THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF MINING AND METALLURGY
OF
TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
OFFICE BEARERS AND COUNCIL FOR THE 2024/2025 SESSION
President E. Matinde
President Elect
G.R. Lane
Senior Vice President
T.M. Mmola
Junior Vice President
M.H. Solomon
Incoming Junior Vice President
S.J. Ntsoelengoe
Immediate Past President
W.C. Joughin
Honorary Treasurer
W.C. Joughin
Ordinary Members on Council
W. Broodryk M.C. Munroe
Z. Fakhraei S.M. Naik
B. Genc G. Njowa
K.M. Letsoalo S.M. Rupprecht
S.B. Madolo A.T. van Zyl
M.A. Mello E.J. Walls
K. Mosebi
Co-opted Council Members
A.D. Coetzee
L.T. Masutha
Past Presidents Serving on Council
N.A. Barcza C. Musingwini
R.D. Beck S. Ndlovu
Z. Botha J.L. Porter
V.G. Duke M.H. Rogers
I.J. Geldenhuys G.L. Smith
R.T. Jones
G.R. Lane – TP Mining Chairperson
Z. Botha – TP Metallurgy Chairperson
K.W. Banda – YPC Chairperson
C.T. Chijara – YPC Vice Chairperson
Branch Chairpersons
Botswana K. Mosebi
DRC K.T. Kekana (Interim Chairperson)
Johannesburg N. Rampersad
Limpopo M.S. Zulu
Namibia T. Aipanda
Northern Cape Vacant
North West Vacant
Pretoria P.G.H. Pistorius
Western Cape Vacant
Zambia N.M. Kazembe
Zimbabwe L. Shamu
Zululand Vacant
PAST PRESIDENTS
*Deceased
* W. Bettel (1894–1895)
* A.F. Crosse (1895–1896)
* W.R. Feldtmann (1896–1897)
* C. Butters (1897–1898)
* J. Loevy (1898–1899)
* J.R. Williams (1899–1903)
* S.H. Pearce (1903–1904)
* W.A. Caldecott (1904–1905)
* W. Cullen (1905–1906)
* E.H. Johnson (1906–1907)
* J. Yates (1907–1908)
* R.G. Bevington (1908–1909)
* A. McA. Johnston (1909–1910)
* J. Moir (1910–1911)
* C.B. Saner (1911–1912)
* W.R. Dowling (1912–1913)
* A. Richardson (1913–1914)
* G.H. Stanley (1914–1915)
* J.E. Thomas (1915–1916)
* J.A. Wilkinson (1916–1917)
* G. Hildick-Smith (1917–1918)
* H.S. Meyer (1918–1919)
* J. Gray (1919–1920)
* J. Chilton (1920–1921)
* F. Wartenweiler (1921–1922)
* G.A. Watermeyer (1922–1923)
* F.W. Watson (1923–1924)
* C.J. Gray (1924–1925)
* H.A. White (1925–1926)
* H.R. Adam (1926–1927)
* Sir Robert Kotze (1927–1928)
* J.A. Woodburn (1928–1929)
* H. Pirow (1929–1930)
* J. Henderson (1930–1931)
* A. King (1931–1932)
* V. Nimmo-Dewar (1932–1933)
* P.N. Lategan (1933–1934)
* E.C. Ranson (1934–1935)
* R.A. Flugge-De-Smidt (1935–1936)
* T.K. Prentice (1936–1937)
* R.S.G. Stokes (1937–1938)
* P.E. Hall (1938–1939)
* E.H.A. Joseph (1939–1940)
* J.H. Dobson (1940–1941)
* Theo Meyer (1941–1942)
* John V. Muller (1942–1943)
* C. Biccard Jeppe (1943–1944)
* P.J. Louis Bok (1944–1945)
* J.T. McIntyre (1945–1946)
* M. Falcon (1946–1947)
* A. Clemens (1947–1948)
* F.G. Hill (1948–1949)
* O.A.E. Jackson (1949–1950)
* W.E. Gooday (1950–1951)
* C.J. Irving (1951–1952)
* D.D. Stitt (1952–1953)
* M.C.G. Meyer (1953–1954)
* L.A. Bushell (1954–1955)
* H. Britten (1955–1956)
* Wm. Bleloch (1956–1957)
* H. Simon (1957–1958)
* M. Barcza (1958–1959)
* R.J. Adamson (1959–1960)
* W.S. Findlay (1960–1961)
* D.G. Maxwell (1961–1962)
* J. de V. Lambrechts (1962–1963)
* J.F. Reid (1963–1964)
* D.M. Jamieson (1964–1965)
* H.E. Cross (1965–1966)
* D. Gordon Jones (1966–1967)
* P. Lambooy (1967–1968)
* R.C.J. Goode (1968–1969)
* J.K.E. Douglas (1969–1970)
* V.C. Robinson (1970–1971)
* D.D. Howat (1971–1972)
* J.P. Hugo (1972–1973)
* P.W.J. van Rensburg (1973–1974)
* R.P. Plewman (1974–1975)
* R.E. Robinson (1975–1976)
* M.D.G. Salamon (1976–1977)
* P.A. Von Wielligh (1977–1978)
* M.G. Atmore (1978–1979)
* D.A. Viljoen (1979–1980)
* P.R. Jochens (1980–1981)
* G.Y. Nisbet (1981–1982)
A.N. Brown (1982–1983)
* R.P. King (1983–1984)
J.D. Austin (1984–1985)
* H.E. James (1985–1986)
H. Wagner (1986–1987)
* B.C. Alberts (1987–1988)
* C.E. Fivaz (1988–1989)
* O.K.H. Steffen (1989–1990)
* H.G. Mosenthal (1990–1991)
R.D. Beck (1991–1992)
* J.P. Hoffman (1992–1993)
* H. Scott-Russell (1993–1994)
J.A. Cruise (1994–1995)
D.A.J. Ross-Watt (1995–1996)
N.A. Barcza (1996–1997)
* R.P. Mohring (1997–1998)
J.R. Dixon (1998–1999)
M.H. Rogers (1999–2000)
L.A. Cramer (2000–2001)
* A.A.B. Douglas (2001–2002)
* S.J. Ramokgopa (2002-2003)
T.R. Stacey (2003–2004)
F.M.G. Egerton (2004–2005)
W.H. van Niekerk (2005–2006)
R.P.H. Willis (2006–2007)
R.G.B. Pickering (2007–2008)
A.M. Garbers-Craig (2008–2009)
J.C. Ngoma (2009–2010)
G.V.R. Landman (2010–2011)
J.N. van der Merwe (2011–2012)
G.L. Smith (2012–2013)
M. Dworzanowski (2013–2014)
J.L. Porter (2014–2015)
R.T. Jones (2015–2016)
C. Musingwini (2016–2017)
S. Ndlovu (2017–2018)
A.S. Macfarlane (2018–2019)
M.I. Mthenjane (2019–2020)
V.G. Duke (2020–2021)
I.J. Geldenhuys (2021–2022)
Z. Botha (2022-2023)
W.C. Joughin (2023-2024)
Editorial Board
S.O. Bada
R.D. Beck
P. den Hoed
I.M. Dikgwatlhe
M. Erwee
B. Genc
R.T. Jones
W.C. Joughin
A.J. Kinghorn
D.E.P. Klenam
D.F. Malan
D. Morris
C. Musingwini
P.N. Neingo
S.S. Nyoni
M. Phasha
P. Pistorius
P. Radcliffe
N. Rampersad
Q.G. Reynolds
I. Robinson
S.M. Rupprecht
T.R. Stacey
International Advisory Board members
R. Dimitrakopolous
R. Mitra
S. Ndlovu
A.J.S. Spearing
E. Topal
D. Tudor
F. Uahengo
D. Vogt
Editor /Chairperson of the Editorial Board
R.M.S. Falcon
Typeset and Published by
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
PostNet Suite #212 Private Bag X31 Saxonwold, 2132
E-mail: journal@saimm.co.za
Printed by Camera Press, Johannesburg
Advertising Representative
Barbara Spence
Avenue Advertising
Contents
Journal Comment: Mine Closures – Past, Present and Future… by J. Lake
President’s Corner: Legacy tailings and slag dumps: Turning challenges into opportunities by E. Matinde ..................................................................
THE INSTITUTE, AS A BODY, IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS ADVANCED IN ANY OF ITS PUBLICATIONS.
Copyright© 2025 by The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. All rights reserved. Multiple copying of the contents of this publication or parts thereof without permission is in breach of copyright, but permission is hereby given for the copying of titles and abstracts of papers and names of authors. Permission to copy illustrations and short extracts from the text of individual contributions is usually given upon written application to the Institute, provided that the source (and where appropriate, the copyright) is acknowledged. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of review or criticism under The Copyright Act no. 98, 1978, Section 12, of the Republic of South Africa, a single copy of an article may be supplied by a library for the purposes of research or private study. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the publishers. Multiple copying of the contents of the publication without permission is always illegal. U.S. Copyright Law applicable to users In the U.S.A. The appearance of the statement of copyright at the bottom of the first page of an article appearing in this journal indicates that the copyright holder consents to the making of copies of the article for personal or internal use. This consent is given on condition that the copier pays the stated fee for each copy of a paper beyond that permitted by Section 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. The fee is to be paid through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., Operations Center, P.O. Box 765, Schenectady, New York 12301, U.S.A. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale.
Honorary Legal Advisers
M H Attorneys Auditors
Genesis Chartered Accountants Secretaries
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 7th Floor, Rosebank Towers, 19 Biermann Avenue, Rosebank, 2196
PostNet Suite #212, Private Bag X31, Saxonwold, 2132 E-mail: journal@saimm.co.za
Telephone (011) 463-7940 . E-mail: barbara@avenue.co.za ISSN 2225-6253 (print) . ISSN 2411-9717 (online)
MINE CLOSURE PAPERS
Benchmarking rehabilitation in the South African opencast coal industry by A.S.H. Haagner, A. Abraha, S.J. van Wyk ..................................................................
Opencast coal mining is responsible for the greatest area of land disturbance. The findings show that the implementation of aftercare and maintenance programmes, and deficiencies in overall landform design and drainage systems are most significant in preventing overall rehabilitation progression and self-sustainability. Intensive maintenance (especially in the first five years post-topsoiling and seeding) will be key for the overall industry performance to improve to acceptable levels of overall rehabilitation progression and self-sustainability.
Co-designing the future: Integrating social transition and compliance for sustainable mine closures by O. Koatlhai
This paper argues that mine closure should not mark the end of prosperity but rather the beginning of a sustainable transition with a forward-looking strategy that sees mine closure not as an endpoint, but as a catalyst for social resilience and economic transformation. It underscores the need for policy reforms, stronger governance, and investment in alternative industries to prevent mining towns from becoming economic wastelands. This research calls for a new era of mine closure planning that puts people and prosperity at its core.
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa by M.J.
Cole, S. Mudau, P. Mohasoa
A new, sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless (D&O) sites in South Africa is needed to recognise responsibilities, to promote partnerships, and to explore economic opportunities at D&O sites. This study aims to bring clarity and fairness to decision-making and to assign risk and responsibility for rehabilitation. It seeks to incorporate economic opportunities, to reduce the financial burden of rehabilitation, create jobs for local communities, and respond to the growing demand for critical minerals.
