Designing backwards for post-mining land use and post-mine closure economies introduces both challenges and opportunities. To execute this successfully, a strong working relationship with the stakeholders/rightsholders needs to be established in very early phases of project development. This relationship can be leveraged for early engagement on closure planning. If this relationship is strained or not fully established, or if there is opposition to the development, then discussions on closure will likely be ineffective.

Through the videos and readings, we also observed that post-mining land use preferences can evolve, and mining companies should be prepared for iterations / evolution of the post-mining land use throughout the development and operational phases. If desired configurations evolve considerably, companies need to be prepared to adapt as much as possible to these changes (i.e. cannot assume a concept is set in stone).

Designing backwards for post-mining economies creates opportunities for long-term evaluation of closure concepts, such as the review and adjustment of post closure designs based on trials (i.e. vegetation and covers).

Furthermore, active engagement on preferred final site configurations and uses from the forefront of planning can aid companies in establishing trust with these communities and create a long-lasting strong relationship and lines of communication for further discussion of concepts throughout the later phases of the mine life.

However, this presents an opportunity for local businesses to enter into the supplier market and provide innovative solutions that will reduce rehab costs. The acceleration of technological innovation may reduce the rehab cost over time including the potential to better maintain facilities (ie. tailings storage facilities) so that the overall rehab scope is reduced. As the mining company adopt many successful solutions over the life of the mine, any future mines to be developed would apply the best solutions effectively 'designing backwards' but leveraging the latest innovations.

“Designing backwards” for post-mining economies is very much a change in the traditional way we do mine design. Traditionally we design mines for optimal extraction and think about closure and what that looks like at the mines very end of life. What Caroline is suggesting is that we now design life of mine plans with closure first. We need to think of the mine and what it looks like upon closure; considering the environment, communities and economics thereof. It involves planning for the end use of mining sites from the very beginning, ensuring that they can be repurposed for sustainable and beneficial uses once mining activities cease.

Some challenges and opportunities associated with this approach are:

Challenges

1. Planning: This requires comprehensive planning and foresight, considering environmental, social, and economic factors from the outset. This may at times be very high level and sometimes not very practical as the mine and it surrounds change as mining continues.

2. Finance: The upfront investment in designing and implementing sustainable post-mining plans can be substantial. Often companies are not willing or may not have the capital outlay for such designing at inception.

3. Compliance to Regulation: Mining companies often find it difficult to nsteer through regulatory landscape and ensure compliance with environmental and land-use rules.

4. Stakeholder Engagement: Garnering the support and involvement of local communities and regulatory bodies is crucial but is often very challenging, primarily if there are differing interests and priorities from the various stakeholders.

Opportunities

1. Sustainable Development: This type of thinking promotes sustainable land use. It gives all stakeholders involved an opportunity to turn old mining sites into productive areas such as parks, renewable energy sites, agricultural land, small business centers, etc.

2. Diversification: By planning for alternative land uses, mine sites can diversify their economies early, reducing dependence on mining and fostering new industries.

3. Environmental Renewal: This design concept offers an opportunity to restore ecosystems and improve biodiversity, contributing to environmental conservation.

4. Community Upliftment: Properly repurposed sites can provide long-term benefits to local communities, such as recreational spaces, job opportunities, and improved infrastructure.

Overall, while “designing backwards” presents several challenges, the potential benefits for sustainable development and community well-being make it a promising strategy for post-mining economies

Challenges:

• Complex Planning: Necessitates extensive resources, expertise, and coordination.

• Financial Constraints: Difficult for companies, particularly smaller ones, to allocate sufficient funds upfront.

• Regulatory Hurdles: Aligning plans with evolving policies and standards is cumbersome.

• Community Engagement: Requires ongoing communication, trust-building, and addressing diverse needs.

Opportunities:

• Sustainable Development: Facilitates the creation of resilient communities and alternative industries.

  (Sullivan Mine): The transformation of the Sullivan Mine area in British Columbia into Sun Mine, a solar power plant, which repurposed the land and generated revenue for the community.

