Caroline further focused on avoiding community ‘dependency mode’ identifying that towns and communities rely so heavily on a mine for jobs and services that they collapse when it closes. Caroline argues closure should instead support new skills, infrastructure, and economic opportunities so communities can stand independently. This of course is changing the view (or adding to) the closure process.  The closure process is now more than just a technical process it is also a social and economic transition.  The concept of ‘designing backwards’ incorporated these points.  This is done by imagining what a thriving post-mining economy and landscape should look like, and then for companies to shape today’s decisions (and continue update) to achieve that vision.  The aim is to leave a genuine legacy beyond mining.

"Designing backwards" presents challenges such as resistance from mining companies to invest in long-term planning, uncertainty around future economic conditions, and the legacy of poor closure practices, e.g. the rise of illegal mining in South Africa. However, it also offers powerful opportunities: communities can be economically and socially revitalised, land can be creatively repurposed (e.g. the Eden Project) and collaboration among mining experts, governments, and local stakeholders can lead to thriving post-mining economies. Caroline's "designing backwards" approach reframes closure as a social and economic transition, encouraging mining to be a temporary land use that leaves behind a meaningful legacy.

Challenges of Designing Backwards:

Uncertainty in Long-Term Outcomes or in future needs
Predicting what communities will need decades after closure can be difficult, especially with changing economic, environmental, and social conditions.

Opportunities of Designing Backwards:

Economic Diversification
Planning backwards opens up opportunities to build new industries and reduce dependency on mining.

While early-stage mine closure planning is essential for sustainable outcomes, Caroline Digby's 'designing backwards' approach—starting with a fixed end-state vision—warrants critical evaluation.

Key Risks

- Over-simplifies future uncertainties (e.g., climate, community needs).

- May lead to rigid designs that limit operational flexibility.

- Can misalign with evolving stakeholder expectations.

- Upfront costs may be high and difficult to justify.

- May create false confidence in static closure plans.

Alternative Strategies

1. Adaptive Closure Planning

   - Iterative and data-driven; adjusts to changing conditions.

   - Reduces long-term liabilities and supports progressive closure.

2. Participatory Design

   - Engages communities and Traditional Owners early and continuously.

   - Builds trust and aligns closure with local aspirations.

3. Integrated Life-of-Mine Planning

   - Embeds closure into operational and financial decisions.

   - Improves cost control and enables progressive rehabilitation.

First vs. Third World Contexts

- I also feel this aligns with rob stevens separation of 1^st world mining companies/countries and non-developed countries

- First-world countries benefit from strong regulations and resources.

- Non developed countries face challenges like weak enforcement, limited data, and low trust.

- Adaptation strategies (e.g., simplified visions, community facilitation) can improve feasibility in developing regions.

Conclusion

While 'designing backwards' promotes early closure thinking, it must be complemented by adaptive, participatory, and integrated approaches—especially in diverse global contexts.

Still, the opportunities are quite promising. Designing backwards helps create sustainable legacies, promote economic diversity, and build stronger relationships within communities. Examples like the Eden Project and Germany’s artificial lake districts show that transformation is possible when mining is paired with regeneration planning. For this approach to succeed, it should be community-led, regularly updated, and supported by collaborative funding models.

- long term engagement between operator and communities of interest

- collaborative thinking and idea generation outside of the typical "plant trees, clean the water then walk away"

- stronger community plans for their fiscal and infrastructure development in a sustainable way

- avoiding the "ghost town" effect that is typical from historical operations that shut down and left the residents with no choice but to leave as well.

Some challenges that this perspective presents are:

• this is an extremely theoretical approach for operations that have 50 years or more of mine life or minable reserves/resources

• early decisions and designs can significantly hamper the ability for the mine to adapt to changing economic circumstances and limit their ability to expand to alternative resources on their property

• it is extremely difficult to determine the state of the local communities at the time that the mine is initially scheduled to close and this can create a "utopia" perspective of what is possible or what is even needed.

• technology is changing extremely rapidly and what is a good idea now may be outdated or totally unnecessary at the time that the mine closes.