A review of mine land rehabilitation outcomes: Culture, procurement and practice by
S.J. van Wyk, A.S.H. Haagner
This paper advocates for an urgent shift away from traditional land rehabilitation practices toward a paradigm centred on land capability reconstruction and active stewardship. Currently, the status quo view is that mine rehabilitation is a onetime intervention rather than a complex, systemic, and long-term process. This short approach costs the mining industry millions annually, without recognising the inadequacies in long-term liability mitigation and the substandard ecological success achieved. Unless there is a fundamental reset of the land rehabilitation culture, pursuing sustainability will remain an elusive and perhaps impossible objective.
Planning for post-mining economies: Misconceptions and opportunities by L.
Marais
Most mining regions find economic diversification after mining challenging. This paper highlights some economic and social misconceptions and explains where planning goes wrong due to ignorance and misunderstandings concerning the South African space economy and the nature of new economies. This paper proposes more careful consideration of those economic aspects that mining policy makers and planners have control over, and it explains how understanding long-term dependencies can help prevent governance failures. It concludes with a framework for assessing and developing a post-mining economy.
179
187
Journal Comment Mine Closures – Past, Present
and Future…
The mining industry is an exciting space, where the convergence of environmental stewardship, socio-economic responsibility, and technological innovation is reshaping the way we approach mine closure. As we navigate this complex landscape, the importance of mine closure planning is becoming more and more pronounced.
Effective mine closure begins long before the end of operations, with proactive strategies that anticipate challenges and opportunities. By embedding closure planning into the broader mine lifecycle, companies can ensure smoother transitions and more sustainable outcomes.
One of the most pressing challenges faced by the South African mining industry is the uncertainty surrounding legislation and regulatory frameworks. As governments and international bodies continue to refine their policies to address environmental and social concerns, mining companies must remain agile and proactive in their approach to compliance.
Innovation and technological advances are transforming the way we approach mine closure. From predictive modelling to advanced reclamation techniques, the integration of technologies is enabling more efficient, sustainable, and cost-effective closure solutions.
The socio-economic transition associated with mine closure is another critical focus area. As mines cease operations, the surrounding communities often face significant economic and social changes. Mines need to develop strategies for fostering resilience and sustainability in these communities, emphasising the importance of collaboration between industry, government, and local stakeholders.
The complexity of disciplines required to develop effective mine closure plans cannot be overstated. Geotechnical engineering, hydrogeology, environmental science, socio-economic planning and more, must converge to create holistic solutions.
This journal serves as a platform to explore the multifaceted challenges and opportunities inherent in mine closure, offering insights into the evolving practices and strategies that define this inevitable and critical phase of the mining lifecycle.
As you explore the articles and case studies within this journal, we invite you to reflect on the shared responsibility we have in shaping the future of mine closure. Together, through innovation, collaboration, and foresight we can navigate the complexities of this critical phase and contribute to a more sustainable and equitable mining industry.
J. Lake
President’s Corner
ALegacy tailings and slag dumps: Turning challenges into opportunities
s highlighted in some of my previous articles, the role of mining in the global economy cannot be underestimated. For centuries, the mining industry has contributed to the sustainable economic development of many countries. In fact, Max Plank, the father of quantum physics, is famously quoted to having said that ‘mining is not everything, but without mining there is nothing’. This century-old statement is still very relevant today, as all critical minerals and metals need to be mined, processed, and refined before they can be used in consumer goods, engineering equipment, and infrastructure. Unfortunately, the mining, processing, and refining of minerals and metals face its own environmental challenges. In particular, the various unit processes involved in the mining and recovery of valuable components from the run-of-mine ores generate large masses of waste materials, mostly in the form of chemically and mineralogically complex waste rock and tailings. Further downstream processes, such as those involved in the smelting and refining of metals and alloys, produce large volumes of wastes in the form of slags and fly ash. Regardless of the unit process producing them, these waste materials have common and overlapping characteristics in that their production is sometimes inevitable, they are produced in large volumes, and lastly, they tend to be chemically heterogenous and mineralogically complex.
Solid mine and metallurgical wastes (such as waste rock, tailings, slags, and ash) are collectively classified as mine residues. Due to the relatively low intrinsic monetary value, mine residues are normally disposed of in specially designed tailings facilities and slag ponds. Fortunately, the design of modern tailings storage and slag dump facilities is governed by various national legislations, global standards, and international best practices to minimise unintended impact on the environment and communities. Various industry standards and guidelines, such as the South African SANS 10286, provide guidance on the management of mine residue deposits and other forms of solid wastes. More recently, the global mining industry further reiterated its commitment to zero harm by voluntarily adopting the Global International Standards on Tailings Management (GISTM). The GISTM is a global standard that provides a common and standardised definition and best practices in the design, monitoring, and management of tailings facilities. The international standards and best practices require that active sites be continuously monitored throughout the lifecycle of the facility, an attribute that may not be applicable to legacy tailings and slag dump facilities.
For the purpose of this article, I would like to define legacy tailings and slags dumps as accumulated process residues emanating from the historical closure of mining sites and smelters long before the relevant standards and environmental legislation were promulgated and adopted. Both types of process residues have legacy ownership challenges, potentially due to multiple changes in ownership and/or the liquidation of known registered owners. This means that the management of the historical tailings and slag dump facilities then falls outside the active legislative mandates and best practice guidelines. Regardless of the process or commodity producing them, both legacy tailings and slag dump storage facilities have a number of common and overlapping characteristics in that: (a) they are man-made in nature and have potential to cause notable environmental impact from the accumulation of potentially toxic metal elements, (b) they are formed ex-situ and may have undergone physical, chemical, and/or thermal alteration over a period of time, an attribute that makes their long term geochemical behaviour unpredictable,
President’s Corner (continued)
(c) they form an emerging and irreversible component of the anthropocene, with the potential to permanently alter the natural environment and ecosystems, and lastly, (d) they both can play significant roles in the circular economy as sustainable sources of minerals through deliberate remining and other reclaiming activities.
The aforementioned attributes create both challenges and opportunities. Firstly, not much data is published in open access literature to highlight the long-term geochemical behaviour and impact of legacy mine residues. Secondly, in the absence of real-time monitoring data, it may be difficult to understand the long-term geochemical impact of these legacy facilities. Because of the legacy and ownerless nature of some of the storage facilities, the affected sites may fail to benefit from improvements in monitoring technologies and best practices. However, legacy tailings and slag dumps can play a significant role in the sustainable supply of critical raw materials. By taking a ‘waste-to-resources’ approach, legacy mine residues have the capacity to revitalise the economies of affected communities through their reclamation for use in transversal industries.
The production and accumulation of mine residues is inevitable if humanity is to continue enjoying the same level of affluence and economic development. It is a fact that some mining and smelter sites may close as a result of unavoidable factors such economic disruptions, technoeconomic cycles (such as the potential impact of clean energy transition on coal mining), and resource depletion. This means that there is a need for future thinking to mitigate the post closure economic and environmental impact of tailings and slag dumps. This pragmatic approach is not new to the mining industry and academia, and in fact, was discussed in detail during the recently concluded SAIMM Mine Closure Conference 2025. The upcoming SAIMM Tailings Conference 2026 also provides an important platform to further debate some of these pertinent issues. In addition, I also would like to draw attention to a very impactful paper by Prof. Isabelle Demers (available at https://doi.org/10.1017/mcl.2024.4).
Dealing with environmental issues emanating from legacy mine residues is not trivial. Rather, it is a complicated endeavour that requires a multi-disciplinary approach by all stakeholders. In conclusion, I would like to remind all policy makers, geotechnical engineers, geochemists, hydrogeologists, process engineers, pyrometallurgists, biologists, archaeometallurgists, among others, that the call for abstracts for the SAIMM Tailings Conference 2026 closes on the 1st of July 2025. Please register to attend the conference so that we can collectively discuss these issues.
https://www.saimm.co.za/saimm-events/upcoming-events/tailings-2026-conference
E. Matinde President, SAIMM
Affiliation:
1Agreenco Environmental Projects, Pretoria, South Africa
2Agreenco Environmental Projects, Potchefstroom, South Africa
Correspondence to:
A.S.H. Haagner
Email: adrian.haagner@agreencogroup.com
Dates:
Received: 15 Oct. 2025
Published: April 2025
How to cite:
Haagner, A.S.H., Abraha, A., van Wyk, S.J. 2025. Benchmarking rehabilitation in the South African opencast coal industry.
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 179–186
DOI ID:
https://doi.org/10.17159/2411-9717/792/2025
ORCiD:
S.J. van Wyk
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7679-5546
This paper is based on a presentation given at the Mine Closure Conference 2025 19-20 February 2025, Maslow Hotel, Sandton, Johannesburg
Benchmarking rehabilitation in the South African opencast coal industry
by A.S.H. Haagner1, A. Abraha1, S.J. van Wyk2
Abstract
Opencast coal mining is responsible for the greatest area of land disturbance across all of the commodity types in South Africa. Many thousands of hectares have been rehabilitated to date and, although rehabilitation performance is not always measured or reported, a significant database, spanning 24 years, has now been analysed to identify the main shortcomings holding back rehabilitation sustainability across the industry.
Data from 48 different collieries with rehabilitation performance scores measured from 2000-2024 were analysed. A standardised assessment framework was implemented at all 48 collieries, focusing on aspects of land capability, soil fertility, landscape form and drainage, vegetation species composition and basal cover, implementation of maintenance programmes, and prevalence of invasive alien plants.
The findings show that, although invasive species management, plant species composition, and plant basal cover are often adequate, the implementation of aftercare and maintenance programmes (influencing soil fertility) and deficiencies in overall landform design and drainage systems are most significant in preventing overall rehabilitation progression and self-sustainability. Integrating these during design and rehabilitation execution, followed by intensive maintenance (especially in the first five years post-topsoiling and seeding) will be key for the overall industry performance to improve to acceptable levels. The database is biased towards collieries that actually do undertake rehabilitation and that do measure it, hence the actual industry performance is likely worse than what is presented.
Due to the substantial hectarages involved and the main post-mining land uses being grazing and crop production, the industry cannot afford to keep perpetuating deficiencies in achieving the foundational aspects of rehabilitation that would pave the way for sustained economic future use.
Keywords land capability, monitoring, landscape form, soil fertility, post-mining land use
Introduction
Open cast mining involves the removal of large volumes of soil and rock overburden to access the workable coal seams. This process results in the destruction of vegetation and soil located above the overburden. A total of 326,022 hectares of agricultural land had been disturbed due to coal mining activities in South Africa up to 2014 (Bench Marks Foundation, 2014). Currently the legal requirement for the mining companies is to comply with the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr), which mainly specifies the land capability, and not necessarily the land use. Although the land capability is still necessary to determine the land use, the focus should primarily be dictated by the end land use. Some of the larger mining companies have variable commitment to monitoring and reporting, while in the smaller mining companies, the lack of monitoring and reporting is prevalent. In mines where an active feedback loop exists between monitoring and maintenance, an increase in the rehabilitation performance can be observed (Agboola et al., 2020). To guarantee uniformity in fieldwork, analyses, and reporting, the methodology employed in this study was carried out using the same procedures that have been in use for the past 24 years.
The purpose of this study is to highlight the current status of the South African open-cast coal rehabilitation efforts and performance in relation to the extent of actual rehabilitation that has taken place, and to provide a standardised assessment methodology that can benchmark rehabilitation performance and provide feedback loops to rehabilitation maintenance and eventual sign-off.
Benchmarking rehabilitation in the South African opencast coal industry
Methods
Assessment criteria
The seven rehabilitation criteria assessed (landscape form, land capability, soil fertility, soil loss, species composition, pasture structure, and vigour) are all interconnected and dependent on each other. The succession of the criteria is presented in Figure 1.