• Environmental Stewardship: Enhances environmental management and land restoration.

  (Bio-mining): The use of biomining techniques, which utilize microorganisms to extract metals from low-grade ores, reducing the need for conventional chemical processes and minimizing environmental impact.

• Enhanced Social License: Gains community support through clear, beneficial post-mining plans.

  (REWITTA): The REWITA project in Germany, which focused on remining and reprocessing tailings, successfully engaged the local community and gained their support.

• Innovation and Collaboration: Promotes new technologies and best practices through collaboration.

  (WEF Innovation): The World Economic Forum's open innovation challenge for mining, which brought together start-ups and universities to develop new technologies and best practices for the industry.

  
  

  From Sridhar Narayanan

Designing backwards means planning for the post-mining economy from the outset, rather than dealing with closure as an afterthought. This approach requires integrating long-term economic, environmental, and social sustainability into mine planning.

Challenges

1.     Uncertainty in Future Economic Viability

·       Predicting alternative economic activities decades in advance is difficult.

·       Market demand, technology, and local economic trends may shift unpredictably.

2.     Upfront Investment and Policy Commitment

·       Governments and companies must allocate financial and policy resources early, which can be difficult in competitive mining environments focused on short-term returns.

3.     Skills Transition and Workforce Development

·       Workers may need retraining for non-mining industries, but educational programs must align with future economic opportunities.

4. Infrastructure Repurposing

·       Mining infrastructure (e.g., roads, power plants, processing facilities) may not always be adaptable for new industries.

5. Environmental Rehabilitation

·       Post-mining land use must be carefully planned to ensure environmental restoration aligns with economic goals.

Opportunities

1. Sustainable Economic Diversification

·       Early planning can create a roadmap for industries like agriculture, tourism, renewable energy, and technology.

2. Community-Led Development

·       Empowering local communities to co-design the transition can lead to more sustainable, culturally relevant economic models.

3. Green Energy and Circular Economy

·       Mining infrastructure can be repurposed for renewable energy (e.g., solar farms, pumped hydro storage).

4. Policy Innovation and Global Leadership

·       New financial models, such as closure bonds and impact investing, can support long-term economic transition.

5. Tourism and Heritage Industries

·       Ecotourism can benefit from rehabilitated landscapes, creating long-term employment.

Designing backwards for post-mining economies offers a proactive, sustainable approach, but it requires strong governance, early investment, and community participation. By addressing challenges early, governments and companies can create resilient economies that thrive beyond mining.

When thinking of challenges to this I see:

• Approval hurdles - once additional stakeholders are brought into the planning phase, there will tend to be more complexity for the regulatory bodies to manage and review prior to approval.

• Planning challenges - Additional effort and skills are required to facilitate this earlier engagement, and then throughout the mine life - continuing to focus on the closure plan and what is required to achieve it (also influencing operations).

• Financial challenges - There is a fine balance between ideal future state (e.g. golf courses, stadiums, swimming pools etc.) and the minimum viable future state (e.g. functioning town). Additional requests from communities often add on a significant financial cost which can reduce the NPV of the project.

• Capability building - Linked to the planning and financial challenges, there will continually need to be focus from the miner on building community capability for the post closure world.

However in terms of opportunities:

• Sustainable development - This process gives all parties (government, communities and miners) a clear sustainable goal to work towards and reduces friction throughout the mine life).

• Promote progressive rehabilitation - I see this as an excellent method to promoting progressive rehab, as the operation execution teams will have clarity on # hectares, # tonnes etc. required to be remediated per period in order to achieve the clear post-mining goal. Often this piece of the puzzle is forgotten amongst the need to deliver $ and tonnes today.

• Improved social license - Gain community support from day one and have this body as your ally / decision making partner, instead of a perceived "road block".