Noting that an estimated 60,000 mines are abandoned in Australia alone, there is an evident need for forward planning with regards to mine closure. Caroline noted that mines are now required to have a mine closure plan in order to obtain a license to operate a mine, whilst this is a step forward with regards to ‘designing backward’ there are a number of challenges that may be encountered with this approach.

Some of these challenges may include obtaining buy-in, accountability and interest from key stakeholders outside of the mine itself, with regards to mine closure planning activities. Another challenge is ensuring sufficient funding, resources and framework to enable upskilling of mine workers/employees who are reliant on mine for income, to ensure they can transition to an alternative role following mine closure.

Whilst a number of challenges have been identified, with thorough planning, these can likely be mitigated and impacts minimised.

'Designing backwards' approach presents a number of opportunities, such as the ability to think creatively about future uses for the site following closure (i.e. Eden Project), the ability to work closely with key stakeholders in the community to ensure resilience and sustainability beyond closure, and an ability to conduct continuous rehabilitation throughout the duration of mining activities.

This video was insightful and posed an interesting approach to managing mine closure that promotes early closure planning and stakeholder engagement to ensure successful rehabilitation and minimise the negative impacts of mine closure on the community.

Challenges:

- Potential to not see the forest for the trees if the focus leans too heavily on what is aspirational vs realistic, this is related to comments by others on how differing LOM timelines will/ should affect that unique closure dialogue.

- I see similarities to Rob Stevens comment of governments setting themselves unrealistic expectation. Those same unrealistic expectations can occur in this setting but for financial reasons. Not just for third world operators, but for junior operators in first world jurisdictions who simply do not have the same cashflow as senior operators.

- Needs to focus on the fluidity of this approach, instead of being another checklist that gets bogged down in procedure.

Opportunities:

- If the above fluidity is accounted for in discussions on this design approach, there is huge potential for all stakeholders and rightsholders to buy into and contribute from the outset.

- Can re-emphasize the operators role as facilitating the conversation, instead of the “paternalistic” dynamic mentioned where they proclaim what should happen.

One of the key opportunities lies in empowering communities to shape their own futures beyond mining. By involving local stakeholders early in the mine closure planning process, companies can help foster diversified, community-driven economies that reduce long-term dependency on mining operations. This approach also aligns with best practices in continuous rehabilitation, where environmental restoration is integrated throughout the life of the mine rather than deferred to the end. Additionally, the growing body of mine closure legislation provides a strong regulatory foundation for companies to plan responsibly and transparently.

However, implementing this approach is not without its challenges. Closure plans developed during the early stages of mine planning are often conceptual and subject to significant change due to external factors. Ensuring these plans are continuously reviewed and refined requires commitment and resources, which companies may be reluctant to invest. Moreover, while environmental and financial aspects of closure are typically prioritized, community engagement is often overlooked or delayed. This can lead to social and economic instability, especially if communities are not adequately prepared for life after mining. Companies also tend to avoid discussing closure due to its perceived risks, making transparency and disclosure difficult. In regions like South Africa, illegal mining of closed sites further complicates the post-closure landscape, highlighting the need for robust enforcement and community alternatives.

Ultimately, designing backwards demands a shift in mindset—from viewing closure as a regulatory hurdle to embracing it as a strategic opportunity for long-term sustainability. It calls for thoughtful planning, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to transitioning communities toward resilient, post-mining futures.

Challenges:

• Developing realistic closure plans for a mine with significant expected mine life

• Obtaining long-term / consistent buy-in from mining companies over the life of mine to allow for closure decisions to be primarily driven by communities instead of economics

• The gap in closure practices between large and small-scale mining companies

Opportunities:

• Continuous engagement with local communities throughout the life of mine to build / maintain the closure plan

• Opportunity to build lasting trust within the community

• Closure plans designed at the beginning of the mine life will identify and communicate higher risk items that can be refined during life of mine

From a social perspective, the socioeconomic impacts and their magnitude are shaped early on through company–community interactions, relationship strategies, and initial investment programs. Likewise, the levels of dependency within the territory and local communities are largely determined by how social management has been deployed and which aspects have been prioritized.

If social management has been primarily motivated by securing the “license to operate,” without putting the long-term future of the territory on the agenda, it is very likely that key impacts have not been fully considered. As a result, by the time closure arrives, companies may face significant negative effects and risks in the community.