The factors, starting at the lower end, are interdependent, as indicated in Figure 1. Table 1 shows the rehabilitation criteria together with a description of each criterion, whereas Table 2 shows the performance rating or scoring. The landscape form forms the foundation of successful rehabilitation, hence the importance of pregrass assessments. It includes the civil engineering components like
slope length, slope angle, and stormwater conveyance structures, amongst others. The design should be sound and aligned with the mine’s closure objectives, any applicable legislative requirements, and best practice guidelines. Once the landscape form is sufficient, it will influence the land capability, which is a factor of slope angle, soil acidity, and topsoil depth. The soil loss is also connected to landscape form but declines with the successful establishment of pasture grasses. Once the areas have been seeded, soil fertility and pasture vigour should be addressed by means of applying fertiliser and undertaking timeous aftercare (two defoliation and two topdressings per annum) for at least the first five years. The degree to which the aforementioned criteria have been addressed will determine the species composition and pasture structure standard.
Table
Rehabilitation criteria
Criterion
Land capability
Landscape form
Soil loss
Soil fertility
Species composition
Pasture structure
Pasture vigour
Table 2
Performance rating
Explanation
Degree to which actual land capability meets the pre-mining land capability or the land capability prescribed in the Environmental Management Plan, or land capability as otherwise specified.
Degree to which a landscape profile is similar to the pre-mining situation or to the neighbouring unmined situation, or to a stable landscape.
Vulnerability to erosion (joint expression of adequacy of landscaping and revegetation).
Degree to which soil properties and nutrient resources can support a vegetation that can be managed to restore soil function, or the degree to which soil function is restored.
Extent to which plant types conducive to restoring soil function and protecting against erosion are present.
Size, distribution and frequency of perennial grass plants (proxy for revegetation success).
Health of plants as influenced by management.
Score Standard of environmental practice
Explanation – degree to which sustainability is met
5 Best Excellent, could not be better.
4 Good
Not perfect, but of high standard.
3 Fair Satisfactory, better than average industry performance.
2 Poor Flawed rehab not conforming to ethic of sustainability.
1 Very poor
No or little effective environmental management.
Figure 1—Succession of rehabilitation criteria
1
Benchmarking rehabilitation in the South African opencast coal industry
Rehabilitation criteria
This section elaborates on the different rehabilitation criteria that are assessed and their applicability in terms of rehabilitation performance.
Landscape form
Landscape form is important because it affects land stability and land capability. For purposes of rehabilitation assessments, landscape form was viewed at three scales: macro, medium, and micro scale.
At the macro scale, there are four main principles of importance and are as follows: drainage to the exterior, drainage density, slope steepness, and hillslope profile. The land should drain to the exterior, and there should be no depressions, hollows, or internal drainage. Ponding of water in rehabilitated areas will lead to the ingress of water into the old mining pit, production of acid mine drainage, and underground leakage or spillage at the surface into neighbouring drainages, resulting in degradation of water quality.
Slope (including slope length and gradient) is an important feature in developing the new landscape. Slope steepness should not exceed the limit at which a tufted grass cover can protect against excessive erosion. If the rehabilitated landscape is too steep, then special measures are required to protect the soil against erosion (e.g., rhizomatous grass cover, such as Pennisetum clandestinum). The new landscape should not be too flat either, otherwise hollows (as a result of differential subsidence of the backfilled spoils) can result in ponding and internal drainage. The ideal hillslope profile is concave at the footslope, with the second choice being an even slope from hilltop to foot while footslope convexity is erosion-prone and unstable.
Conservation structures like stormwater berms, contour banks, and waterways are a concern at the medium scale. The presence of these structures and whether they are appropriately designed and maintained are assessed. There are circumstances where structures are warranted, but the landscape should ideally be designed incorporating geomorphic principles so that formal structures are minimised.
Micro scale refers to surface roughness created by insufficient smoothing during landscaping or by stone, vehicle ruts, rills, and gullies. Roughness at the micro scale impedes access and increases machinery wear-and-tear, during aftercare and future land use.
Land capability
Land capability is an important notion in sustainable land use. Land should never be used beyond its capability, to ensure the resource base is not to be endangered. As a condition of mining, land must be restored to meet a predetermined ‘required’ land capability.
Five land capability classes were used during the assessment, contrasting with the four classes suggested by LaRSSA, 2019, with the addition of a ‘pasture’ land capability intermediate between grazing and arable. After wetland, the classes are in descending order of land capability, where arable land is seen to have a higher land capability value than pasture and grazing land. Lower ranking land use can be practised on a higher-ranking land capability, but not the reverse – arable land can be used for grazing, but grazing land should not be cultivated.
In practical application, in mine rehabilitation assessment, the actual land capability was determined on site, and this was evaluated against the land capability as required by the site-specific EMPr (Environmental Management Programme). If the actual land capability equalled or exceeded the required land capability, then ‘best’ (5) was scored. If the required land capability was not met, then plainly, ‘ very poor ’ (1) applied.
Soil loss
In the assessment, soil loss was modelled using the Soil Loss Estimator for Southern Africa (SLEMSA), a locally adapted and simplified version of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). SLEMSA enables erosion by raindrop impact and overland flow to be estimated. The model inputs are rainfall erosivity (a default value is entered from a published rainfall erosivity map), soil erodibility (a default value is entered, but this may be modified depending on site characteristics), slope length and steepness (determined on site), and vegetal cover (determined on site). There are no standards for soil loss, hence the ‘natural’ minima and maxima of 2 t.ha-1.a-1 and 12 t.ha-1.a-1 are used to represent the extremes of the scoring classes. The rate of soil genesis is order of magnitude, 1 t.ha-1.a-1, or the addition of 0.1 mm depth of soil annually (Breetzke, et al. 2013), and if the rate of soil loss consistently exceeded the formation rate, there would be no soil.
At high rates of soil loss and soil movement across the land surface, erosion features become apparent to the naked eye (Le Roux, 2008). Because of the slow rate of pedogenesis, the soil is a limited resource. For all practical purposes, nett loss of soil is a permanent impairment on land capability and reparation costs are exorbitant. The situation in South Africa is exacerbated because high potential land, determined largely by soil quality, is critically scarce compared to other countries (CSIR, 2005).
Soil fertility
Soil fertility was determined by taking soil samples at every assessment site submitted for laboratory analyses. Soil fertility is important because it capacitates the restoration of soil function. A key issue is soil organic carbon, which constitutes the life of the soil. During the mining operation, soil organic carbon is lost, and the first function of rehabilitation after the new landscape has been created is to restore the soil organic carbon and reinstate soil function.
The mechanism for restoring soil organic carbon is to grow grass crops repeatedly. When grass grows, the above-ground leaf is complemented by roots. If the grass leaf is removed by grazing, mowing, burning, or the leaf dies, there is a corresponding dieoff of the root, which is organic carbon already in the soil. It is recommended that lime be applied to the site’s action plan, and if the acidity persists, an investigation is undertaken to determine the source and profile of acidification. High soil fertility is needed to sustain the repeated grass crops, and the standards applied are as follows (Table 3).
The aforementioned requirements should be met at the time of grass establishment, except for the carbon percentage. About 90% of cases of poor grass establishment are because of insufficient soil fertility (FFSA, 2016). If the establishment is poor, grasses are sparse or the ‘ wrong ’ species establish, it is costly to try to correct, and the rehabilitation process, and the quality of the rehabilitation product, may be impaired. To facilitate the rehabilitation process, the soil fertility standards should be maintained for five years from the establishment (or until a threshold pasture structure is achieved), during a period of intensive aftercare when nitrogen (N) fertiliser is applied in spring, the pasture is defoliated (mowed or grazed) in mid-summer, the second application of N fertiliser is made immediately, and the pasture is defoliated again in autumn or early winter. Maintaining the requisite soil fertility for five years, having the ‘right’ grass species, topdressing with N in spring and mid-summer, and defoliating in mid- and late summer constitute the management that is required to increase soil organic carbon and reinstate soil function.
Benchmarking rehabilitation in the South African opencast coal industry
Table 4 Soil
2016)
Species composition
The relevance of species composition is that perennial fertiliser responsive grasses are essential components of the mechanism to restore soil organic carbon and reinstate soil function. If the grasses used are not fertiliser responsive, then increasing soil organic carbon will be slowed, and the fertiliser will not be used efficiently. The grasses must be perennial rather than annual to avoid having to replant. The commonly used grasses that fit these requirements are Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), Smuts finger grass (Digitaria eriantha) and Oulandsgras (Eragrostis curvula). The step-point method (Evans, Love, 1957) measures the relative proportions of different grasses (and other plants).
Pasture structure
So-called pasture structure is a proxy for pasture establishment and persistence. The ideal is a carpet of densely packed grass tufts approaching a lawn. The two main factors determining pasture structure are soil fertility and defoliation frequency. Infertile soil cannot support plants in abundance, which results in small and widely spaced grass tufts where soil organic carbon does not increase over time. Infrequent defoliation leads to large, widely spaced grass tufts with intervening bare ground or weeds. The idea of the carpet and increased soil organic carbon can be promoted by high soil fertility and frequent defoliation, i.e., meeting the minima in Table 4 and grazing and/or mowing twice per year. Pasture structure is measured by a modified form of the step-point method.
Pasture vigour
This measures grass health as reflected by management intensity. The ideal, for the five years of intensive aftercare following
establishment is the maintenance of soil fertility (Table 4), spring application of N fertiliser, defoliation in mid-summer immediately followed by a second application of N fertiliser, and a second defoliation in autumn or early winter. After five years, if the rehabilitation is properly done, all fertilisers may be withheld, and only the defoliation management continued. If, after five years, a threshold pasture structure is not met, usually because of insufficient intensive aftercare, then further intensive aftercare is recommended until the threshold pasture structure is met.
Results
Overall industry performance over time
The results of 299 rehabilitation assessments conducted on South African coal mines using the methodology as described in the aforementioned since 2000 are shown in Figure 2.
The average for the industry is fair+ (3.4). Qualification of this comparison is warranted, as follows:
➤ The sample of mines in Figure 2 is probably biased. There is doubtless under-sampling of mines with poor and no rehabilitation. The average rehabilitation performance for the coal mining industry is likely less than shown in Figure 2.
➤ The present method of assessing rehabilitation performance dates back to 1996. The method has been revised and improved repeatedly. It is now possibly stricter, so a fair+ (3.4) performance today might have been slightly higher in the past. In the interest of comparability and reliability, the assessment has been made more objective over time. The scoring is currently done by exact algorithms in a computer programme, though there are still some inconsistencies and human error in the data collection phase.
➤ The distribution of the annual industry scores from 2000 to date is represented in the box and whiskers plot in Figure 3. The 2024 average industry score remained the same when compared to the 2023 industry average.
Example of a subset of collieries’ rehabilitation performance over time
As it is impossible to display the detailed data for all 48 collieries in this publication, an extract of a representative group of collieries is used to show the requisite level of details to inform industry trends in rehabilitation performance. The rehabilitation performance results for this subset of collieries are shown in Figure 4. Of interest, land capability and sol loss thresholds are generally met by most collieries and are consistent over time, however landscape form
Figure 2—Coal mining industry rehabilitation performance 2000-2024
Benchmarking rehabilitation in the South African opencast coal industry
and species composition tended to perform sub-optimally but consistently. Soil fertility was the weakest performing aspect and did not increase over time, whereas other management intervention aspects, pasture structure, and pasture vigour, increased consistently over time as rehabilitation matured and responded to aftercare. The nett result was a steady improvement in overall rehabilitation performance from 2017 to 2024, however the foundational aspects of landscape form and soil fertility constrained development and attainment of higher scores over time.
