IntroductionMine closure is the process of transforming anactive mine into a set of safe and stablelandforms that are non-polluting and providehabitat and ecosystem services and/or supporteconomic activities by the new land users.These activities and habitats may be differentto those historically present on the site.
Mining is different to most other land usesin that it is temporary and ceases when theorebody is exhausted. Mining may persist inone location for hundreds of years, but modernmines are typically of short duration and manyclose within a decade of construction.Historically, worked-out mines were simply
abandoned, leaving behind sterilizedlandscapes with limited economic potentialthat continued to degrade their surroundingsthrough air and water pollution. Today, societyexpects mining land to be transferred to newproductive uses, the pre-mining land use, or toconservation use once mining ceases.
Restoration, a term frequently used inNorth America, involves attempting to returnan affected landscape to its pre-mining state,use, and condition – recreating the originaltopography and re-establishing previous landcapability together with groundwater patternsand faunal/floral assemblages (Bowman andBaker, 1998; Coppin, 2013). Re-establishingpre-existing ecosystems may not be possible inhighly degraded mining landscapes. Thelandscape surrounding the mine site is alsocommonly subject to secondary developmentor a population influx (especially in developingcountries).
Because of this secondary development,the surrounding areas may be highly degradedat the time of mine closure, reducing thepotential value of conservation measures onthe mine site itself – there may be little point inattempting to restore an isolated patch ofwoodland in a deforested landscape.
Reclamation, a term often applied toderelict and abandoned land, requiresreturning disturbed land to a state where pre-disturbance conditions are not restored but adifferent condition is established that isappropriate to surrounding land uses andconditions (Bowman and Baker, 1998). Thepost-reclamation use is not necessarily relatedto the pre-disturbance use.
Post-mining land use opportunities indeveloping countries–a reviewby D. Limpitlaw* and A. Briel†
SynopsisThe origins of mine closure practice have influenced the way in which it isimplemented by companies and regulators. Mine closure practicesessentially started developing in the 1970s in countries with advancedeconomies and mature mining industries. In these settings, the emphasiswas justifiably placed on restoration of the landscape and an attempt wasmade to return to the ‘natural’ pre-mining land cover. These practicescontinued to evolve and incorporated socio-economic and cultural aspects,especially after the Brundtland Report in 1987 and the subsequent EarthSummit in 1992.
Today mining is increasingly occurring in remote parts of developingcountries where there may be significant need for infrastructure such asroads, clinics, and schools. The costs of returning land to low (economic)value pre-mining use may be far greater than establishing a viable post-mining land use that could potentially add value to the community andtake pressure off sites for greenfield development elsewhere. Furthermore,natural resource limitations (such as topsoil availability) may limit thedegree to which the historical land cover can be re-established.Establishing post-mining land uses may aid in mitigating the loss ofemployment that is inevitable when mines close.
Stakeholder participation in establishing post-mining land cover andland use options is critical for long-term success. Similarly, third partiesmust be identified to support the development of the post-mining land use
This paper draws on the experience of the authors in severaldeveloping countries and presents a case for maximizing re-use of mininginfrastructure. The paper does not advocate the adoption of poor rehabili-tation standards, nor or the wholesale destruction of land capability, butrather leaving key infrastructure in place for post-mining use that maysupport sustainable development.
Metallurgy, 2014. ISSN 2225-6253. This paperwas first presented at the, Mining, Environmentand Society Conference 2013, 27–28 November2013, Misty Hills Country Hotel and ConferenceCentre, Cradle of Humankind, Muldersdrift.
899The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 114 NOVEMBER 2014 ▲
Post-mining land use opportunities in developing countries–a review
Rehabilitation refers to the transformation of land fromits original condition, through mining, to a new andbeneficial condition (Coppin, 2013). This process results inthe return of land to a stable condition, capable of supportingpermanent use as directed by a mine plan. This new, rehabil-itated state must allow for alternative land use opportunities,not contribute to environmental deterioration, and must beconsistent with surrounding aesthetic values, but can besignificantly different to the historical state of the land.
Mine closure practiceModern mine closure planning and practice preferentiallyfollows and applies established and tested procedures forclosure, which are implicitly based on the complete removalof mining infrastructure and the restoration of the pre-mininglandscape. This approach is seen as lower risk, even in poorunder-developed and populous areas where there is aninfrastructure deficit. This perception has a lot to do with thelevel of control that can be exercised by a company over theclosure process – lower levels of control are associated withmulti-stakeholder planning where working infrastructure ishanded over to a third party on completion of the closureprocess.