Designing backward’s approach suggested the integration of the environment permits the closure plan as earlier as possible in the project design phase. This is, as well an opportunity to include and think at the start of the process the future of the mine and its operation model, methodology and technology to be used by integrating all environments rehabilitation and socio-economic components. This is the case for QMM, when site rehabilitation and restauration performance and criteria (type of rehabilitation as fast-growing species, wetland restauration, ecological restauration) is included in the PGEP (Plan de Gestion Environnemental du project) which is the regulatory document managing QMM operation. The benefits are that closure rehabilitation and restauration obligation is part of the regulatory monitoring and follow-up with the regulator with appropriate budget to meet annual target.

On other hand, introducing it earlier in the process may have some challenges. The conceptual closure plan could not cover all hidden face of iceberg, some unknown aspects that could affect the Projets and subjects of review, update and adjustment as. The technology evolution in matter of environment monitoring and analysis needs to be taken in consideration in addition of the climate change aspect.

On community and social performance aspect, it brings an earlier stakeholders engagements aspect and have value in the process. The integration of various stakeholders interested in closure open some door on the socio-economic transition activities/thinking and anticipate the future needs of the community once the mine will be closed and allow the business as well to be prepared on these aspects technically and financially to invest on the most valuable needs (training, livelihoods…).

For that the involvement and earlier stakeholders’ engagement is keys including government and specifics stakeholders an indigenous people….to think about hos structure to put in place. Successful earlier engagement/involvement of the community earlier/put in place a good and sustainable structure to talk about Post mine economy.

However, closure a taboo subject in a development phase and may bring confusion if specific communication and engagement is missing. We can talk as well about community resistance where the Mine have a bad reputation to pollute. The other challenge is the way to manage expectation depending on the life of the projects. The need/expectation of community in 1980 may not be the same in 2040 and that why the conceptual closure plan should be updated by taking consideration of needs and expectation of moment and community).

• Community relationships may already be strained and as companies move to redefine their mine closure plan, they may face resistant.

• The effects of climate change on the mine closure plan may not be fully understood and issues overlooked during designing backwards.

• Inflation may affect budgeted closure costs that were not predicted during planning.

• Workforce upskilling or training responsibilities seem to be a large-scale endeavor that is difficult to predict.

As the life of the mine exhibits significant change, the closure plan must be reviewed and refined to align with the changing needs. Adaptative management will play a huge role in the success execution of a closure plan.

With the high level plan in place, many items can be monitored during the operation of the mine such as

• rehabilitation efforts

• water quality and monitoring

• facility repurposing

• community impacts

With items like continuous rehabilitation of the land, it also gives the closure team opportunities to look at areas of improvement, new technologies, weed and vegetation studies, involving local businesses and schools to support and be positively impacted also.

The ESG realm of mine closure is so important to ensure the collaboration with governments, and the community, sharing the successes and positive impacts looking into the future. With out having success stories to share with everyone, local and world wide, describing how mine closures can be such a positive impact to economics, communities, government, environment, and our future, it would only be another tale.

It is exciting to be a part of a team that can bring such a large impact to so many different areas of life.

Some of the challenges are:

·       Changes in expectations over time

·       Uncertainty at the start of mining and the knowledge to support closure outcomes evolving over time – changing the strategy

The opportunity is to co-design mines and work in partnerships with community, such as the example I gave. This ensures expectations and changing knowledge base are continuously understood.

She rightfully states that:”Mining companies have a very paternalistic approach to mine closure and that they act as if they know more than local communities on how the life after mining should look like”. The concept, “designing backwards” entails designing the mine with its end in mind and having a much clearer idea on what the life after the mine should look like from a social, local communities perspective.

This concepts rises some challenges:

Regulatory perspective: the legal requirements, discharge limits for closing criteria may differ from the ones existing at the beginning of the mine. The Life of a mine often last decades.

Miss alignment with future objectives; In many cases; local communities benefit and prosper thanks to the nearby mining activities. They become economically dependent; hence they can lose objectivity, and their demands might not be realistic. A bit like the article on the Implications of mine closure on the community of Grand Cache (Module 1A).