General rehabilitation performance criteria requiring attention
Internal drainage and hollows
Internal drainage and hollows were observed at all sites. Hollows in the landscape are notably susceptible to ponding, which is undesirable in coal rehabilitation because it increases infiltration into the underlying spoils and can lead to or worsen the generation of acid mine drainage.
Hollows are mostly relatively small and can easily be rectified by stripping the topsoil, filling in the hollow with subsoil to the desired
profile, replacing the topsoil, and reseeding. Internal drainage, as with hollows, also results from differential settlement if the area was initially shaped to be free draining. In this instance, the runoff does not drain to the exterior, causing seasonal waterlogging (Figure 5) of soil, leading to a reduction of pasture structure and land capability. Internal drainage can be remedied by construction of drainage trenches or reshaping.
Soil fertility and acidity
Soil fertility is important because it capacitates the restoration of soil function. A key issue is soil organic carbon, which constitutes the life of soil. During the mining operation soil organic carbon is lost, and the first function of rehabilitation after the new landscape has been created is to restore the soil organic carbon and reinstate soil function. The preferred analytical method is the Walkley-Black method (Walkley, Black, 1934) to determine the soil’s organic carbon as opposed to loss on ignition (Heiri et al., 2001). As depicted in Figure 6, the organic matter build-up in the rehabilitation sites had an increasing trend, which is desirable.
The distribution of the overall acid saturation (an indication of the ongoing acidification of soil) over the past few years is presented
Figure 3—Industry scores over the past 24 years
Figure 4—Average rehabilitation performance scores for a group of collieries from 2017 to 2024
Figure 5—Water ponding observed during the site assessments
Benchmarking rehabilitation in the South African opencast coal industry
in Figure 7. It is evident that the acid saturation is constantly increasing. The sources and extent of acidification of the topsoil should be assessed in order to devise mitigation measures.
Based on the box-whiskers-plot depicted in Figure 7, it is possible that soil acidification is a result of poor drainage, where the acid originates from carbonaceous spoils below and acidifies the topsoil by means of capillary rise. Preferably, acidic soils should be addressed before fertiliser is applied. Lime should be applied two months before the application of fertiliser to ensure that the soil pH conditions are favourable and that the macro nutrients are plant available. When ready to apply fertiliser to an existing pasture, the grass must be short, and it is essential to ensure that the grass is cut or grazed before or during the preceding winter.
Once the source of the acidic soil can be determined, more informed decisions regarding future rehabilitation measures could be made, saving time and money and allowing for more effective rehabilitation and ultimate relinquishment.
No aftercare and invasive alien plants (IAP) invasions
At almost all of the sites, there were areas, or individual assessments sites, which received no aftercare in the past year. One of the consequences of insufficient aftercare, especially in the first five years, is the displacement of desirable grass species with ruderal weeds and invasive plant species (Figure 8). The overall decrease in species composition at the different operations can be attributed to the infestation of annual weeds and IAP (Figure 9) as a result of insufficient aftercare and maintenance.
Non-functional berms
Severe erosion was observed in many areas, mostly because of poorly constructed berms, which tend to cause more erosion than they prevent (Figure 10). Berms might serve a purpose at the outset, but they are a long-term liability as eventual failure is almost inevitable. Berms divert surface runoff as well as dissipate the flow of runoff to protect against erosion. The diverted water should be
Figure 6—Organic carbon percentages
Figure 7—Overall acid saturation percentage
Figure 8—Insufficient aftercare at the rehabilitated areas
Benchmarking rehabilitation in the South African opencast coal industry
delivered to designed (wide, flat-bottomed, grassed) waterways. Berms need to have a consistent low gradient along their length. Differential settling of underlying spoils leads to an inconsistency in gradient with consequent scouring on steep gradients and sedimentation at places of low gradient. Unless the berms are maintained properly, they fill with sediment and then overtop, causing erosion. Once the pasture structure reaches threshold, the berms need to be closed and grassed.
Erosion
Extensively eroded sites with gulleys and deep scours were widely observed (Figure 11). The gulleys and scours should be filled, and in severe cases, modelling and design works should be considered to control run-on and runoff as a starting point to remedying the significant and ongoing erosion. The area should firstly be surveyed to identify areas where formal water management infrastructure is required.
Conclusion
The results from this study show that collieries that track rehabilitation performance over time are probably in the minority. However, the combined average scores show that a performance
score of 3.5 out of a possible 5 should be aimed for in order to reach minimum performance levels and to allow for some self-sustaining post-mining land use.
Industry scores for rehabilitation have shown general improvements since 2000, but have previously been at higher levels, particularly between 2010 and 2014. This is due to the declines in performance of newly rehabilitated areas that have been added to the database, especially since 2017.
For the subset of collieries shown in the example above, there is an active feedback loop between monitoring results and the maintenance activities that are implemented. This is evident from the increase in the average rehabilitation performance score to near compliance levels. However, foundational issues remain that will constrain further development towards sign-off and these relate largely to:
➤ Landscape form deficiencies (inadequate or defective stormwater control structures, ponding in hollows, and subsided areas).
➤ Topsoil quality concerns (bulk soil stripping yields mixtures of topsoil and subsoil, often of unsuitable nature that are acidic and infertile, lack organic carbon, and have restrictive volumes of plinthite).
Figure 9—Alien invasive plants at the rehabilitated areas (Acacia mearnsii and Cortaderia selloana)
Figure 10—Berm failure that leads to erosion
Figure 11—Severely eroded areas that require immediate intervention
Benchmarking rehabilitation in the South African opencast coal industry
➤ Soil fertility constraints (for establishment of pasture grasses as per the industry standard and due to inadequate amelioration practices at initial establishment or lack of topup or maintenance fertilisers).
Apart from the foundational issues that constrain rehabilitation performance, the following additional areas of poor performance remain pervasive throughout the industry:
➤ Lack of rehabilitation aftercare (defoliation via mowing, grazing or burning, followed by seasonal top-up broadcasting of N fertiliser, as well as re-seeding sparse or bare areas).
➤ Inadequate control of invasive species.
Finally, the following positive trends were observed throughout industry practices:
➤ Adequate soil volumes are used to achieve required soil depth to meet EMPr-committed land capabilities (although soils may be of poor quality).
➤ Pasture structure improves over time (however, this is limited to collieries with a monitoring-maintenance feedback loop).
➤ Species composition improves over time (from initial fertiliser-responsive pasture grasses to later self-colonisation of desirable regionally indigenous species).
With the prioritisation of environment, sustainability, governance (ESG) performance, the ability of a mine or mining group to show shareholders their rehabilitation performance and benchmarking their relative position in the industry should provide a competitive commercial advantage.
Recommendations
The following general recommendations are made, based on assessing rehabilitation performance in the South African opencast coal industry over the past 24 years, including evaluations of interventions that have been successful, and others less so:
➤ Pastures need to be utilised in order to maintain cover, avoid them becoming moribund, and to stimulate increases in soil organic C levels. Utilisation levels that are required differ between years and should be informed by monitoring data performance groupings.
➤ Rehabilitated land should never be used beyond its inherent capability, otherwise, the land use will not be sustainable over time. Novel land uses can be considered, as can a matrix of complementary and-uses to improve sustained economic outputs.
➤ Native species should be encouraged to increase over time and to eventually displace the majority of fertiliser-responsive pasture grasses. This will reduce the reliance of ongoing expensive and intensive fertiliser applications.
➤ Geomorphic landform designs should be pursued wherever possible to avoid the need for stormwater control berms that mostly fail over time.
➤ Monitoring rehabilitation is most probably not implemented at most collieries or is only intermittent. Providing an accurate record of rehabilitation performance over time (preferably with metrics of land use efficiency) remains a recognised and low risk means of building the case for site closure and eventual relinquishment.
➤ A standardised approach to rehabilitation performance monitoring and evaluation across operations greatly enhances a mining groups’ ability to benchmark itself in relation to the industry and to identify where certain operations may be performing poorly, thus guiding the optimal allocation of resources.
➤ Have a maintenance feedback loop. In evaluating the data from 48 collieries, those that implemented rehabilitation maintenance actions showed increases in rehabilitation performance over time. Those that did not either showed static performance (at best) or declines in performance.
➤ First address foundational issues (land capability, slope, soil depth, landform design, stormwater controls). Do not establish vegetation until foundational aspects are addressed, as they are difficult and more expensive to fix retrospectively.
➤ Rehabilitate with the end in mind (especially regarding end land use plans) but do not take shortcuts to achieve these. Establishing pasture is critical to first kickstarting soil chemical and biological processes, prior to establishing crops or allowing grazing (as appropriate).
➤ Optimise topsoil management by following a stripping plan that, ideally, separates topsoil and subsoils, avoids unsuitable soils (plinthites, wetland soils, etc.), minimises stockpiling impacts, and guides responsible replacement of soils in the sequence that they were stripped.
➤ Follow the very well-written LaRSSA-Coaltech Guideline for the Rehabilitation of Surface Mined Land (LaRSSA, 2019).
Acknowledgements
Mike Mentis, Baltimore Mokou, Zibuko Marali, Arend de Beer, Mogomotsi Gare, Neels Bornman, Ernestine Schmidhuber, Lizé Martins, and Sethabile Mbatha are thanked for their contributions to the assessments and reporting. The South African coal mining industry is thanked for access to their rehabilitating land and willingness to participate in rehabilitation performance monitoring.
References
Agboola, O., Babatunde, D.E., Fayomi, O.S., Sadiku, E.R., Popoola, P., Moropeng, L., Yahaya, A., Mamudu, O.A. 2020. A review on the impact of mining operation: Monitoring, assessment and management. Results in Engineering, vol. 8 (2020) 100181.
Bench Marks Foundation. 2014. Policy Gap 9. South African coal mining, August 2014.
Breetzke, G.D., Koomen, E., Critchley, W.R.S. 2013. GIS-Assisted Modelling of Soil Erosion in a South African Catchment: Evaluating the USLE and SLEMSA Approach. Water Resources Planning, Development and Management, pp. 1–71.
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and Agricultural Research Council. 2005. National Land-cover Database 2000. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria.
Evans, R.A., Love, R.M. 1957. The step-point method of sampling-a practical tool in range research. Journal of Range Management, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 208–212.
Fertilizer handbook of South Africa, FFSA. 2016. Seventh revised edition ed. Pretoria, Lynnwood Ridge: The Fertilizer Society of South Africa, South Africa.
Heiri, O., Lotter, A.F., Lemcke, G. 2001. Loss on ignition as a method for estimating organic and carbonate content in sediments: reproducibility and comparability of results. Journal of Paleolimnology, vol. 25, pp. 101–110.
Land Rehabilitation Society of Southern Africa, LaRSSA. 2019. Land Rehabilitation Guidelines for Surface Coal Mines. Land Rehabilitation Society of Southern Africa, Coaltech, Mineral Council of South Africa, 2019.
Le Roux, J.J., Morgenthal, T.L., Malherbe, J., Sumner, P.D., Pretorius, D.J. 2008. Water erosion prediction at a national scale for South Africa. Water SA. vol. 34, no. 3), pp. 305–314.
