Rehabilitation and mine closure policies creating a pathway to relinquishment: an Australian perspective

Abstract

Mine closure practices have continued to improve over the last few decades; however, across the industry rehabilitation outcomes continue to fall short of community expectations. While examples of successful rehabilitation exist, there are still limited examples of mines closing, relinquishing, and transitioning to another land use. Barriers to relinquishment such as residual risk, land transfer liability, and limited next land use options are compounded by the lack of legislated mine relinquishment policy. Broader mine closure policy has evolved significantly over the last few decades in Australia, with recent changes in some states enhancing mandates requiring progressive rehabilitation and financial assurance mechanisms in an effort to continue to improve mine closure outcomes. Government authorities with legislative powers to report and influence rehabilitation activities in Queensland and Victoria are also considered a positive mine closure policy direction. Despite these recent legislative developments there is still no multi-agency regulatory policy framework integrating mine closure and relinquishment in any Australian jurisdiction. This article explores how recent mine closure policy changes in Australia could be used by policy makers to enable relinquishment in the future and provides recommendations for an integrated multi-agency relinquishment policy framework.

Who is responsible for the residual risk and how can it be shared or transferred to optimise post mine outcomes?

“…Even the most successfully closed mine sites have residual risk and liability. This risk needs to be assessed, accepted, and managed by governments, industry, and stakeholders for relinquishment to be a reality (Tiemann et al 2022). A miner must not only be able to identify the liability with an acceptable level of certainty, but they must also assess the ongoing risks that this liability poses in some form of quantifiable way so that a management plan can be developed, and an offset (e.g., funding mechanism or payment) can be determined that covers the management and cost of this residual risk into the future (Queensland Government, 2020).…”

Re-thinking our model of mine rehabilitation and closure—is it time for a new model of mined lands stewardship?

“…Anglo American (2019 p.3) Many jurisdictions have developed statutes and guidelines requiring mining companies to prepare progressive rehabilitation and mine closure plans (e.g. Faizuldayeva, 2016;Kabir et al, 2015;Morrison-Saunders et al, 2016;Tiemann et al, 2022). The World Bank (2021 p.5) recommends all countries with mining activities require closure plans.…”

“…The Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (MR Act) provides the head of power for the establishment of the Victorian Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority (MLRA). Similar to many jurisdictions, the Act requires 'declared' mines to prepare plans outlining a progressive rehabilitation schedule and a postclosure plan, which will remain in place despite any change in title (Tiemann et al, 2022).…”

Advances in mining restoration

“…Mine closure practices have improved over time through implementation of rehabilitation and restoration activities by the mining industry, supported by research institutions. While examples of successful rehabilitation exist, there are still limited examples of mines closing and transiting to another, acceptable land use with many mines that have exhausted their resource being held in “care and maintenance.” Tiemann et al (2022) detail recent mine closure policy changes in Australia that could enable relinquishment in the future and explores other environmental and climate policy drivers that could further support improved mine closure and next land use outcomes for the minerals sector.…”