Climate changes the future natural variation of weather patterns, temperature or meteorological characteristics might be very different (tidal changes, rain, snow falls etc, some key features can be exacerbated, thus creating threats that were inexistent in the earlier stages.

However, the opportunities of a better integration of nearby communities and embedding these during design outweighs the challenges in many aspects; It ensures a “Just Transition” as people and locals will have more time to adapt and acquire other skills than those required for mining.

Closure becomes something that is much more than only minimizing long-term liability. (Alexandra Duguay)

I have noted three challenges and three opportunities to the backwards closure planning approach.

Challenges:

·       Primarily my thoughts are that predicting the exact conditions and requirements at the end of the mine's life can be difficult and this can all be impacted by fluctuations in the market, and technological updates.

·       Obtaining environmental approvals is essential to facilitate the closure process. However, the regulatory landscape is dynamic and subject to frequent changes. The specific approvals required, such as those under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, the Mining Act 1978, and the Rights in Water Act 1914, may evolve over the lifespan of the mine. This evolution can lead to discrepancies between the initial and final regulatory requirements, potentially causing time delays and increased costs.

·       Initial costs would be rather large and therefore put financial burden on the company. Particularly for smaller scale mines/mine companies.

On the other hand, I see there are opportunities:

·       If we adopt backwards planning for mine closure, it will require early consultation with the community. Involving the community from the inception of the mining project ensures they are informed about the operation. This approach guarantees that their needs and expectations are incorporated into the closure plan, resulting in more sustainable outcomes. Engaging the community early fosters their support and cooperation, thereby mitigating potential issues at the project’s conclusion. I find it both interesting and highly beneficial that the ‘social dimensions’ of mining practices are receiving significantly more attention.

·       Backwards planning will see continuous rehabilitation of the land throughout the mining process. Instead of deferring all rehabilitation activities until the mine is fully depleted, this approach ensures that land restoration occurs concurrently with mining operations. This ultimately minimises environmental impact.

·       Whilst the initial costs associated with backwards mine closure planning may be substantial, this approach can lead to significant long-term savings. By integrating continuous rehabilitation efforts throughout the mining process, companies can effectively utilize existing staff and materials already onsite. This not only spreads the financial burden over the life of the mine but also reduces the need for additional resources and labor at the end of the project

Ultimately, I believe the benefits outweigh the challenges.

Challenges: Mining companies can be conservative to engage local communities too early as it may look like another red tape to further slowdown obtaining social license. Another challenge is often challenging to engage people and local communities for a very long-term horizon planning beyond Life of Mine (30yrs or 4yrs horizon) where majority of young people will be focused on shorter horizons.

Opportunity lies where rehabilitation can occur continuously side by side of the mining activities (not always possible, that is another challenge itself), where different sets of skills are developed for sustainable mining and closure. Local communities would feel a better sense of belongings.

Another challenge might be the actual feasibility of transitioning to alternative industries. While ideas like tourism/eco-tourism, agriculture, or renewable energy are often proposed as post-mining economic solutions, not every mining region well suited for these... Remote locations or areas with a lack of infrastructure could limit economic diversification. Additionally, local economies could become heavily dependent on mining-related jobs and revenue, making the transition away from mining even more difficult. Successful planning requires long-term investment that is probably easier said than done.
 

For opportunities I think that designing backwards presents a major opportunity for mining companies to integrate long-term sustainability into their business. By planning for closure early, companies can work with governments, local communities, and other stakeholders to develop solutions that are realistic and beneficial for all parties involved. This should obviously not only be reliant on the mining company but also require robust and engaged communities and regulators. . A closure plan can help soften the economic downturns that follow a boom and bust economy- though I don't know if that is a realistic goal, I think, to replace the mining economy fully.