Walkley, A., Black, I.A. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci vol. 37, pp. 29–38. u
Affiliation:
Social Performance Specialist, South Africa
Correspondence to:
O. Koatlhai
Email:
Olebogeng.Koatlhai@angloamerican.com
Dates:
Received: 15 Oct. 2025
Published: April 2025
How to cite: Koatlhai, O. 2025. Co-designing the future: Integrating social transition and compliance for sustainable mine closures. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 187–192
DOI ID:
https://doi.org/10.17159/2411-9717/794/2025
This paper is based on a presentation given at the Mine Closure Conference 2025 19-20 February 2025, Maslow Hotel, Sandton, Johannesburg
Co-designing the future: Integrating social transition and compliance for sustainable mine closures
by O. Koatlhai
Abstract
Mine closures have traditionally prioritised environmental rehabilitation, often overlooking the deep socio-economic disruptions that follow, particularly in mining-dependent communities. This paper argues that mine closure should not mark the end of prosperity but rather the beginning of a sustainable transition. The coproduction model, which integrates community participation, governance, and economic planning, offers a transformative approach to closure planning.
Drawing on case studies from Ghana, Zambia, and Indonesia, this research examines the successes and failures of past closures, highlighting the critical role of stakeholder engagement, skills development, and economic diversification. By incorporating emerging technologies such as AI-driven economic forecasting, blockchain for governance transparency, and decentralised finance (DeFi) models, mining companies can ensure a just and sustainable post-mining future. This study challenges outdated closure models and presents a forward-looking strategy that sees mine closure not as an endpoint, but as a catalyst for social resilience and economic transformation. It underscores the need for policy reforms, stronger governance, and investment in alternative industries to prevent mining towns from becoming economic wastelands. By shifting the paradigm from remediation to regeneration, this research calls for a new era of mine closure planning that puts people and prosperity at its core.
Keywords
stakeholder engagement, social transition, mine closure, international standards, social license to operate
Introduction
Mining has long been a cornerstone of global economic development, providing essential raw materials for industrial growth. However, as mines reach the end of their operational lifespan, they often leave behind significant environmental, economic, and social challenges. Traditionally, mine closure planning has focused primarily on environmental rehabilitation, aiming to restore landscapes and mitigate ecological damage. While this is crucial, it fails to address a critical issue – the long-term socio-economic sustainability of mining dependent communities.
In many regions, especially in Africa, mine closures have triggered economic collapse, unemployment, and social instability. Local economies built around mining operations struggle to transition, leaving communities vulnerable. This is evident in past closures such as the Copperbelt mines in Zambia, where the absence of post-mining economic planning led to widespread poverty and illegal mining. Similarly, the Grasberg mine in Indonesia saw social unrest when thousands of workers were left without alternative livelihoods. The Obuasi mine in Ghana, however, provides an example of a partial success, where economic transition efforts, although initially mismanaged, were later improved through stakeholder engagement. These cases highlight a crucial question: How can mine closure be managed as a long-term socio-economic transition rather than an abrupt shutdown?
This paper proposes a co-production model for sustainable mine closure, in which mining companies, governments, and communities work together to design inclusive, forward-thinking closure strategies. This model moves beyond conventional environmental remediation to integrate economic diversification, skills development, and long-term governance frameworks. Additionally, emerging technologies such as AI-driven economic forecasting, blockchain-based governance, and decentralised finance (DeFi) models present new opportunities for ensuring transparent, data-driven, and communityled transition planning.
Co-designing the future: Integrating social transition and compliance for sustainable mine closure
Using case studies from Ghana, Zambia, and Indonesia, this paper examines both the failures of traditional mine closures and the potential of the co-production model. It also explores the challenges in implementing this approach, particularly in Africa, where weak governance, economic dependence on mining, and limited financial investment create barriers to sustainable transition. Finally, the paper outlines policy recommendations, demonstrating how a combination of regulatory reforms, technology-driven solutions, and inclusive governance structures can transform mine closure into an opportunity for long-term community resilience. By reframing mine closure as an economic reinvention rather than a regulatory burden, this research contributes to the growing discussion on sustainable mining practices. If properly implemented, the co-production model can prevent economic collapse, empower communities, and create a legacy of resilience in post-mining regions.
Literature review
Understanding social transition
Social transition in the context of mine closure refers to the process of preparing local communities for life after mining. It involves a shift in the economic, social, and environmental dynamics of communities that have relied on mining as their primary economic driver. The goal of social transition is to minimise the socioeconomic disruptions caused by the termination of mining activities and to create a pathway for communities to adapt to new forms of livelihood and societal structure (Bainton, Holcombe, 2018).
In many cases, the closure of a mine represents the loss of the primary source of employment in the region, leading to economic stagnation and social dislocation. The co-production model addresses this by investing in skills development and alternative industries, ensuring that communities are not left economically vulnerable when mining operations cease (Monteiro et al., 2019). A key outcome of the co-production model is building community resilience, which refers to a community’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances, particularly in the face of economic shocks such as mine closures. By involving communities in the planning process and investing in social infrastructure (e.g., education, healthcare, local governance), the co-production model helps to ensure that communities are better equipped to navigate the transition from a mining-dependent economy to a diversified one (Bainton, Holcombe, 2018).
Key elements of social transition include
i. Economic transition: Shifting the economic base from mining to other sustainable industries, such as agriculture, renewable energy, or tourism.
ii. Skills development: Providing workers with the training and skills necessary to transition into new employment opportunities post-mining.
iii. Community resilience: Strengthening social institutions, such as education and healthcare, to ensure the long-term sustainability of the community.
iv. Infrastructure investment: Ensuring that local infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and utilities, is maintained or repurposed for new economic activities (Morrison-Saunders, 2019).
Social impacts of mine closure
Research has consistently shown that the social impacts of mine closure are extensive. Communities often experience a rapid decline in employment opportunities, leading to increased poverty,
migration, and social dislocation. These impacts are compounded by the fact that mining towns are often built around the mining operations, with limited infrastructure or alternative economic opportunities in place once the mine closes (Edwards, Maritz, 2019). In the African context, where economic diversification is often limited, mine closures can have especially devastating consequences. For instance, the closure of large-scale coal mines in South Africa has been linked to rising unemployment rates, increased crime, and the breakdown of social services in affected communities (Kemp, Owen, 2019). Similar patterns have been observed in other regions where mining is a key driver of local economies, such as Zambia and Ghana (Laurencont et al., 2019).
While international standards such as the IFC Performance Standards and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights emphasise the importance of stakeholder engagement in mine closure, implementation remains inconsistent, particularly in developing economies (World Bank, 2021). The World Bank further notes that regulatory frameworks often lack enforcement mechanisms, allowing companies to abandon operations without adequately supporting local communities (World Bank, 2021).
International best practices: IFC, UNGP, and SDGs
The shift toward more socially responsible mine closure practices has been driven, in part, by international frameworks such as the IFC Performance Standards, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP), and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These frameworks emphasise the importance of integrating social considerations into mine closure plans, particularly in relation to human rights, sustainable livelihoods, and community resilience (Monteiro et al., 2019).
The International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards serve as a global benchmark for responsible mine closure practices. Standard 5 focuses on land acquisition and involuntary resettlement, highlighting the need to avoid or minimise displacement and to provide affected communities with opportunities for alternative livelihoods (IFC, 2012). By focusing on social impacts, the IFC standards push for more inclusive closure strategies, ensuring that mining companies are held accountable for the socio-economic wellbeing of local populations during and after the closure process.
The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) provide a framework for ensuring that the rights of local communities are protected during mine closure. These principles emphasise the importance of preventing and mitigating human rights abuses associated with corporate activities, including mining (Ruggie, 2011).
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the United Nations in 2015, also offer a blueprint for integrating social sustainability into mine closure planning. Goals such as SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 13 (Climate Action) are directly relevant to the challenges posed by mine closures (Monteiro et al., 2019). In countries like Zambia and Ghana, where mining is a dominant economic activity, adhering to the SDGs can help ensure that closure plans contribute to long-term social and economic resilience in affected regions.
Emerging research advocates for a more participatory approach to mine closure, often referred to as the co-production model. This model is centered around the principle that mine closures should be designed and implemented in collaboration with local communities. In contrast to the top-down approach of traditional closure plans,
Co-designing the future: Integrating social transition and compliance for sustainable mine closure
the co-production model emphasises stakeholder engagement and shared decision-making (Brock et al., 2019). This ensures that closure plans are not only technically sound but also socially responsive to the unique needs of the affected communities.
The co-production model: A new framework for sustainable mine closure
The co-production model is intrinsically linked to the concept of social transition because it offers a framework for integrating the needs and aspirations of local communities into the mine closure process. The co-production model recognises that communities are not passive recipients of mine closure plans but are active agents in shaping their post-mining future (Brock et al., 2019).
Key elements of the co-production model include:
1. Early stakeholder engagement: Ensuring that local voices influence closure planning before operations stop (MorrisonSaunders, 2019).
2. Economic diversification strategies: Investing in alternative industries, skills development, and local businesses to prevent economic collapse (Bainton, Holcombe, 2018; Banks, 2018).
3. Decentralised governance: Establishing multi-stakeholder committees to oversee and adjust closure plans over time (Kemp, Owen, 2019).
Case studies
Grasberg mine, Indonesia: A failure of social transition
In many instances, failures in mine closure planning can be attributed to a lack of meaningful consultation with affected communities, government bodies, and other stakeholders. As a result, closure plans often fail to address the specific social and economic needs of those most impacted by the cessation of mining activities (Morrison-Saunders, 2019).
One high-profile example of the consequences of inadequate stakeholder engagement is the closure of the Grasberg mine in Indonesia. Operated by Freeport-McMoRan, the mine was one of the largest gold and copper mines in the world, providing jobs and economic opportunities to the local population in the remote region of Papua. However, when operations began winding down, there was little effort to engage with the local indigenous communities regarding their future livelihoods or the social impact of the mine’s closure. The result was social unrest, economic instability, and long-term disputes between the local community and the mining company (Söderholm, Svahn, 2015).
Challenges and mistakes
i. Lack of alternative livelihoods: Over 13,000 workers lost their jobs upon closure, no formal transition programmes to support re-employment (Gunawan et al., 2023).
ii. Minimal stakeholder engagement: Indigenous communities were not involved in closure planning, leading to protests (ICMM, 2020).
iii. Poor economic transition strategy: Despite years of mining profits, little investment was made in alternative industries, making the transition economically unsustainable.
Lessons learned
i. Grasberg demonstrates the risks of abrupt closure without stakeholder planning; stakeholder engagement must start early to prevent social backlash.
ii. The co-production model could have mitigated social unrest by incorporating local governance and transition strategies.
iii. AI-driven economic forecasting could have predicted the economic risks and helped identify sustainable industries for transition.
Obuasi mine, Ghana: A shift toward co-production
In 2014, operations were suspended due to high operating costs and safety concerns, leading to mass layoffs and economic stagnation (Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2021). Initially, local communities were excluded from closure discussions, resulting in protests. However, the co-production model was later implemented, leading to a more sustainable transition.
Key takeaways
i. The local community viewed the closure as a corporate decision, excluding local voices (Mususa, 2022). The closure announcement led to protests due to job losses (Hilson, Yakovleva, 2007).
ii. Initial plans failed to address alternative livelihoods, forcing reliance on artisanal mining but participatory planning improved outcomes.
iii. Investment in alternative industries (agribusiness, SMEs) helped stabilise the economy.
iv. Agricultural training programmes were introduced, helping exminers transition into agribusiness (Hilson et al., 2022).
v. A community-led oversight board ensured transparency in post-mining projects.
vi. The government and AngloGold Ashanti partnered to fund small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (World Bank, 2021).
Lessons for future mine closure strategies
i. Governments must enforce stronger regulations to ensure that companies provide clear post-closure economic transition plans.
ii. Blockchain-based governance could ensure mine closure funds are managed transparently, preventing companies from abandoning their financial obligations.
iii. Decentralised finance (DeFi) models could enable mining communities to self-fund local businesses and post-mining development projects, reducing reliance on government assistance.
Copperbelt, Zambia: The dangers of economic over-reliance on mining
The socio-economic and political realities of African countries, such as weak governance and regulatory oversight, can make it difficult to enforce social closure commitments (Kemp, Owen, 2019). Limited economic diversification, and high levels of poverty, create a complex environment for mine closure planning (Banks, 2018), especially in regions where there are deep cultural or political divides between mining companies and local communities (Bainton, Holcombe, 2018). However, these challenges also make the co-production model particularly relevant in the African context. The Zambian Copperbelt has historically been one of the world’s most productive copper mining regions, contributing significantly to the country’s economy. However, the closure of several large mines in the late 1990s and early 2000s, combined with the privatisation of state-owned mining companies, led to severe economic and social consequences (Mususa, 2022). As several mines in the region approach closure, local stakeholders have been involved in developing a closure plan that focuses on skills development, agricultural investment, and the promotion of smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Hilson, Yakovleva, 2007).
Co-designing the future: Integrating social transition and compliance for sustainable mine closure
Challenges and mistakes
i. Mass unemployment and informal mining: Thousands of former mine workers turned to unsafe artisanal mining, leading to dangerous working conditions, environmental damage, and health risks (Hilson, Maconachie, 2020).
ii. Policy failures and lack of enforcement: Weak regulatory oversight allowed private mining companies to exit without fully implementing closure plans, leaving communities without economic alternatives (World Bank, 2021).
iii. Economic collapse and social decline: With no structured transition programmes, former mining towns experienced high poverty rates, rising crime, and deteriorating infrastructure (Mususa, 2022).
Lessons for future mine closure strategies
i. AI-driven economic forecasting could have helped predict which alternative industries (e.g., agribusiness, tourism, renewable energy) would be most viable for the Copperbelt.
ii. Blockchain-based governance could ensure mine closure funds are managed transparently, preventing companies from abandoning their financial obligations.
iii. Decentralised finance (DeFi) models could enable mining communities to self-fund local businesses and post-mining development projects, reducing reliance on government assistance.
Challenges in implementing the co-production model in Africa
The co-production model offers a promising and innovative approach to mine closure, particularly in terms of its emphasis on stakeholder engagement, socio-economic resilience, and long-term sustainability. However, while the model has shown great potential, its implementation, particularly in developing regions such as Africa, presents several challenges. These challenges stem from a range of political, economic, social, and environmental factors, each of which must be addressed to ensure the successful execution of the model. This chapter explores the primary challenges to implementing the co-production model and offers suggestions for overcoming them.
Weak governance and regulatory gaps
One of the primary obstacles to effective mine closure in Africa is the lack of strong regulatory enforcement. Many governments have mine closure policies on paper, but poor enforcement mechanisms allow mining companies to abandon sites without fulfilling their obligations (World Bank, 2021). In Zambia’s Copperbelt, for instance, weak regulatory oversight meant that mining companies privatised and exited without implementing structured transition programmes, leaving communities in economic distress (Mususa, 2022). Without strong governance, the co-production model struggles to gain traction, as it depends on the active participation of both the government and communities to hold mining companies accountable. In addition to weak governance, corruption is a pervasive issue in many mining-dependent economies. Mining companies may form corrupt relationships with government officials, prioritising short-term profits over the long-term wellbeing of the communities affected by mine closure. In such cases, the co-production model, which depends on transparent and accountable decision-making, can be difficult to implement (Banks, 2018).
Key issues
i. Limited monitoring and accountability. Governments often lack resources and technical capacity to ensure compliance with mine closure plans (Vivoda et al., 2019).
ii. Political interference and corruption. Some mining firms exploit loopholes or negotiate lenient closure requirements through political channels (Hilson, Maconachie, 2020).
iii. Short-term policy focus. Many governments prioritise immediate revenue from mining rather than long-term sustainability planning (ICMM, 2020).
Economic barriers and over-reliance on mining
Many African economies are heavily dependent on mining revenues to fund public services, infrastructure, and economic development. This dependency can create a conflict of interest, as governments may prioritise the continued extraction of resources over longterm social planning, making it difficult to prioritise post-mining economic planning. Countries such as Zambia, the DRC, and South Africa rely on mining for a significant share of the GDP and foreign exchange earnings, meaning governments have little incentive to focus on closure strategies (Vivoda et al., 2019). Mining companies may be reluctant to adopt the co-production model due to the perceived high costs associated with socio-economic transition planning, skills development, and community engagement.
Key issues
i. Lack of economic diversification. Alternative industries (e.g., manufacturing, agribusiness, or renewable energy) are not welldeveloped in mining regions (Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2021).
ii. Limited access to capital. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) struggle to secure funding for post-mining business ventures (Monteiro et al., 2023).
iii. Job market mismatch. Many former mine workers lack the skills needed for non-mining industries, leading to high post-closure unemployment rates (Hilson et al., 2022).
Infrastructure and investment gaps
Even when governments and companies are willing to invest in alternative industries, the lack of infrastructure in many miningdependent regions makes economic transition difficult. Many former mining towns lack adequate transport, energy, and digital infrastructure, which discourages new investment. Many African governments face significant capacity constraints, particularly in rural regions, where government officials may lack the resources and expertise to oversee complex closure plans or hold mining companies accountable for failing to meet social and environmental commitments (Hilson, Yakovleva, 2007). Many communities lack the technical expertise needed to engage fully in the planning and implementation of mine closure strategies. This skills gap makes it difficult for communities to actively participate in decision-making, particularly in areas such as economic planning and environmental management (Edwards, Maritz, 2019; Kemp, Owen, 2019). In the absence of effective monitoring, the co-production model, which relies on continuous evaluation and stakeholder feedback, becomes difficult to sustain (Vivoda et al., 2019).
Key issues
i. Poor transport and logistics networks. Many former mining towns are geographically isolated, making new businesses unviable (World Bank, 2021).
Co-designing the future: Integrating social transition and compliance for sustainable mine closure
ii. Unreliable energy supply. Industries such as manufacturing or agribusiness require stable power, which is often lacking in postmining regions (ICMM, 2020).
iii. Limited digital infrastructure. The absence of broadband connectivity hinders the growth of technology-driven sectors that could replace mining (Monteiro et al., 2023).
Overcoming the challenges
While the challenges to implementing the co-production model are significant, they are not impossible. The following strategies could help overcome these barriers and ensure the successful execution of the co-production model:
i. Strengthening governance and anti-corruption measures: African governments must focus on strengthening governance structures and implementing anti-corruption measures to ensure that mining companies are held accountable for their social and environmental obligations. This may involve international collaboration with organisations such as the World Bank or United Nations, which can provide technical assistance and monitoring support (Monteiro et al., 2019).
ii. Promoting economic diversification: African governments and mining companies should invest in economic diversification strategies that reduce dependence on mining revenues. This could include promoting industries such as agriculture, tourism, and renewable energy, which can provide sustainable livelihoods for communities post mine closure (Banks, 2018).
iii. Cultural sensitivity and community empowerment: Mining companies must prioritise cultural sensitivity when engaging with African communities. This involves respecting local governance structures and involving traditional leaders in the planning process. By building trust and fostering genuine partnerships, companies can overcome the social barriers that often hinder the co-production model (Bainton, Holcombe, 2018).
iv. Long-term investment from mining companies: Mining companies should view investments in the co-production model not as costs, but as investments in their social license to operate. By building strong relationships with local communities and investing in sustainable livelihoods, companies can avoid costly social conflicts and enhance their reputations (Brock et al., 2019).
v. Transparency and trust-building: Mining companies must prioritise transparency and open communication with local communities to rebuild trust. This involves engaging communities early in the closure process and ensuring that they have a say in key decisions about their future (Vivoda et al., 2019).
Recommendations for future mine closure strategies
To ensure that mine closures do not lead to economic and social collapse, a multi-pronged approach is needed—one that integrates technology, governance, and inclusive economic planning. As mining evolves in complexity and scale, so too must the strategies for mine closure. The future of mine closure cannot simply rely on past models or incremental improvements. It must embrace innovative, disruptive strategies that break away from traditional thinking and offer more comprehensive, resilient, and socially responsible outcomes for communities. This section presents futuristic and barrier-breaking recommendations, leveraging emerging technologies, new governance models, and bold approaches to economic diversification.
Leveraging emerging technologies for sustainable mine closure
Recent advancements in technology-driven governance and economic planning offer new solutions for sustainable mine closure.
i. Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to predict viable alternative industries in post-mining regions by analysing:
• Local workforce skills and retraining needs.
• Market demand for new industries (e.g., agribusiness, renewable energy, tourism).
• Investment potential and resource allocation (Monteiro et al., 2023).
ii. Blockchain technology can help track and enforce mine closure commitments, ensuring that:
• Funds for post-mining projects are not misused.
• Mining companies remain accountable for rehabilitation efforts.
• Community oversight is strengthened through transparent smart contracts (Laurencont et al., 2019).
iii. DeFi models allow communities to self-fund local businesses and post-mining initiatives, reducing reliance on government aid. Through smart contracts and decentralised funding pools, former mining towns can:
• Finance small businesses in sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.
• Provide microloans to ex-mine workers for entrepreneurship.
• Develop universal basic income (UBI) programmes funded by mine rehabilitation dividends (Vivoda et al., 2019).
Policy recommendations for governments and mining companies
For governments
i. Stronger regulatory frameworks. Enforce stricter mine closure policies, ensuring companies invest in long-term economic transition programmes (World Bank, 2021).
ii. Incentives for economic diversification. Provide tax breaks and funding for companies investing in post-mining industries like renewable energy, agriculture, and tourism (Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2021).
iii. Public-private partnerships (PPPs). Encourage collaborations between governments, mining companies, and private investors to fund infrastructure and skills training programmes (ICMM, 2020).
For mining companies
i. Early stakeholder engagement. Include communities from the start of closure planning to prevent social unrest (Hilson et al., 2022).
ii. Long-term rehabilitation funds. Establish secure, blockchaintracked financial reserves for community-led post-mining projects (Laurencont et al., 2019).
iii. Investment in alternative livelihoods – Support skills training, agribusiness, and digital economy jobs to reduce dependency on mining jobs (Vivoda et al., 2019).
A structured co-production framework for mine closure implementation
The co-production model ensures inclusive, transparent, and sustainable mine closure planning. The following framework outlines the key stages for implementation:
Co-designing the future: Integrating social transition and compliance for sustainable mine closure
Conclusion
The future of mine closure is not just about managing the end of an era; it is about ushering in a new beginning. Traditional approaches to mine closure, focused heavily on environmental restoration, have often left socio-economic devastation in their wake, particularly in regions like Africa, where communities are deeply intertwined with mining operations. The co-production model offers a breakthrough, rethinking mine closure as a collaborative process that places communities at the heart of decision-making, ensuring that they not only survive but thrive post-closure. This paper has highlighted the critical need to embed stakeholder engagement, economic diversification, and long-term resilience into every closure plan. The co-production model, bolstered by AI-driven economic forecasting, blockchain for transparency, and decentralised finance models, marks a bold shift from simply closing mines to transforming entire communities. It is a model that brings sustainable livelihoods, empowerment, and self-determination to the forefront of the mining lifecycle. In the African context, where challenges like weak governance, economic dependence on mining, and social tensions present unique barriers, this model offers a path forward. By embracing innovative technologies, investing in skills development, and building systems of trust and ownership, mining companies and governments can ensure that mine closure becomes a springboard for regenerative economies rather than a source of economic collapse. The success of these strategies lies in the collective effort of governments, corporations, and communities, who must recognise that mine closure is an opportunity to redesign the future, creating lasting legacies of prosperity, equality, and sustainability. The end of mining need not be the end of growth. Instead, it can be the beginning of something far greater: A future where communities stand stronger, economies diversify, and the environment regenerates. The journey to this future begins with innovative mine closure strategies that look beyond the immediate horizon and embrace the possibilities of what’s next.
References
Adu-Gyamfi, E., Mensah, J.K., Nyarko, E. 2021. Post-mining transitions in Ghana: A socio-economic resilience perspective. Resources Policy, 74, 102395.
Bainton, N., Holcombe, S. 2018. A critical review of the social aspects of mine closure. Resources Policy, vol. 58, pp. 1–8.
Banks, G. 2018. Understanding ‘resource nationalism’: Economic dynamics and political relations of mining in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Pacific History, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 1–18.
Brock, D., Weeks, B., Heyes, J. 2019. Introducing the International Council on Mining and Metals’ Integrated Mine Closure Good Practice Guide. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure
Edwards, J., Maritz, A. 2019. Social aspects of mine closure: the elephant in the room. Mine Closure 2019. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure. pp. 305–316. Australian Centre for Geomechanics.
Hilson, G., Yakovleva, N. 2007. Strained relations: A critical analysis of the mining conflict in Prestea, Ghana. Political Geography, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 98–119.
ICMM. 2020. Integrated Mine Closure: Good Practice Guide. International Council on Mining and Metals. Available at: www.icmm.com
IFC. 2012. IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. International Finance Corporation.
Kemp, D., Owen, J. 2019. Regulating the social aspects of mine closure in three Australian states. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 405–424.
Laurencont, T., Garrood, T., Vidler, P., Fawcett, M. 2019. Social provisioning for mine closure. Mine Closure 2019. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure. Australian Centre for Geomechanics.
Monteiro, N.T.R., Da Silva, E.A., Neto, J.M.M. 2023. Sustainable development goals in mining: AI applications for economic transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 240, p. 118132.
Morrison-Saunders, A. 2019. The action is where the social is! Enhancing stakeholder engagement in mine closure planning. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure.
Mususa, P. 2022. Mining-dependent communities in Zambia: The struggle for economic reinvention post-closure. Journal of African Development, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 150–168.
Ruggie, J. 2011. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework. United Nations.
Söderholm, P., Svahn, N. 2015. Mining closure and the environment: A regulatory perspective from Papua New Guinea. Natural Resources Forum, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 48–61.
Tones, A., Howe, L., Plooy, J.D. 2021. Knowledge makes the work go round: Knowledge management in mine closure planning. Mine Closure 2021. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mine Closure. QMC Group.
Vivoda, V., Kemp, D., Owen, J. 2019. Regulating the social aspects of mine closure in three Australian states. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 405–424.
Williams, G. 2019. Rebuilding the valleys: The impact of coal mine closures in Wales. Energy Policy Journal, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 123–137. u
Figure 1—Three-phase futuristic co-production model by O. Koatlhai, 2025
Affiliation:
1University of Cape Town, South Africa
2Minerals Council South Africa
Correspondence to: M.J. Cole
Email: meganjcole@gmail.com
Dates:
Received: 15 Oct. 2025
Published: April 2025
How to cite:
Cole, M.J., Mudau, S., Mohasoa, P. 2025
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa.
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 193–208
DOI ID:
https://doi.org/10.17159/2411-9717/796/2025
ORCiD:
M.J. Cole
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0815-7590
This paper is based on a presentation given at the Mine Closure Conference 2025 19-20 February 2025, Maslow Hotel, Sandton, Johannesburg
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
by M.J. Cole1, S. Mudau2, P. Mohasoa2
Abstract
Derelict and ownerless (D&O) mines in South Africa have been an ongoing concern for over a decade. While some progress has been made to rehabilitate D&O asbestos sites, significant work remains, exacerbated by the growth in illegal mining. There are concerns regarding the accuracy and transparency of the D&O database, lack of oversight, and constrained funding, and the government is increasingly looking to the private sector to fund rehabilitation. Given these challenges, a new, sustainable approach to D&O sites in South Africa is needed to bring clarity and transparency to the process, recognise responsibilities and promote partnerships, and explore economic opportunities at D&O sites to reduce the financial liability and respond to the growing demand for critical minerals. This article has three components: i) reviews of international D&O good practices; ii) it analyses South Africa’s current approach and the D&O sites; and iii) proposes a D&O framework that addresses data, risk ratings, responsibilities and rehabilitation, economic opportunities, and stakeholder engagement. The study finds that the majority of the 6,100 so-called abandoned D&O mines are quarries and mine site features, 16% are operational, at least 11% have owners, and only 752 (12%) require rehabilitation. The framework aims to bring clarity and fairness to decision-making and to assign risk and responsibility for rehabilitation and seeks to incorporate economic opportunities to reduce the financial burden of rehabilitation, create jobs for local communities, and respond to the growing demand for critical minerals for the clean energy transition.
Keywords mining, mine closure, abandoned mines, risk, economic opportunity
Introduction
Abandoned mines – risks and opportunities
Legacy mining issues are common in many mining countries around the world with an estimate of millions of sites globally, although in most countries they are not well documented (Worrall et al., 2009). They are described by various terms, including derelict, ownerless, abandoned, legacy, and orphaned sites and include shafts, pits, and waste rock dumps. They pose risks to public health and safety, the environment (water, land, biodiversity), society and the economy, and have significant policy and financial implications (Bian et al., 2010; Tremblay, Hogan, 2016; Broadhurst et al., 2019). Common characteristics are incomplete remediation of historical mines, responsibility falling to the state and private landholders, and the complexity of potential impacts (Unger et al., 2015). Formal responses to abandoned mines are a relatively recent development, and they range in scope from large-scale landscape level initiatives, such as those implemented in Germany, to small-scale site-level projects focused on individual mines (Cornelissen et al., 2019). Despite significant progress in mine closure regulations and practices around the world, effective rehabilitation of mine-degraded land and waste facilities is hard to achieve (ICMM, 2019). Where rehabilitation is done, it may not eliminate the long-term risks, partly because they are hard to predict (Van Druten, Bekker, 2017; Gule, 2021; Cole, 2024). There is rapidly growing demand for metals and minerals that will contribute to the green energy transition, such as copper, nickel, cobalt, zinc, lithium, rare earth elements, manganese and vanadium (Elshkaki et al., 2016, 2018; IEA, 2023; US Geological Survey, 2024). These so-called critical minerals are essential components in clean energy technologies such as wind turbines, solar panels, battery storage, and electric vehicles. Increasing prices could turn abandoned mines from financial liabilities into economic opportunities. Mining in South Africa
A brief review of the history of mining in South Africa reveals huge economic, political, institutional
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
and governance changes over 170 years (Cole, Broadhurst, 2020). Commercial mining began in South Africa in 1852 with Namaqualand copper deposits (Cairncross, 2004), followed by coal (1880), diamonds (1886), gold (1890), tin (1907-1994) (Falcon, 1985; Godsell, 2011), platinum-group metals (PGMs) (1920), manganese and iron ore (1929), and asbestos (1930s-1980s) (Hart, 1988). Mining was the basis for an industrial revolution that transformed South Africa into an economic powerhouse (Wilson, 2011) and stimulated manufacturing, agriculture, and services and led to the development of towns, cities and transport networks (Kane-Berman, 2017). Many mines have closed over the years as they depleted their resources. However, there are currently over 230 operating mines in South Africa producing over 20 different commodities (Cole, 2024). Some old mines are targets for illegal mining, posing a risk to human safety and the natural environment and causing losses in investment, production, and employment for the mining industry. Challenges to rehabilitation in South Africa include a lack of clearly assigned responsibilities, the absence of criteria and standards of rehabilitation, the potential high cost of rehabilitation, the lack of legal clarity, the process and requirements for undertaking government funded rehabilitation, and numerous technical issues (Mhlongo, Amponsah-Dacosta, 2016; Cornelissen, 2017).
Mine closure legislation in South Africa
Prior to 1956, mine closures were not subject to stringent legislative requirements, with mines governed by insufficient environmental regulations under the Mines and Works Act of 1911. Closure planning was introduced in the Minerals Act of 1991, which stipulated that an environmental management programme be submitted, rehabilitation be undertaken, financial provision made, and an application submitted for a closure certificate (Swart, 2003). Since democratic elections in 1994, there have been significant reforms to mining and environmental legislation and the main regulations, which now govern mine closure and rehabilitation in South Africa, are the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) of 2002 and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of 1998. In 2015, regulations for Financial Provisioning for the Mitigation and Rehabilitation of Environmental Damage Caused by Reconnaissance, Prospecting, Exploration, Mining or Production Operations were promulgated under the Government Notice Regulations GNR1147 in terms of NEMA, designed to achieve an approved sustainable end state.
Other relevant legislation includes the National Water Act (NWA), which governs water use of water for mining related activity, the Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSA), which places safety and occupational obligations on mine rehabilitation and closed mines, the Conservation of Agriculture Act (CARA), which states that degradation of the agricultural potential of soil is illegal, and the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA), which provides a framework for spatial planning and land use management.
A Draft National Mine Closure Strategy (NMCS) was gazetted by the DMRE in 2021, aiming to support existing legislation, address issues around rehabilitation, plan for ‘a diverse post-mining economy’, and promote closure planning throughout the lifecycle of a mine, and a regional approach to mine closures (DMRE, 2021). The MPRDA requires the mining right holder to fully rehabilitate the mine before the DMRE issues a closure certificate and mandates the DMRE to manage and rehabilitate mines that had been abandoned prior to 2002, known as derelict and ownerless (D&O)
mines. D&O mines are non-operational mines, either abandoned by their owners or their owners cannot be traced, with health, safety, and environmental risks that are not being managed. These mines operated under weaker regulatory requirements, and include mines in the Okiep copper belt, the Natal coalfields, asbestos regions, and the Wits goldfields.
South Africa’s D&O strategy
In 2009 the Department of Mineral Resources (now the DMRE) developed (but did not gazette) a ‘National Strategy on Management of Derelict and Ownerless Mines’ with the stated objectives being the compilation and maintenance of an inventory of D&O mines, the identification of priority sites, the development of an action plan to manage the associated risks, and ensuring that all D&O sites are rehabilitated to acceptable levels, i.e., habitable by humans, used for other development activities, or a stable environmental state (DMR, 2009). In the same year, the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) performed an audit of the financial requirements for the rehabilitation of D&O sites (AGSA, 2009). The D&O strategy required the rehabilitation programme to run in parallel at two levels: large- and medium-scale regional programmes –focusing on larger multiple mine clusters that have a cumulative impact on the environment, such as asbestos, gold and coal mines – and small-scale local programmes focusing on mines with a smaller geographical scale but that pose an immediate threat, such as quarries, mine shafts, and trenches that are located close to residential areas (included in the holings programme). The Council for Geoscience (CGS) and Mintek were commissioned as implementing agents for the rehabilitation programme, including managing the D&O database, closing dangerous holings and rehabilitating asbestos mine sites. In 2021 the AGSA published a ‘Follow-up Performance Audit at the DMRE on the Rehabilitation of Derelict and Ownerless Mines’ which showed that although some progress had been made, there were still many critical areas that needed to be improved (AGSA, 2022). The AGSA noted that managing D&O mines is not just about rehabilitation, but also includes alternatives such as creating a landscape that can support future uses of the land, which could reduce the government’s financial liability.
