Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:30:16.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Submit content

Help address this Question with your content Submit Content

What is the experience with governance models that manage and engage diverse stakeholders through a closure transition?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2023

Arn Keeling ,
Rebecca Hall  and
Sarah Holcombe
Arn Keeling*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada
Rebecca Hall
Affiliation:
Department of Global Development Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
Sarah Holcombe
Affiliation:
Sustainable Minerals Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Arn Keeling; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Traditionally understood in technical, environmental and (to a lesser extent) socio-economic terms, mine closure and transition is increasingly recognized as a significant governance challenge. Governance, in this context, refers not merely to the legal aspects of mine reclamation or closure regulation but rather the broader suite of actors, institutions, processes, methods, rules and practices that guide and oversee mine site transitions. Governance structures, interactions and practices are shaped by power relations as well as reflecting embedded norms and values. Since the 1980s, mine closure governance has expanded from a preoccupation by industry and governments with hazard mitigation, environmental reclamation and, in some cases, economic and social ‘adjustment,’ to encompass a wider set of social, economic and environmental aspects of closure (Kendall 1992; Laurence 2006). These issues may affect workers, local and regional development agencies, Indigenous rightsholders, fenceline communities and environmental advocates, among others (Bainton and Holcombe 2018; Everingham et al. 2020). This broad range of actors and issues, in turn, has generated reactions and responses from individual companies, industry associations and governments at all levels seeking to mitigate closure and transition impacts (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2016; Owen and Kemp 2018; Hodge and Brehaut 2023).

Type
Question
Information
Research Directions: Mine Closure and Transitions , Volume 1 , 2024 , e2
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Context

Traditionally understood in technical, environmental and (to a lesser extent) socio-economic terms, mine closure and transition is increasingly recognized as a significant governance challenge. Governance, in this context, refers not merely to the legal aspects of mine reclamation or closure regulation but rather the broader suite of actors, institutions, processes, methods, rules and practices that guide and oversee mine site transitions. Governance structures, interactions and practices are shaped by power relations as well as reflecting embedded norms and values. Since the 1980s, mine closure governance has expanded from a preoccupation by industry and governments with hazard mitigation, environmental reclamation and, in some cases, economic and social ‘adjustment,’ to encompass a wider set of social, economic and environmental aspects of closure (Kendall Reference Kendall, Neil, Tykkalainen and Bradbury1992; Laurence Reference Laurence2006). These issues may affect workers, local and regional development agencies, Indigenous rightsholders, fenceline communities and environmental advocates, among others (Bainton and Holcombe Reference Bainton and Holcombe2018; Everingham et al. Reference Everingham, Svobodova, Mackenzie and Witt2020). This broad range of actors and issues, in turn, has generated reactions and responses from individual companies, industry associations and governments at all levels seeking to mitigate closure and transition impacts (Morrison-Saunders et al. Reference Morrison-Saunders, McHenry, Rita Sequeira, Gorey, Mtegha and Doepel2016; Owen and Kemp Reference Owen and Kemp2018; Hodge and Brehaut Reference Hodge and Brehaut2023).

Meeting the challenges of mine site transition requires new forms of interaction and governance processes, some of which may be incorporated into formal requirements (such as impact assessment, regulatory compliance or negotiated agreements) (Kabir Reference Kabir2021; Getty and Morrison-Saunders Reference Getty and Morrison-Saunders2020), and others which remain in the realm of semi-formal and site-specific processes (such as industry standards, community/stakeholder engagement, regional planning initiatives or even co-governance arrangements) (Monosky and Keeling Reference Monosky and Keeling2021a; ICMM 2019; Xavier et al. Reference Xavier, Veiga and Zyl2015; MAC 2008). The timelines and mechanisms surrounding closure governance also present confounding factors, including the long-term impacts of social dislocation and questions of adequately funding and managing long-term liabilities associated with environmental reclamation (Mills Reference Mills2022; Aghakazemjourabbaf and Insley Reference Aghakazemjourabbaf and Insley2021; Keenan and Holcombe Reference Keenan and Holcombe2021).

In the end, the success or failure of closure governance has implications not only for the communities and landscapes planning for or experiencing closure but also for the wider question of mining’s social acceptability and the industry’s claims to foster “sustainable development.” For local Indigenous communities, inheritors of post-mining landscapes, closure governance intersects with broader questions of Indigenous land rights, self-determination, and social and economic reclamation (Hall and Pryce Reference Hall and Pryce2023; Hall and Ascough Reference Hall and Ascough2023; Boulot and Collins Reference Boulot and Collins2023; O’Faircheallaigh and Lawrence Reference O’Faircheallaigh and Lawrence2019; Monosky and Keeling Reference Monosky and Keeling2021b; Beckett and Keeling Reference Beckett and Keeling2019; Barnes et al. Reference Barnes, Holcombe and Parmenter2020; Cohen Reference Cohen2017). Yet, this stage of a mine’s life presents financial and resource constraints as production rates decline, meaning there may be unfulfilled socio-economic development expectations and increased complexity around legacy issues.