When opening a new mine, there is the recognition that the operation will enhance the economy locally, without significant contemplation of the economy's condition post-mining. I think early engagement in the community and stakeholder sphere allows those benefiting from the mine's operations to engage with the mine as a partner rather than a benefactor, and enables the operator to be more in-tune with social expectations and concerns. Similar to concepts of inter-disciplinary communication discussed with Rob Stevens, I think there needs to be some education of communities from the mine on what post-closure plans are feasible given the unique post-mining challenges they face. With continuous conversation and planning around mine closure there is an opportunity for communities to buy-in on the future of their economy and the land, and work with the mine to actualize their expectations.

One challenge I see in is how the "designing backwards" approach will be driven, and how mines can use this approach with some confirmation that relinquishment is attainable. Under a mine's social license to operate, there are suggestions towards this approach with concurrent reclamation but no clear policy or incentivization towards employing it. I think it will be interesting to see how we might change from a historical "mine now, clean up later" mindset into using best practices for the environment and communities.

Mine closure should be seen as a key stage in the mining lifecycle, yet this is still a relatively new concept in modern history. Many operations treat closure planning as a conceptual exercise rather than an evolving, practical strategy. Over the life of a mine, circumstances will change—whether due to economic shifts, environmental factors, or community needs—so the closure plan and final objective must remain flexible. Continuous rehabilitation throughout the mine’s life can prevent the challenge of doing it all at the end.

One of the key benefits of designing backwards is that it allows for a clearer vision of what the area could become post-mining. However, if this process is controlled entirely by the mining company, the outcome may not always align with what’s best for the local community. Engaging with the community early is critical—who understands the needs of a region better than the people who live there? (as per interview with Catherine Rockandel) If trust is built from the outset through genuine collaboration, the chances of achieving the right outcome increase significantly.

Regulatory requirements are often the main driver behind mine closure, but until all mining companies truly take ownership of rehabilitation, uncertainty and distrust will persist. The financial cost—especially for smaller mining companies—remains a major challenge, as does the need to remediate historical mines that were left in poor condition before stricter regulations were in place.

That said, there is a huge opportunity to rethink mine closure in a way that benefits the region long-term, as more stakeholders better understand this concept. Instead of simply flattening everything and returning the land to nature, why not explore ways to integrate new industries? Green energy solutions, for example, could make use of existing infrastructure rather than demolishing it. (I’m an advocate of re-purposing as much as we can rather than send to waste.) Of course, the feasibility of this depends on the location and the needs of nearby communities.

Ultimately, the mining industry needs a shift in mindset. Mine closure shouldn’t be viewed as just an environmental responsibility—it should be seen as an investment in the future of the region. If done correctly, designing backwards could assist to transform mine closure from what is just seen as a costly obligation into an opportunity for long-term community, economic and environmental sustainability.

Working backwards – most mine ventures are long-term in nature.  Changes in technology, regulations, mine plans, socio-economic pressures, and climate change all have direct impacts on the viability of a successful operation going into closure and have a lot of inherent challenges.  While there are very smart people that can tell us where trends are heading there is no guarantee that what is planned today will be true in 5, 10, 20, or even 100 years.  I’m not saying disregard closure however I do believe being realistic in what can be accomplished and when should be heavily weighted.  Progressive planning tied to studies that consider emerging trends needs to be continually addressed and modified in a closure strategy.  I’m a big proponent of progressive closure as it shows all stakeholders that the business has an interest in being a responsible miner.  It also helps set a precedent for future work.  It doesn’t guarantee future requirements, but it does provide a track record to refer to.  Acid generation was also a big topic in the video.  It is present in a lot of mines and presents probably the biggest long-term risk in a closure scenario.  One the real challenges with closure strategies are when the conflict with the business strategy.  Choosing when to pull what grade of material may have direct impacts on the financial viability of mine plan and be in direct conflict the lowest risk closure scenario.  It’s important to consider what the trade-off is and be willing to constantly challenge the pros and cons of each decision.

