining companies needed to be good at one thing-mining. The end goal was also clear-mine the ore and walk away. However, as societal perspectives have shifted and communities have started to demand (and expect) functional post-mining landscapes with manageable residual liabilities, this linear business approach has needed to adapt. Industry knowledge of the importance of the post-mining land use goal driving land rehabilitation objectives is becoming well understood. However, the capabilities of the rehabilitated land-ecologically, socially and economically, as well as stakeholder involvement in decision-making on what the rehabilitated land could supply, are considered a major challenge in mine closure planning. To edge closer to relinquishment, 'walk away' has turned into 'resilient substitute landscapes'. This paper will discuss the fundamental need for integration of mine site rehabilitation into wider regional landscape planning, towards being able to create opportunities for restoring and regenerating mine-disturbed landscapes. A global perspective on current existing post-mining land uses will be provided, as well as key considerations for selection of these land uses. The importance of integrating site-specific rehabilitation plans within overarching regional land planning frameworks will also be discussed.

International principles and standards for the ecological restoration and recovery of mine sites

“…Although some mines are small, others may have large footprints (e.g., strip mining) with leases that cover expansive areas, up to 2000 km 2 or more (Merritt & Dixon 2011) and consequences extending far beyond the extraction zone. When large areas of land are under tenement, mining companies in consultation with stakeholders can positively influence land management at the landscape scale including both direct and cumulative benefits (Hattingh et al 2019). Achieving cumulative value from mine site restoration requires planning not only by the mining companies themselves but also through regional government bodies and appropriate stakeholder engagement (Principle 1) throughout the LoM (Sinclair et al 2022).…”

A Quantitative Sustainability Assessment for Mine Closure and Repurposing Alternatives in Colorado, USA

“…Most existing mine closure plans do not align with the closure guidelines by ICMM, The Mining Association of Canada (MAC), and others that encourage early engagement with stakeholders [5]. Managing the socio-economic impacts of mine closure is a noted gap in research, policy, and practice [8,14,15,27,31,38], which hinders sustainable post-mining land use opportunities [9]. Mine closure and post-closure land use involve more than decommissioning and rehabilitation [5,6].…”

“…Defining a closure vision early, integrating it into planning, and regularly updating the plan may result in more closure options and the ability to evaluate the feasibility of alternatives. Moreover, community participation and input in closure planning may lead to better post-closure outcomes for communities, the company, and other stakeholders [10,14,15]. Historically, however, this has not always been the case, and delaying closure planning to later in the project cycle and even to 'when the mine is about to close' has been a common practice [16,17] with relatively little input from communities and other stakeholders [6,18].…”