Opportunities of Backward Design

• Enables the development of a strategic vision for post-mining territorial development, engaging diverse stakeholders in defining that vision – communities, local government, the mining company, other businesses in the territory, and grassroots organizations.

• Positions the territory as the central element of the agenda, recognizing mining as relevant and a significant contributor to socioeconomic dynamics, but not the ultimate focus. This helps to build, from early stages, a narrative and relationship strategy that minimizes dependency.

• Encourages a mine design and operation that already incorporates closure scenarios, which can make investments more efficient and avoid reprocessing and cost overruns at closure.

• Contributes to building trust, legitimacy, and early coalitions within the territory.

Challenges of Backward Design

• Developing a shared post-mining vision requires dialogue, prioritization, and consensus-building processes that may be difficult to achieve depending on the context – especially in territories lacking cohesion, socioeconomic data, or capacities for dialogue.

• It may create internal tensions and higher upfront costs within the mining company – with some leaders focused on starting operations while others work on building closure-related consensus. Without strong internal leadership and commitment to this approach, implementation becomes difficult.

• Priorities and agreements defined early on may lose relevance over time due to territorial transformations or political turnover, with new local or government leaders potentially failing to recognize previously established agreements.

• Requires continuous updates of priorities, expectations, and post-mining visions, which puts sustained pressure on the dialogue agenda and may affect early trust-building processes.

• Demands a high level of engagement and consistent, quality participation from diverse stakeholders to ensure the design genuinely reflects a shared post-mining vision.

• The regulatory framework of the country may create incentives that run counter to the goals of backward design, limiting its effective implementation.

Some of the challenges that I can foresee are;

-       When designing backwards, the upfront financial commitment to starting a mine is likely to be much higher. In addition to the increased costs for exploration and planning a greater investment would be needed for community engagement.

-       Operators may be required to be transparent about impacts of mining activities such as contamination, acid mining drainage, loss of habitat, cultural heritage impacts and pollution from light, dust and noise as well as long term economic implications throughout the life of the mine.

-       Unless flexibility exists, the plan/design may not stay relevant or feasible throughout the life of a mine, which may span across decades and changing political, environmental and financial climates.

Opportunities:

-       One key opportunity is to work together with host communities and local stakeholders to have an opportunity to influence the design of the mine as well as life after the mine. This is especially important in instances where a town/community is built around mining activities and often has no future beyond mining activities.

-       As mines continue to be designed with closure in mind, progressive closure becomes more important – reducing reprocessing and knowledge loss at closure.

There are still challenges as mines remain vulnerable to shifts in external conditions and the likelihood of effects increases with longer mine life. Markets, policies and community priorities are continually evolving. Corporate timelines might still clash with community visions for closure and costs may be higher than planned for.

Many unique opportunities exist within this approach such as better strategies for continuous reclamation, and more thoughtful investment in closure planning that supports independence in the communities long-term post-closure.

One obvious challenge is that coming up with a shared vision across so many stakeholders can be very challenging and time consuming. Should the process not have started early enough, I would imagine this challenge is even further compounded in smaller communities where the mines may very well be the single biggest employer and the towns are already facing a downward trend as the mine approaches closing.

I also found it very interesting that Caroline mentioned that mining companies do not like to talk about mine closure with the communities as this represent a time when the economic benefits will no longer flow within the communities. Not to get too philosophical here, but this sounds very much like human life. We all avoid thinking or discussing death although we all know it is inevitable. I would argue that thinking about death and the closure of mines is essential and allows to better enjoy and plan ahead for the inevitable outcome.

When the exercise of determining the post-mining reality occurs is also a key variable, you need to act while you still have the necessary social and economic capital. This reminds me of the global warming crisis we are facing. Energy will never be as cheap as it is, the climate will never be as stable as it currently is and yet we keep delaying the crucial transition that must undertake. There is no better time than now and the longer we wait the harder it will be to accomplish, it appears to be the same with mine closure. Unlike mine closure though, we certainly do not have the luxury of backward design to address our fossil fuel addiction and the solutions to global warming.

Another challenge is that there is still lots to be learned, we have only started doing proper mine closure for the past 30 years, this is still an evolving science.

