I wasn't aware at all of the causes and effects of illegal mining before until this video. A quick search online reveals deeper social and economic issues such as unemployment, poverty and lack of education and opportunities and modern slavery issues are associated with or linked to illegal mining.

1. Promotion of long-term economic resiliences: encourages planning of local economies beyond the life of the mine

2. Strengthening community: understand the needs and wants of local stakeholders in early engagement for future land use and build social license and trust

3. Purpose-driven rehabilitation: enables closure strategies that support future land use and reduce environmental liability

Challenges

1. Uncertainty around future needs: hard to plan and predict economic, environmental and social conditions so far into the future; the plan can be misaligned

2. High upfront investment and cost

3. Complexity in coordination with vast stakeholders: conflicting priorities may create friction

1. The median life expectancy for a mining site (Copper for example) is around 30 - 40 years. It can be a business providing job security for 2 generations in the area. It's quite tough to shift gears after years of practice for locals. Old habits die hard.

2. To secure a group of people who are able to continuously engage in the planning to add on value is only easy on the book.

Opportunities:

1. A new perspective can be provided to the locals and sparks new hope for the community that there's more than mining for the area. It may attract newcomers to revive the community.

2. The community will have more chances to expose to new terms, tools and skills if it is willing to go through the change phase.

Illegal mining activities can also reduce abilities to close the mine, particularly in jurisdiction with maybe less regulations than countries such as the US or AUSTRALIA.

Opportunities is that Mining companies are now realizing about the importance of closure activities, and are thinking about closure requirements even before the Mine plan is produce. In fact, Reviewing, updating, refining the mine closure plan throughout the course of life of mine is necessary to reshape the mine plan or readjust.

Mining companies are becoming more open about involving communities and other third party (government, regulatory bodies) for consultation in their review of the closure plan to ensure it is a success and widely adopted.

Closing a high-grade mine involves complex considerations that extend far beyond simply stopping extraction. The concept of “designing backwards” — planning the post-mining future from the start — is a forward-thinking strategy aimed at ensuring long-term sustainability for communities and ecosystems once mining operations cease.

Key Points in Closing a Mine:

1. Environmental Rehabilitation: Restoring land, water, and ecosystems to a stable and productive state.

2. Community Transition: Supporting communities economically and socially as they shift away from mining dependence.

3. Economic Diversification: Developing industries and opportunities that can sustain the local economy post-mining.

4. Infrastructure Repurposing: Reusing roads, power lines, buildings, and water systems for new economic activities.

5. Governance and Planning: Ensuring policies and institutions are in place to guide closure and transition.

6. Stakeholder Engagement: Involving local communities, governments, and other stakeholders in decision-making.

“Designing Backwards”

This approach means integrating closure and transition goals from the start of mine development, not just as an afterthought. The mine is designed with its end in mind — what the land, economy, and society will look like post-closure.

Opportunities:

• Stronger Community Resilience: Early planning allows communities to build skills and diversify early, leading to a smoother transition.

• Cost Savings Long-Term: Integrated planning reduces the costs of last-minute remediation and avoids liabilities.

• Regulatory and Social License Benefits: Demonstrating foresight builds trust with regulators and the public.

• Innovation in Land Use: Creative reuse of mining sites (e.g., for renewable energy, tourism, agriculture, or education) can open new economic doors.

Challenges:

• Uncertainty in Future Economies: It’s hard to predict what will be viable decades ahead, especially in remote areas.

• Upfront Investment: Requires additional capital and planning in early project stages, which may face resistance from investors.

• Coordination Complexity: Aligning mining timelines with community development and infrastructure repurposing can be difficult.

• Changing Stakeholders and Leadership: Long project timelines mean that initial closure visions may be lost or altered over time.

Conclusion:

"Designing backwards" for post-mining economies is not just a sustainability concept—it’s a necessity in modern mining. While it presents logistical and economic challenges, the long-term social and environmental benefits make it a compelling strategy. The opportunity lies in transforming a finite extractive endeavor into a foundation for enduring prosperity.

Firstly, encouraging participation to conceive what the future may look like, or needs to look like, is very difficult at the start of mining. Communities are usually focussed on extracting benefits from the mine, while mines are usually focussed on production and securing returns against their investment.

Secondly, coordination of this would need to sit with government, as communities lack capability and mining companies lack expertise – it’s not their role. This would require significant resources and, given it is quite a step away from current practice, is unlikely to be successful.

Finally, expectations change over time. While a single vision may be good, it’s not unusual for community aspirations to change over time. Similarly government aspirations also change. This could corner a community into a single option only which may, over time, be detrimental.

On the other hand, the benefit for communities would be immense. Ultimately closure (and relinquishment) relies on a tripartite agreement between the company, community and government. Setting expectations early would provide a much better outcome for all.

“Designing Backwards” :

This approach means integrating closure and transition goals from the start of mine development, not just as an afterthought. The mine is designed with its end in mind — what the land, economy, and society will look like post-closure.

Opportunities:

• Stronger Community Resilience: Early planning allows communities to build skills and diversify early, leading to a smoother transition.

• Cost Savings Long-Term: Integrated planning reduces the costs of last-minute remediation and avoids liabilities.

• Regulatory and Social License Benefits: Demonstrating foresight builds trust with regulators and the public.

• Innovation in Land Use: Creative reuse of mining sites (e.g., for renewable energy, tourism, agriculture, or education) can open new economic doors.

Challenges:

• Uncertainty in Future Economies: It’s hard to predict what will be viable decades ahead, especially in remote areas.

• Upfront Investment: Requires additional capital and planning in early project stages, which may face resistance from investors.

• Coordination Complexity: Aligning mining timelines with community development and infrastructure repurposing can be difficult.

• Changing Stakeholders and Leadership: Long project timelines mean that initial closure visions may be lost or altered over time.

Conclusion:

"Designing backwards" for post-mining economies is not just a sustainability concept—it’s a necessity in modern mining. While it presents logistical and economic challenges, the long-term social and environmental benefits make it a compelling strategy. The opportunity lies in transforming a finite extractive endeavor into a foundation for enduring prosperity.

A post-mining economy will depend on factors such as how many mines there are in the region (ie will opportunities and benefits from mining be available over the life of a number of mines, or just one? And how long is the life of mine or combination of mines? The location of the mine in terms of the proximity and potential for other economic opportunities etc. Also, design technologies and options for post closure rehab etc are evolving and improving so what may be recommended / or even best practice now, won’t be in the future.

In summary, opportunities with a “designing backwards approach” are being able to have time to consider options for all facets of mine closure planning (economic opportunities for the local community, as well as social and environmental considerations). Also, early engagement with local community could help to reduce fear and uncertainty in people for what will happen post-mining and also help give the community agency over what does happen. Challenges include, the economic opportunities likely depend on the life of mine, community sentiment for post-closure community may change, technology and design options etc are ever evolving and improving and different options become available etc. I think the best option is to have a “design backwards” approach with a commitment to continual stakeholder consultation and review and refinement of the approach.

One of the difficulties would be all of the unknowns and subsequent assumptions that need to be made relating to the mine operation timeframes, economy, landscape, budget, and even trying to get agreement on what the end goal should look like post mining. The way to manage this is related to the ongoing review and update of the Closure Plan as mentioned in the video, including continuous engagement with the community and other relevant stakeholders who might have views on how the land and infrastructure should be managed.