Despite a recent surge in research interest relating to mine closure governance, many questions remain about how to optimize mine closure to ensure just and sustainable closure and reclamation outcomes. Addressing these challenges requires attention to the vast differences in regulatory, social and economic contexts across the global industry. This geographical diversity resists easy generalization of examples or prescriptions for “best practices” for mine closure governance. Nevertheless, there is much to learn from past and ongoing examples of mine closure and reclamation activities to inform governance arrangements now and in the future. In this spirit, we are inviting the submission of case studies, tools and analysis from any relevant mine closure context that addresses aspects of the central question above, as well as submissions providing insight into governance challenges and processes more generally. The following are some relevant themes and questions to consider:

  • What are the most important or effective governance mechanisms (voluntary or regulatory; formal or informal) for mine closure and transition?

  • What are the key challenges in engaging stakeholders/rightsholders in closure governance?

  • What are the main risks associated with the failure of governance and engagement around closure?

  • How should closure governance processes adapt and change over the life of the mine and beyond the transition phase?

  • What are some notable success stories/cautionary tales of mine closure and transition planning and governance?

How to contribute to this question

If you believe you can contribute to answering this question with your research outputs, find out how to submit in the Instructions for authors. This journal publishes results, analyses, impact papers and additional content such as preprints and “grey literature”. Questions will be closed when the editors agree that enough has been published to answer the question so before submitting, check if this is still an active question. If it is closed, another relevant question may be currently open, so do review all the open questions in your field. For any further queries check the information pages or contact this email .

Competing interests

None.

References

Aghakazemjourabbaf, S and Insley, M (2021) Leaving your tailings behind: Environmental bonds, bankruptcy and waste cleanup. Resource and Energy Economics 65, 101246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bainton, N and Holcombe, S (2018) A critical review of the social aspects of mine closure. Resources Policy 59, 468–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R, Holcombe, S and Parmenter, J (2020) Indigenous Groups, Land Rehabilitation and Mine Closure: Exploring the Australian Terrain. Brisbane, Australia: Sustainable Minerals Institute.Google Scholar
Beckett, C and Keeling, A (2019) Rethinking remediation: Mine reclamation, environmental justice, and relations of care. Local Environment 24, 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulot, E and Collins, B (2023) Regulating mine rehabilitation and closure on indigenous held lands: Insights from the regulated resource states of Australia and Canada. International Development Policy | Revue internationale de politique de développement 16, 5319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, T (2017) Bringing country back? In Jalbert K, Willow K, Casgrande D and Paladino S, (eds.), ExtrACTION: Impacts, Engagements, and Alternative Futures. London: Routledge, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everingham, J-A, Svobodova, K, Mackenzie, S and Witt, K (2020) Participatory Processes, Mine Closure and Social Transitions. Brisbane, Australia: Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining.Google Scholar
Getty, R and Morrison-Saunders, A (2020) Evaluating the effectiveness of integrating the environmental impact assessment and mine closure planning processes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82, 106366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R and Ascough, H (2023) Care through closure: Mine transitions in the mixed economy of the Northwest Territories, Canada. Gender, Place & Culture 30, 1415–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R and Pryce, B (2023) Colonial continuities in closure: Indigenous mine labour and the Canadian State. Antipode. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12968.Google Scholar
Hodge, RA and Brehaut, H (2023) Towards a positive legacy: Key questions to assess the adequacy of mine closure and post-closure. Mineral Economics 36, 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Council on Mining and Minerals (ICMM) (2019) Integrated Mine Closure: Good Practice Guide, 2nd ed. ICMM.Google Scholar
Kabir, SMZ, Rabbi, F and Chowdhury, MB (2015) Mine closure planning and practice in Canada and Australia: A comparative review. World Review of Business Research 5, 1–22.Google Scholar
Kabir, Z (2021) The role of social impact assessment (SIA) in the development of a mine closure plan in regional Australia. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 23, 2250015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, J and Holcombe, S (2021) Mining as a temporary land use: A global stocktake of post-mining transitions and repurposing. The Extractive Industries and Society 8, 100924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, G (1992) Mine Closures and Worker Adjustment: The Case of Pine Point. In Neil, C Tykkalainen, M and Bradbury, J (eds.), Coping with Closure: An International Comparison of Mine Town Experiences. London: Routledge, 131–150.Google Scholar
Laurence, D (2006) Optimisation of the mine closure process. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, LN (2022) Getting closure? Mining rehabilitation reform in Queensland and Western Australia. The Extractive Industries and Society 11, 101097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mining Association of Canada (MAC) (2008) Towards Sustainable Mining Mine Closure Framework Mine Closure. https://mining.ca/resources/guides-manuals/tsm-mine-closure-framework/.Google Scholar
Monosky, M and Keeling, A (2021a) Planning for social and community-engaged closure: A comparison of mine closure plans from Canada’s territorial and provincial North. Journal of Environmental Management 277, 111324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monosky, M and Keeling, A (2021b) Social considerations in mine closure: Exploring policy and practice in Nunavik, Quebec. The Northern Review 52, 29–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison-Saunders, A, McHenry, MP, Rita Sequeira, A, Gorey, P, Mtegha, H, Doepel, D (2016) Integrating mine closure planning with environmental impact assessment: Challenges and opportunities drawn from African and Australian practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 34, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Faircheallaigh, C and Lawrence, R (2019) Mine closure and the Aboriginal estate. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1, 65–82.Google Scholar
Owen, J and Kemp, D (2018) Mine Closure and Social Performance. Brisbane, Australia: Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute.Google Scholar
Xavier, A, Veiga, MM and Zyl, DV (2015) Introduction and assessment of a socio-economic mine closure framework. Journal of Management and Sustainability 5, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar