1086 A key issue inhibiting a third-party engaging in repurposing projects is the underlying tenure and the attached liability for residual and unforeseen risks (Brown, 2025). Options identified in recent reports include tiered tenure systems that align with the different stages of the mining lifecycle. This approach could provide greater flexibility than the frameworks extant in some jurisdictions, although care must be taken not to cause unintended consequences or weaken the overall regulatory framework (AusIMM, 2025a). For example, the Western Australia diversification lease tenure was introduced to seek to address the limitations of existing tenure options because it allows for excision of a specific site, multiple purposes, multiple sublessees and is non-exclusive (Hansard, 2023). The non-exclusive nature of the lease does not affect First Nation rights and allows for the continuation of the mining rights and obligations while allowing a thirdparty to engage in PMLU. In short, the tenure is intended to provide for earlier transitions to PMLU and alternative economies as part of a mine closure plan (or wider economic development strategies), because it can be granted prior to relinquishment, or provide an option that allows for the partitioning of residual risk by excising a portion of the site (Maybee et al. 2024). A research project enabled through CRC TiME is identifying lessons since its introduction. Transition planning through and beyond post mining life can benefit from better coordination within existing frameworks or considering new approaches to regional planning that define multi-user planning zones and provide a clear regulatory pathway for projects. At a 2025 forum hosted by AusIMM and CRC TiME focused on Australian policy considerations, delegates suggested regional coordinators or concierges could play a leading role here, with opportunities to learn from past practice and develop integrated, longterm regional plans that identify and account for PMLU within a broader socio-economic and environmental context. This could involve the development of specific plans for post-mine land use or integration into existing planning frameworks. In practice, the development of a regional plan may be led by either a government or non-government party, however, representation and some degree of decision-making across local, state and federal governments, industry partners and the community has been noted as important. Critically, this ‘joined up’ approach seeks to integrate post-mining activities into both planning and approvals, as well as operational decision-making and site development activities during the miningdominant phase of a site’s life. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis of three governance models: i) Government lead agency with expanded responsibility, ii) Newly formed government authority, and iii) Collaborative governance has identified some commonalities between them (Rifkin et al., 2025). For instance, trust-building processes for participating stakeholder organizations appear to be fundamental to any governance model, which then highlights the collaborative approach embedded in them, essential for collective action initiatives. All models require secure and sustained funding, a mechanism for data sharing, and strategies to implement decisions (Maharjan et al 2026). It is important to note that what constitutes trust-building will vary depending on time and place. An enabling regulatory and policy environment needs to provide clear and shared understanding of what will be acceptable risk sharing and/or transfer mechanisms to support asset relinquishment or transition into post mine land uses. This needs an approach that considers mined land, waste and assets as a resource, and creates a regulatory environment that provides confidence in the management of risks while also enabling consideration of beneficial use pathways. This is also closely related to mechanisms for identifying and approval of completion criteria which reflect agreed PMLU and acceptable risk. Recognizing the differing policy domains for mining and post mine land, waste or asset uses, it is valuable for governments to develop a shared understanding and expectations for completion criteria and residual risk identification and assessment. Recent work by Purtill et al (2026) has also noted the potential for mined land being transitioned to a PMLU while mines remain operational, with experts highlighting completion criteria uncertainty and acceptable residual risk identification as key barriers. ‘Setting clear and measurable closure criteria can be surprisingly difficult. In the absence of such criteria it is difficult to obtain regulatory certification that all closure goals have been achieved with the potential to delay the transition to post-closure land uses.’ (quoted in Purtill et al, 2026) Critically, key recommendations emerging from our studies and engagement emphasize the distinction between effective rehabilitation regulation and comprehensive planning for beneficial PMLU.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2