The origins of mine closure practice have also influencedthe way in which it is implemented by companies andregulators. Mine closure practices essentially starteddeveloping in the late 1960s and early 1970s in countrieswith advanced economies and mature mining industries. Forexample, reclamation planning in Canada was entrenched inlaw in 1969 when British Columbia became one of the firstmining jurisdictions to introduce mine reclamation legislation(Bowman and Baker, 1998). In these settings, the emphasiswas justifiably placed on restoration of the landscape and anattempt was made to return to the ‘natural’ pre-mining landcover. These practices continued to evolve and incorporatedsocio-economic and cultural aspects, especially after theBrundtland Report in 1987 and the subsequent Earth Summitin 1992. In many African countries, as well as in otherdeveloping countries, this traditional approach is sub-optimaland reduces the ultimate contribution of a mine to long-termsustainability.
Regulatory authorities have traditionally been reluctant to grant closure. Mining companies are thus more likely toselect closure land uses that offer the greatest likelihood ofrelinquishment, rather than the most sustainable end land use.
Current closure practiceIn the past, rehabilitation of mined land was sometimesdriven more by public relations considerations than science.Ziemkiewicz (1987, in Bowman and Baker, 1998), forinstance, noted that the intensity of reclamation activity inthe 1980s was directly related to the public desire to putextremely disturbed landscapes to alternative land uses.Another example is provided by the state of Florida in theUSA. For the first five years after the adoption of thereclamation requirements in the Florida Administrative Codein 1975, the emphasis was placed on hiding the evidence ofmining activity (Brown, 2005). Consequently, companieswere required to level spoil piles and plant trees. Stateregulation then evolved to include success criteria such as ‘no
visible evidence of erosion’ and ‘survival of 400 trees peracre’.
Today, closure planning is a science-driven activitydominated by planning priorities in OECD countries1
(especially the USA, Canada, and Australia). These prioritiesare most commonly focused on the restoration of pre-mininglandscapes. Brown (2005) states that restoration efforts(with reference to phosphate mining in Florida) should befocused on re-establishing pre-disturbance ecosystemfunctions. This assertion is supported by Wiegleb et al.(2013) who report that in the USA, rehabilitation resultshave been assessed relative to a natural or reference statethat is based on a hypothetical, historically defined state,unaltered by human activity.
Focus on landscape restorationIn Canada, as in Australia, operations are frequently locatedin remote areas, far from settled communities. In such cases,it is appropriate to completely remove infrastructure as thereis little need for mining infrastructure post-closure. Bowmanand Baker (1998) report that for the Northwest TerritoriesDiamonds Project, all structures were to be cleared andremoved, portals sealed, obtrusive landforms contoured tomatch surrounding topography, and natural drainagepatterns restored. Managed revegetation programmes were totake place in areas of high erosion potential, whereas the restof the site would be allowed to revegetate naturally.
Another typically ‘developed country’ approach wasadopted for the Mount Polly open pit copper and gold mine inBritish Columbia. Here the primary objective of thereclamation plan was to return all mine-disturbed land to anequivalent level of capability to that which existed prior tomining (on a property-wide basis). This was to be achievedby preserving water quality, stabilizing engineered structures(such as waste rock dumps, tailings storage facilities, andpits), the removal of roads and equipment, integration ofdisturbed land into the landscape, and the establishment ofself-sustaining vegetation cover (Bowman and Baker, 1998).
Stakeholders in these countries may also prefer conser-vation-based post-mining land uses to ongoing economicactivity. Surveys by the bauxite miner Alcoa found that thegeneral public near their operations in Western Australiafavoured restoration of native jarrah forests over theprovision of recreational areas such as lakes and grassedpicnic sites (Burton et al., 2012). These sites were previouslyopencast bauxite mines. One of Alcoa’s stated rehabilitationobjectives was to increase the ecological significance of therehabilitated site by including all plant species found in anunmined forest and to re-introduce threatened fauna to thesite (Burton et al., 2012). This approach is summarized bythe Society for Ecological Restoration International, who statethat site restoration attempts to return an ecosystem to itshistoric trajectory, using historic conditions as the startingpoint for restoration design (SER, 2004).
North American practice stresses the site-specificity ofreclamation with emphasis on the testing of vegetative coverson various disturbed surfaces (Bowman and Baker, 1998;
▲
900 NOVEMBER 2014 VOLUME 114 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
1The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, aninternational economic organisation consisting of developed countries
Wiegleb et al., 2013), the pre-contouring of areas to aplanned and stable topography, public safety/hazard issues,and habitat regeneration. It also emphasizes how thereclamation relates to wider systems that surround disturbedareas and how reclamation relates to traditional land usesprior to mining. In the late 1990s, the question of reclamationand its role in community development, including the transferof the site from the company to the previous or futureowners, was shown to be missing in case studies examinedby Bowman and Baker (1998).
