Social aspects of mine closure: the elephant in the room

Abstract

Social aspects of mine closure are often not well understood, resulting in some companies either avoiding or postponing the development and implementation of sustainable social closure strategies. Delaying planning for social closure may cost companies money and incur reputational damage instead of leaving a lasting positive legacy encompassing sustainable post-mining opportunities for mining-affected communities. Within the South African context, the concept of social licence to operate is gaining traction and many companies are actively adopting policies and management practices to address this key requirement. Similarly, the value of involving communities in project planning and design to obtain a shared view on how the project will operate and close, and therefore impact on its stakeholders is gaining momentum. The benefits of co-production, a practical approach that can also assist in mitigating the negative social and environmental impacts of mine closure, has shown many benefits. These benefits include pride and a sense of ownership as well as the opportunity to develop tailored solutions that speaks specifically to each affected community. Co-production can lead to increased innovation and efficiency in the project design, operation and closure, not only with the affected community in mind, but also in collaboration with stakeholders. This process has shown to increase community satisfaction and introduce a greater sense of local ownership, which can be demonstrated by two practical examples discussed in this paper. While companies have an important role to play in contributing to a sustainable post-closure scenario, it is neither possible, nor their sole responsibility, to achieve it alone. It requires multi-stakeholder partnerships where risks, responsibilities and opportunities are shared. By acknowledging the contribution that communities can make in the sustainable operation and closure of mines, mining companies can use the concept of co-production to obtain greater acceptance or approval by local communities and stakeholders of their organisation and its operations, also known as their social licence to operate.

Social Considerations in Mine Closure: Exploring Policy and Practice in Nunavik, Quebec

“…Instead of being a source of economic decline, environmental degradation, and social disruption, well-planned mine closure can create opportunities for community growth, sustainability, and empowerment (Bainton & Holcombe, 2018;International Council on Mining & Metals, 2019;Keenan & Holcombe, 2021). Community-engaged closure planning creates opportunities to centre the needs and expertise of the people who will inherit the land that is left behind and opens up space for co-learning between the company and community (Edwards & Maritz, 2019;Hoadley & Limpitlaw, 2008;International Council on Mining & Metals, 2019;Veiga et al, 2001). Including more voices, grounding closure planning in the real context of where operations are taking place, and setting clear, explicit goals for mitigating negative socio-economic impacts are closure practices that bene t both mining companies and communities (Owen & Kemp, 2018).…”

A framework for developing social mine closure criteria

“…The current vacuum in proper social mine closure criteria and guidelines results in ad hoc and unplanned approaches. Research indicates that developing the capacity of the mine management and governments and communities is also a key challenge (Edwards & Maritz 2019;Owen & Kemp 2018). As Owen & Kemp (2018, p. 12) state: "The capacity of these stakeholders to maximise opportunities, carry responsibilities, or absorb externalised costs, often exist independently of the company's maturity cycle.…”

Planning for social and community-engaged closure: A comparison of mine closure plans from Canada's territorial and provincial North

“…Historically, closure and remediation entailed mainly the physical removal of infrastructure, filling of pits, and containment of hazardous wastes, typically neglecting to address the more complex and interconnected social, economic, and cultural impacts that closure can have on resource-dependent communities (Bainton and Holcombe, 2018;Beckett and Keeling, 2019;Laurence, 2006;Neil et al, 1992). Especially in remote regions, mine closure can cause direct and indirect negative impacts on local and regional industries as contracts end, travel to the region is reduced, and demand for goods and services decreases (Bowes-Lyon et al, 2009;Edwards and Maritz, 2019). Widespread loss of employment, investment, tax revenue, infrastructure, and services and population decline are also common experiences (Archer and Bradbury, 1992;Bradbury and St-Martin, 1983;Lapalme, 2003), resulting in social disruption and stress (Burns and Church, 2018;Edwards and Maritz, 2019;Kendall, 1992;McDonald et al, 2012;Roberts et al, 2000;Rodon and Lévesque, 2015).…”

“…Especially in remote regions, mine closure can cause direct and indirect negative impacts on local and regional industries as contracts end, travel to the region is reduced, and demand for goods and services decreases (Bowes-Lyon et al, 2009;Edwards and Maritz, 2019). Widespread loss of employment, investment, tax revenue, infrastructure, and services and population decline are also common experiences (Archer and Bradbury, 1992;Bradbury and St-Martin, 1983;Lapalme, 2003), resulting in social disruption and stress (Burns and Church, 2018;Edwards and Maritz, 2019;Kendall, 1992;McDonald et al, 2012;Roberts et al, 2000;Rodon and Lévesque, 2015). Furthermore, the benefits promised to local communities by new mine developments, like economic growth and diversification, often fail to meet expectations or last long after closure (Bowes-Lyon et al, 2009;Rodon and Lévesque, 2015;Sandlos and Keeling, 2012).…”

“…These guidelines acknowledge the critical importance of engaging early with affected communities in order to develop closure strategies that are effective and appropriate to particular social, cultural, and economic circumstances. If successful, community engagement can result in co-learning between parties, a centering of community needs, values, and concerns, a sense of community ownership and greater social acceptability of remediation plans, greater innovation in closure concepts, designs, and management plans based on diverse perspectives and expertise (Edwards and Maritz, 2019;Hoadley and Limpitlaw, 2008;Veiga et al, 2001). To realize these possibilities, though, community engagement must be carefully planned, executed early in the mine's development, and continue until relinquishment (International Council on Mining & Metals, 2019a).…”