1089 transitions, with a particular focus on Indigenous led frameworks, delivering a process roadmap, toolkit and governance model recommendations. Our process roadmap assists environmental assessment practitioners by providing a systematic methodological guidance for navigating through a complex process of identifying, assessing, monitoring and managing cumulative effects in a region that involves multiple stakeholders with different values and interests for the regional development. The success of the RCEAM process is linked to the appropriate selection and application of tools and methods, which offer the answers to ‘how’ to operationalize RCEAM in mine closure and post mine transitions. The roadmap and toolkit are designed to help governments, industry, communities and other stakeholders initiate and strengthen the cumulative effects assessment and management process. Our global review and studies of Indigenous leadership in RCEAM (I-RCEAM) highlight the significant opportunity to transform the regional landscape of mine closure (Tardin-Coelho et al, 2026). For this to occur, the development and implementation of an I-RCEAM framework articulates a way of making a step change in regional planning throughco-leadership, methodological equity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous methodologies, and long-term adaptive planning. Through this transformation, I-RCEAM could become a vehicle for cultural continuity, community development, ecological integrity, and sustainable development under the right settings and with appropriate implementation (Tardin-Coelho et al, 2026). 6. DEVELOPING METHODOLOGIES FOR IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING VIABLE OPTIONS FOR POST-MINING LAND USE AND REPURPOSING; Mining often brings with it significant jobs, training and development and business opportunities. Yet harnessing these for long-term economic resilience in regions and communities remains a challenge. It may seem unusual to be raising post-mine land use at a time when much of the focus is on maximizing responsible new critical minerals development, but mines and mining-related infrastructure become significant regional assets after mining ceases, and there are many examples globally – and nationally – of this infrastructure being repurposed post-operations for new community, environmental or commercial purposes. This is a critical issue for maturing mines as well as new mines. Yet there remains ‘limited understanding of the economic and social potential embedded in former mines’ and how to make informed decisions that evaluate the multiple options available for repurposing land, waste or infrastructure. Making these decisions requires a clear business case, that is informed both by an understanding of the residual risks that will be present at transfer and how they will be shared or transferred; and an evaluation of the benefits associated with options available. Even the most successfully closed mine sites have residual risk and liability. This risk needs to be assessed, accepted, and managed by governments, industry, and stakeholders in order for relinquishment to be a reality (Tiemann et al. 2022). A miner must not only be able to identify the liability with an acceptable level of certainty, but they must also assess the ongoing risks that this liability poses in some form of quantifiable way so that a management plan can be developed, and an offset (e.g., funding mechanism or payment) can be determined that covers the management and cost of this residual risk into the future (Queensland Government, 2020). The quantification of this risk and the related management plan and funding mechanism will be dependent upon the anticipated future use and critically must be deemed acceptable by the key actors involved in the transition. This is further complicated by what has been noted as an unwillingness from industry and government representatives or a lack of process for governments and stakeholders to accept residual risk, particularly in well-developed mining jurisdictions (IGF, 2023). Repurposing of mined land and infrastructure has increasingly been seen as an important closure opportunity, offering the possibility of generating post-mining value and potentially attract investment using new and innovative technologies and solutions (Perlatti and Gagen, 2024). However, this can make the calculation and transfer of the residual risk, as well as the required management plan and funding mechanism much more complex. Repurposing also raises temporal complexity as the timing of residual risk assessment and agreement is critical to building investor confidence and enabling transitions to economic post-mine uses (Maybee et al, 2024).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2