Developing countries and rehabilitationIn developing countries, in instances where no definite orbeneficial land use is identified, areas restored to ‘wildernessareas’ or ‘unused conservation areas’ may attract undesirablepost-closure land uses. Examples of this include reclaimedtailings footprint sites in the East Rand and West Rand ofGauteng in South Africa, where informal settlements haveestablished as land has become available. These areas are notsuitable for housing developments due to the risks posed byresidual tailings material.
In South Africa, the area between Roodeplaat andKwaMhlanga is considered a hotspot for sand mining. Acommon post-closure land use for mined-out sand mines isto restore the area to its pre-mining land use, namely low-intensity grazing. The post-mining topography and soilprofile is very difficult to restore and these mines are oftenlocated close to watercourses, making erosion a significantproblem. When livestock are added to the sparsely vegetated‘rehabilitated’ landscape, erosion gullies are quick to set inand the landscape degrades further. Consultation withstakeholders such as surrounding landowners, and conser-vation and tourism authorities would likely be able toidentify more sustainable closure land use options.
Mined-out quarries have successfully been used asadventure tourism facilities. These land uses have a highcommercial value and offer employment opportunities, asopposed to derelict quarries. An example of such a facility isBass Lake near Meyerton in Gauteng.
There is general acceptance that reclamation should notconsist of a final set of on-site activities, but rather of aprogressive sequence of interventions, starting with theearliest stages of exploration and planning, integrated intothe full life of the mine (Dowd and Slight, 2006; Fourie andBrent, 2006; Finucane, 2008; Limpitlaw and Mitchell, 2013).These actions should, however, not be limited to landform re-establishment and revegetation but should include consid-eration of the post-mining re-use of infrastructure. Forexample, at a potash project in the Republic of Congo (Congo-Brazzaville, ROC), the mining company decided to locateprocessing and staff facilities away from the nearby nationalpark, closer to an existing town that would act as a naturalnode of development over the course of the mine’s life. Thisdevelopment would be more likely to be sustainable post-closure and would also reduce pressure on the park as itwould have the effect of drawing people away from the park.
Proposed improvements
The practicality of restorationBowman and Baker (1998) questioned whether minereclamation represented a method of mine closure that
minimized environmental degradation or an opportunity toenhance and develop the disturbed land base towards anecologically productive state.
Returning mined land to a state of ’naturalness’ is notonly often sub-optimal from a post-mining land useperspective, but may not be possible. The goal of rehabili-tation of mined land in Australia is typically to restore thepre-mining land use or ecosystem (Queensland DEHP, 2012,in Doley and Audet, 2013), and it is assumed that therehabilitation process will ensure that landforms, lithology,and soil will closely resemble conditions of the pre-miningenvironment. This may, however, not be possible at manymine sites where radical landscape changes have occurredand persistent artificial features introduced (Doley andAudet, 2013). Additionally, restoration of the pre-miningenvironment potentially limits the opportunities for land usesthat may be more socially acceptable and ecologically sound(Doll, 1988, in Bowman and Baker, 1998).
Doley and Audet (2013) stress the need to consider thecreation of hybrid ecosystems and novel ecosystems post-mining. The former would be slightly different in form andfunction to the original ecosystem and would share manyattributes. The latter would consist of new combinations ofphysical and biological attributes due to the changedconditions in the post-mining environment. Basically, thework of these authors shows that where biotic and abioticsystems have been significantly and irreversibly changed, theinstallation of managed ecosystems or novel, unmanagedecosystems may be achievable and predictable options. Thisprovides opportunities for the incorporation of enhancedland-use value not found within the pre-mining ecosystem. Itis critical that all stakeholders (operator, regulator, and thecommunity) are involved in setting and accepting theparameters for decision-making.
The primary goals of rehabilitation identified by Doleyand Audet (2013), namely the attainment of the highestachievable standards of biological conservation andecosystem stewardship, are not incompatible with leavinginfrastructure behind, especially when the mine site is notconsidered in isolation but within a broader regional setting.Re-use of mined land for fuel wood production, for instance,may be less ecologically desirable than the re-establishmentof the pre-mining, indigenous woodland. The harvesting ofthe fuel wood from a plantation, however, is more desirablethan the degradation of adjacent, intact woodland ecosystemsby fuel wood harvesting.