Lastly, what a catchy title for that book, “101 things to do with a hole in the ground” I am very interested in reading it!  

From the video, the idea of 'designing backwards' to me means, start with the desired post mining future in mind, then plan and operate towards that end state in mind. What resonated the most was the emphasis on continuous rehab throughout operations, rather than waiting for end-of- life closure. This approach reduces the risks of communities falling into dependency and helps leave a positive legacy.

Challenges:

- Early engagement/reluctance to engage: Closure conversations can be emotionally charged and the answers unclear. Making it a challenge the companies to engage.

- Stakeholder, and Rights holders: Considering the life of mine and the right stakeholders. Effective planning require the right stakeholders (this doesn't mean the mining companies take the lead), and an ever evolving plan will need the right people/communities at the table. With a shared purpose and values.

- Evolving regulations and expectations: Mine closure regulations and standards continue to develop, and plans must adapt over time to and reflect changes to environment, social and economic requirements.

Opportunity

Real transformation post mining, building something in the communities where mines used to operate to support them who have lost their primary industry. From tourism, renewable the goal is to diversify local economy that persists after the mine.

Continuous rehabilitation, improving environmental outcomes and creating local work in the communities.

mine closure is for in perpetuity; early mine closure plans are conceptual, stronger intent to get to progressive/continuous rehabilitation, Mining is just a temporary use of the land. Why ask the miners to solve post mining life use after mining- need to bring in whole group of people. opportunity to build relationships with community, the mine is there and tied to social license to operate needs a strong connection with teh community to be successful. Challenge is to drive the collaboration of very different people

Challenges I see:
One challenge is that designing backwards can be misunderstood. There isn’t a shared definition among stakeholders and rights-holders, and no real framework yet for how to apply it. Companies also don’t like to commit early, especially when it is promising a design that affects project finances from day one, so making them to commit would not be very easy.

Opportunities I see:
Still, there are opportunities. Roundtables and discussions about designing backwards could create new ideas and momentum. Also, if we frame it as designing backwards rather than just a closure plan, which is usually very high-level, it can help set a vision early on and give more direction to the closure work.

Challenges

• Uncertain Future Needs: Predicting long-term community and economic needs is complex due to changing conditions.

• Stakeholder Coordination: Involving multiple parties from the start can lead to lengthy and challenging consensus-building.

• Regulatory Barriers: Current policies may not support innovative post-mining uses focused on community development.

• Funding Challenges: Securing investment is difficult when future economic returns are unclear.

• Paternalism Risk: Mining companies may dominate planning instead of empowering local communities.

Opportunities

• Economic Resilience: Early planning for mine closure helps communities diversify, reducing dependence on mining and supporting long-term stability.

• Environmental Benefits: Setting closure goals up front enables ongoing reclamation, minimizing lasting risks like acid mine drainage and water pollution.

• Community Involvement: Including local stakeholders from the start ensures future land use reflects community needs and priorities.

• Innovative Reuse: Projects like the Eden Project and German artificial lakes show how creative, collaborative planning can transform former mine sites.

• Integrated Development: Addressing social, economic, and environmental factors in mine planning helps avoid negative impacts like unemployment after mining ends.

1. Mining companies are unlikely to have the requisite detail on this end point far in advance. Mining plans can change during life of mine, and sharing info early could encourage the designing backwards approach, but it could also mean stakeholder expectations are built around an end state that may not manifest exactly that way. Then changes to the mine plan during operations could be contested - and mining companies would prefer to operate unimpeded. They're less likely to be motivated towards what's best for post mining land use etc during operations, than after. (but as we know, this is not ideal for other major stakeholders - regulators/communities/governments who inherit the land).

2. It still seems quite conceptual, and without a clear framework or steps on how to achieve 'designing backwards'. So it could be something that people trip over.

   
   

   THe opportunies however would be there too:

   1. You would need to really introduce it as a concept, and define it for yourselves/your context with the various internal and external stakeholders (with emphasis on external if 'you' are the mining company).

3. 2. Documenting your approach to designing backwards, and involving the right stakeholders throughout could pave the way for building workable approaches / learnings into regulatory frameworks - which can provide the pathway and boundaries for subsequent closures.