Changing to a stakeholder led closure strategy –

I think the success of a closure program absolutely requires the input of all stakeholders involved or impacted by a mine closure.  I do not agree that it should be led by outside parties (government, NGO’s, local communities, etc.), however.  It would lead to many decisions that are informed by sentiment rather than science based facts, being financially acceptable, or long-term viability.  The transition into closure will bring a lot of emotion and sentiment.  A company can help provide direction and opportunities to ease the transition.  In fact, re-training a workforce could help provide for the future stage of post-mine life activities.  It must be done in a way that the business can support and maintain.  That will mean that some of the expectations of outside stakeholders will have to be addressed as ‘heard but not acceptable’ due to business requirements.  People are resistant to change and what will make a closure scenario successful is being honest, up-front, and consistent in the approach.  It will require patience, being willing to compromise, and adjust to changes on all sides.

Designing backwards is an interesting concept but it is new to me and makes perfect sense. A Mine closure plan that is completed in mine planning is very high level and conceptual. With mines that have longevity it is hard to know exactly what will happen especially social changes that occur around the like of the mine. Designing backwards allows for the planning, the thinking and the end game to be developed by all key stakeholders of the mine. It definitely means a lot more time is needed to plan for this as well as financial support. As operations commence so does mine closuer activities such as rehabilitation, economic drivers post mine closure, upskilling of the people who work in the mine. The mine closure plan can never be a static document, it needs to be a live document, that is flexible and changes over time. No one ever has all the answers at the beginning.

The key to success is flexibility and ensuring that mine closure plans remain dynamic and responsive to evolving conditions over the life of the mine.

I refer mostly to countries where governments are unstable and see the challenges of 'designing backwards' in those spaces as tenuous but not unfeasible altogether. I feel that mining companies have a responsibility to ensure that communities and governments are adequately educated and informed about the benefits of this type of planning.

To me it sounds like an almost unsurmountable task to accomplish, especially when incorporating input from local communities and would anticipate a delay in getting mine plans approved and production to commence.

However, having in mind that license to operate is required for operators to be present and extract resources, it is absolutely necessary to consult and value the input from local communities.

When adopting the designing backwards mindset, it is absolutely required to keep in mind that the land is relinquished for resource extraction just temporarily and needs to be returned to the landowners in a state that will deliver value and benefits to the community. I believe that once local communities have experience, even if it is just the prospect, of economic growth through the exploitation of their land, it shall be sought after to identify value re-generation opportunities for operators not to contribute to dissipation of local communities due to lack of sustainable employment opportunities.

1. Regulatory Compliance: Complex and costly to comply with. Harder if mine ownership has changed through the mine life span.

2. Financial Costs associated with rehabilitation, monitoring, and long-term maintenance. Who covers these in illegal mines and when mine ownership has changed hands?

3. Technical Complexity: There is a skills shortage, finding the right technical people to help design effective closure plans.

4. Stakeholder Engagement: Engaging with the relevant local communities, including Indigenous groups. This is challenging in tribal areas, are we engaging with the correct groups? Changes in leadership with community groups, then have different expectations.

Opportunities:

1. Innovative Technologies: Using drones and AI to help reduce costs associated with monitoring.

2. Sustainable Practices: Reduce a companies liability associated with closure. Reduced environmental impact.

3. Socioeconomic benefits – different land uses post mining to benefit local communities, such as renewables, tourism ie Eden project.

Potentially we treat planning the post-mining economy similarly to how Caroline discusses remediation – when the end landscape is unclear, have a plan but be open to reviewing it progressively over time.

Some of the opportunities this presents heavily involve the community. Considering closure first emphasizes how closing the mine will affect the community, ensuring early consultation. This allows the community to have input from the beginning, building trust and relationships between the mining company and relevant stakeholders. The community will also be able to provide insights into how they could use the closed mine to assist with closure planning, such as what infrastructure could be repurposed or what space could be utilised.

Challenges of the ‘designing backwards’ approach include financial implications ie Who pays for the ongoing costs of maintaining the re-use of the mine? Another challenge includes environmental considerations/consequences: Having a closure plan with environmental considerations is great, but in some cases, the effects of closure can be perpetual. After the mine is closed, who is responsible if there are additional environmental concerns like acid mine drainage or water management issues?