Doley and Audet (2013) state that meaningful ecosystemrecovery may not occur on rehabilitated, highly disturbedmine sites. Instead of focusing on ecosystem development,they argue for the establishment of safe, stable, and non-polluting landforms that support habitat development. Theybelieve that regardless of the final landscape, the post-miningsite will always require some intervention. This supports theneed for optimizing the value of post-mining land use toensure that the required management interventions aresustainable.
There is evidence to show that the benefits ofsustainable, multi-functional use of natural and semi-naturallandscapes exceed the gains from their conversion to single-purpose land-use types (De Groot, 2005). Natural landscapescommonly provide a multitude of functions and are subject to
Post-mining land use opportunities in developing countries–a review
901The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 114 NOVEMBER 2014 ▲
Post-mining land use opportunities in developing countries–a review
many possible land uses. Closure planning should attempt tocreate a post-mining landscape in which multiple land usesare possible so that a level of sustainability more closelyapproximating that of the pre-mining landscape can beachieved. To approach such improved levels of sustainability,multifunctional post-mining landforms are required.
To maximize the benefit derived from post-mininglandforms and to ensure optimal use of resources in therehabilitation programme, the mine lease should be dividedinto a number of land use precincts. These precincts aretypically determined by the existing land use, current andfuture surrounding land uses, the nature of the topography,and the level of disturbance. A closure options analysisexercise is required to identify closure options and select apreferred option for each precinct. The preferred closureoption will inform the direction of the closure strategy andclosure cost estimate.
Mine closure and social developmentToday, mining increasingly occurs in remote parts ofdeveloping countries where there may be significant need forinfrastructure such as roads, clinics, and schools. The costs ofreturning land to low (economic) value pre-mining use maybe far greater than establishing a viable post-mining landuse. This land use may potentially add value for thecommunity and take pressure off sites for greenfielddevelopment elsewhere. In addition, establishing post-miningland uses may aid in mitigating the loss of employment thatis inevitable when mines close.
Maximizing the post-mining value of mininginfrastructure may contribute substantially to post-miningeconomies. At a gold producer in a small Pacific island state,the mine’s sports facilities are considerably better than thosein the nearest regional centre. The rugby fields, golf course,and bowling club have enabled teams from the localcommunity to participate at national and international level inthese sports. Part of the challenge of closure planning isfinding effective ways of maintaining such facilities once theyare handed over to the community on closure. Similarly, in acountry with a tourism-focused economy, the establishmentof heritage tourism sites using old mine buildings andequipment should be possible. Notable successes in heritagetourism were reported at the site of the former Waihi GoldMine in New Zealand (Thompson, 2011).
At a copper producer in Katanga, southern DemocraticRepublic of Congo (DRC), the company’s accommodationfacilities present an opportunity for re-use post-closure as atraining and conference venue as they are within an easydrive of Lubumbashi, the provincial capital. The attrac-tiveness of this land use option is reinforced by looking atways of maximizing use of the mine’s power and waterreticulation infrastructure. Light industry is alreadyestablishing itself on the outskirts of Lubumbashi, and by thetime the mine closes, it is not unlikely that the site could actas an industrial development incubator.
This approach is already being adopted by some multina-tional mining companies. In the Mine Closure Toolbox, AngloAmerican states that exploitation of mineral resources shouldalso contribute to the infrastructure base and provide aneconomic stimulus for sustainable development in the hostregion (Anglo American, 2013).
Discussion The use of mining landscapes (including infrastructure) canimprove the contribution of mining to sustainabledevelopment, but stakeholder participation in establishingpost-mining land cover and land use options is critical forlong-term success (Limpitlaw and Hoadley, 2006). Similarly,third parties must be identified to support the development of the post-mining land use. Additional stakeholder partici-pation in the closure planning process is required to ensurethat any remaining infrastructure can be effectively used after closure.
Should infrastructure remain post-closure, landscapesmust still be stable, non-polluting, and non-hazardous.Environmental liabilities should not be carried over to thepost-mining land users and site handover should occur onlyonce all risks are mitigated to acceptable levels.
Where the post-mining land use is different to theoriginal land use, it is inevitable that biodiversity may beimpaired or agricultural land lost. In such instances, offsetsmay be required to ensure no net loss of biodiversity oragricultural land. These offsets should be established early onin the life of mine to ensure sustainability post-closure.
The post-closure land use must generate or sustainemployment opportunities for local communities and/orredundant mine employees. Exploring new approaches torehabilitation may present an opportunity to integratedisturbed landscapes and the community. This reduces therisks of socio-economic collapse post-closure and supportsthe notion of a social licence to operate (for miningcompanies). Re-use of brownfield sites may save greenfieldsites elsewhere (which have higher conservation value) frombeing developed.
ConclusionsClosure planning should commence during the feasibilitystage of a mining development project, as closure should beone of the aspects to consider in deciding whether a projectshould be developed. If a financially viable, sustainable landuse cannot be identified at the feasibility stage, the developershould be aware of the long-term financial implications ifrelinquishment is not possible.
Closure consultation with affected communities may bean emotive issue, as a mine is often linked to a large portionof their livelihood. Such consultation is, however, essential inorder to identify the most viable land use options or redevel-opment opportunities.
The risk-averse approach to closure may not always offerthe most sustainable solutions and is not guaranteed toensure relinquishment. Working with reputable developmentpartners during the life of mine is likely to offer ongoingemployment opportunities and an alternative source oflivelihood to affected communities upon mine closure.
References
ANGLO AMERICAN. 2013. Mine Closure Toolbox, version 2.
BOWMAN, B. and BAKER, D. 1998. Mine Reclamation Planning in the Canadian
North. Northern Minerals Program, Working Paper no.1. Canadian Arctic
Resources Committee, Ottawa. 82 pp.
▲
902 NOVEMBER 2014 VOLUME 114 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
BROWN, M.T. 2005. Landscape restoration following phosphate mining: 30years of co-evolution of science, industry and regulation. EcologicalEngineering, vol. 24. pp. 309–329.
BURTON, M., ZAHEDI, S. J., and WHITE, B. 2012. Public preferences for timelinessand quality of mine site rehabilitation – the case of bauxite mining inWestern Australia. Resources Policy, vol. 37. pp. 1–9.
COPPIN, N.J. 2013. An ecologist in mining – a retrospective of 40 years in mineclosure and reclamation. Eighth International Seminar on Mine Closure2013, Cornwall, UK, 18-20 September 2013. Tibbett, M. Fourie, A.B., andDigby, C. (eds.). pp. 295–310.
DE GROOT, R. 2005. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess landuse conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes.Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 75. pp. 175–186.
DOLEY, D. and AUDET, P. 2013. Adopting novel ecosystems as suitable rehabili-tation alternatives for former mine sites. Ecological Processes 2013, vol.2, no. 22. pp.1-11. http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/2/1/22[Accessed August 2013].
DOWD, P. and SLIGHT, M. 2006. The business case for effective mine closure.Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Mine Closure, Perth,Australia, 13-15 September 2006. Fourie, A.B. and Tibbett, M. (eds.).pp. 3–11.
FINUCANE, S.J. 2008. Thinking about the end before you start – integrating mineclosure planning into feasibility studies and environmental and social
impact assessment. Mine Closure 2008, Proceedings of the ThirdInternational Seminar on Mine Closure, Johannesburg, South Africa, 14-17 October 2008. Fourie, A.B., Tibbett, M., Weiersbye, I.M., and Dye, P.J.(eds.). pp. 171–182.
FOURIE, A. and BRENT A.C. 2006. A project-based mine closure model (MCM) forsustainable asset life cycle management. Journal of Cleaner Production,vol. 14. pp. 1085–1095.
LIMPITLAW, D. and HOADLEY, E.M. 2006. Faultlines in mine closure planning in adeveloping country context. Proceedings of the First International Seminaron Mine Closure, Perth, Australia, 13-15 September 2006. Fourie, A.B.and Tibbett, M. pp. 803–809.
LIMPITLAW, D. and MITCHELL, P. 2013. Misplaced planning priorities. EighthInternational Seminar on Mine Closure, Cornwall, UK, 18-20 September2013. Tibbett, M., Fourie, A.B., and Digby, C. pp. 1–10.
SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION INTERNATIONAL (SER). 2004. The SERInternational Primer on Ecological Restoration. SER Science and PolicyWorking Group, version 2, October 2004. 15 pp.
THOMPSON, J. 2011. Waihi’s Golden Legacy: Planning for the Future. SRKDenver, Colorado, May 2011. 17 pp.
WIEGLEB, G., BRÖRING, U., CHOI, G., DAHMS, H., KANONGDATE, K., BYEON, C., and LER, L.G. 2013. Ecological restoration as precaution and not asrestitutional compensation. Biodiversity Conservation, vol. 22. pp. 1931–1498. ◆
Post-mining land use opportunities in developing countries–a review
The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 114 NOVEMBER 2014 903 ▲