There are several major concerns regarding the current approach to D&O mines in South Africa. Firstly, the national strategy of 2009 was never gazetted and the proposed revision has not been published or gazetted, so there is no written document to review and respond to, and no formal public participation process has been initiated or undertaken by the DMRE. This undermines the validity and legality of the approach. This is despite repeated requests by the mining industry for clarity and transparency in the approach to D&O mine sites. Secondly, the poor track record highlighted by the AGSA (2021) indicates that it will take decades to remediate all D&O sites, partly due to lack of funding but also due to lack of capacity and/or effort. Thirdly, the Government is increasingly calling on the mining industry to participate or contribute to the management and/or rehabilitation of D&O sites, as though this is a shared responsibility rather than the responsibility of the state. An alternative strategic approach and framework for managing D&O sites is clearly required. In this article, a new approach is developed based on data collection and analysis, international practice review, and stakeholder engagement.
Methods
Firstly, a literature review of international practice was undertaken regarding abandoned mines in Australia, the United States
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
of America (USA), Canada, Chile, Portugal, Brazil, and the Association of Ibero-American Geology and Mining Services (ASGMI), an association of 22 national geological and mining agencies from Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries in South America, Central America, and Western Europe. The review, therefore, covers both developed and developing mining countries to ensure breadth and diversity in contexts. The country approaches were reviewed and common elements were identified together with lessons learned, that can be applied to the South African context.
Secondly, an analysis of the current approach was done, including engagement in the national consultations for the National Mine Closure Strategy and D&O Mines Strategy facilitated by the DMRE and CGS. Efforts were made to obtain the D&O database to undertake an in-depth analysis of South Africa’s D&O sites and related risks. The authors were unable to obtain the database so instead analysed the AGSA performance report (2021) and the South African Mineral Deposits database (SAMINDABA), which appears to be the basis for the D&O database. In addition, a GIS shapefile of a subset of the D&O sites was used to perform a spatial assessment of three gold and coal mining regions to identify potential challenges and opportunities around roles and responsibilities.
Thirdly, the international review and national analysis were used to develop a framework for the sustainable management of D&O mine sites. The framework was presented to mining company representatives for review and input.
Results
International practice – management of D&O sites
USA
The USA federal government and its Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) established an Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Reclamation Programme in 1977 through the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act to remediate coal mines that were abandoned before 1977 (EPA, 2024). It established the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (e-AMLIS) to store, manage, and report on OSMRE’s Inventory of AML problems, including both problems in need of reclamation and those that have been reclaimed. The inventory contains information on the location, type, extent of AML impacts, and reclamation costs and is based upon field surveys by State, Tribal, and OSMRE programme officials. It is updated as new problems are identified and existing problems are reclaimed (OSMRE, 2024). E-AMLIS caters for authorised users and the public, although it appears that it cannot be accessed from South Africa.
The programme is funded by Treasury and by fees charged to operating coal mines based on their production tonnage and type of mine. The fee structure has changed over time and, to date, has collected over USD12 billion (OSMRE, 2024). The OSMRE distributes the funds based on a preset formula (incorporating fee collections, historic coal production, and the AML inventory) to states and tribes who have their own programmes, which prioritise mine pollution problems, and reports to Congress. Priority 1 problems relate to the protection of public health, safety, and property from extreme danger, while Priority 2 problems relate to the protection of public health and safety. All problems involve the restoration of land and water resources and the degraded environment. The OSMRE also transfer funds to the United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds.
The AMLRP has an awards programme that recognises outstanding reclamation techniques and projects. It also created an Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalisation (AMLER) Programme in 2016 to explore and implement strategies that return legacy coal mining sites to productive uses through economic and community development, supporting local investment opportunities that provide for sustainable long-term rehabilitation (OSMRE, 2023). Funding comes from the federal government and is administered by the OSMRE, based on the AML inventory and eligibility of states and tribes. States and tribes work with partners to compile, assess, and select potential projects to submit to OSMRE for vetting. They are encouraged to use the AMLER funding to leverage other public and private funding sources.
Canada
The Canadian government established the multi-stakeholder National Orphaned/Abandoned Mines Initiative (NOAMI) in 2002 at the request of the Canadian Mines Ministers to remediate the ~10,000 abandoned mines located across all jurisdictions in Canada (Government of Canada, 2024). NOAMI focuses on rehabilitation and long-term management of existing sites and best practices to prevent future abandonment through legislation. It addresses five themes: 1) building a national inventory, 2) community perspectives, 3) setting standards and rational expectations, 4) ownership and liability issues, and 5) identification of funding models. Several guidance documents and reports have been published (Tremblay, Hogan, 2016) and a national inventory and interactive map are publicly available. However, it combines several Canadian provincial inventories with different content, definitions, accuracy, and periods (NOAMI, 2004). Abandoned mines are classified as Class A (potential to cause environmental, public health, and public safety concerns – verified or estimated), Class B (limited potential to cause environmental concerns but potential for public health and safety concerns), Class C (public safety concerns but little or no public health or environmental concerns), Class D (no expected environmental, public health or public safety concerns) and Class O (no information available). The NOAMI Advisory Committee comprises government representatives, the Canadian mining industry, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and Aboriginal peoples and their communities, the Mining Association of Canada, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, and mining companies.
NOAMI published a toolkit of funding approaches in 2006 (NOAMI, 2006). Although most jurisdictions in Canada rely on direct government funding from general revenues, other approaches involve government funding through tapping existing revenue streams generated by mining (e.g., mining tax/royalties), government funding through the imposition of a levy on current and future mineral production, federal and provincial cost sharing arrangements from general revenues, and government-industry partnerships.
The province of Ontario has more than half of Canada’s abandoned mine sites, as recorded in the Abandoned Mines information system database. Ontario’s Abandoned Mines Rehabilitation Programme promotes and funds the rehabilitation of abandoned mine sites to make these lands available for other uses. The Ontario Mining Association and member companies also contribute funds as part of a partnership with the provincial government to complete rehabilitation work on government land. Ontario aggregate producers pay a licencing fee based on production tonnages to fund the Management of Abandoned Aggregate Producers programme.
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
Australia
In Australia, where there are an estimated 50,000 abandoned mine sites across seven states, a National Strategic Framework for Managing Abandoned Mines in the Minerals Industry was published in 2010 to encourage a strategic approach to the management of abandoned mines that promotes efficiency, sustainability, innovation, and consideration of the unique assets and community values for each mine (MCMPR, MCA, 2010). It was produced by the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources, which consists of the Australian Government Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism, and state and territory ministers responsible for minerals and petroleum, and the Minerals Council of Australia. Sites are classed as ‘abandoned’ once a mining tenure no longer exists, and most date prior to 2000 when the laws were amended to strengthen environmental management. The strategy notes that several abandoned mine sites have become economically viable mines or could become economically beneficial through other land uses. In 2023, Geoscience published the Australia Australian Waste Atlas, which provides spatial and technical information about all mine waste sites in the country to support remining and processing for economic benefit and reducing environmental and social risks. (Geoscience Australia, 2023).
Individual states have their own approaches to abandoned mines (Unger et al., 2012). There are about 120 complex abandoned mine sites in Queensland and the Abandoned Mine Lands Programme has remediated over 450 mine features at 138 sites since 2013 (Queensland Government, 2021). Activities include shaft remediation, monitoring and assessment, disposal of equipment, demolition and decommissioning of infrastructure, management of cultural heritage issues, and stakeholder engagement. In 2021, the state published a Risk and Prioritisation Framework for Abandoned Mine Management and Remediation (State of Queensland, 2021) and a map of all sites is publicly available. A financial provisioning scheme legislation was passed in 2018 to reduce the financial risk to the government when a mineral right holder fails to meet their rehabilitation obligations. Grants provided by the scheme’s Financial Provisioning Fund also support the rehabilitation of abandoned mines and improvements in rehabilitation techniques. The scheme is administered by the Scheme Manager, a statutory officer supported by Queensland Treasury.
The State of Western Australia began to develop an inventory of abandoned mine site features in 1999 and set up a Mining Rehabilitation Fund (MRF) in 2012, with an annual industry levy that encourages progressive rehabilitation during mining operations and provides funds to rehabilitate abandoned mine features across the State; interest generated from the fund can be spent on administration and rehabilitation of historically abandoned mine sites (State of Western Australia, 2024). In 2016, an Abandoned Mines Programme was established to provide an overarching framework for prioritising and subsequent rehabilitation and/or management of abandoned mine sites. A Mining Rehabilitation Advisory Panel provides expert and independent advice on project development and expenditure. Abandoned mine sites can be explored in the publicly available Mines and Mineral Deposits database and a spatial dataset can be downloaded (https://minedex. dmirs.wa.gov.au/). Specific rehabilitation projects are described on the Geological Survey of Western Australia website. The state encourages industry and the community to report abandoned mine features via email using an official template.
Portugal
Portugal has many abandoned mines across the country from
historic mining of base metals, precious metals, tin, tungsten, radium, and uranium, which pose public health and environmental risks (Carvalho, Diamantino, Pinto, 2016). In 2001, the government developed the Old Mining Areas Remediation Plan and appointed the state-owned company EDM to remediate 175 mines, 61 of which are radioactive. By 2018, 105 out of 199 sites had been remediated at a cost of €80 million with an estimated cost of €60 million for the remaining sites (EDM, 2018). Their strategy involved four phases: 1) inventory, characterisation of sites, and prioritisation of remediation interventions; 2) detailed design and project development; 3) remediation and field work; and 4) monitoring. A national map of all sites is publicly available on the EDM website. Funding for the programme comes from mining royalties from Portuguese mining operators and the European Cohesion Funds. EDM is involved in research and development (R&D) projects investigating new methods of mineral extraction from secondary sources to offset remediation costs.
Chile
Mining has been underway in Chile for centuries, leaving environmental challenges at historic mine sites. In 2002, the National Service of Geology and Mining, SERNAGEOMIN (the technical body responsible for generating, maintaining, and disseminating information on geology and hazards, and for regulating and/or supervising mine safety compliance and mine closure plans) initiated the ‘National Registry of Abandoned and/or Inactive Mining Operations’, which systematically registered 1,338 abandoned or inactive mines from 2002 to 2019 and incorporated a preliminary risk assessment. Funding was sourced from the Chilean-Japanese cooperation project FOCIGAM (Strengthening Institutional Capacity in Mining Environmental Management). SERNAGEOMIN makes the national database publicly available on its website (https://www.sernageomin.cl/investigacion-de-faenasabandonadas/).
Chile has 765 tailings dams with 173 (23%) of them being abandoned (SERNAGEOMIN, 2023). The Chilean government promotes the reprocessing of abandoned tailings, which is underway. The Department of Tailings Deposits generates and updates information for the National Registry of Active and Inactive Tailings Deposits, Virtual Atlas and Geochemical Registry of Deposits. SERNAGEOMIN hosts a public cadastre and database for all tailings deposits. The Tailings Programme established in 2017 is a public-private collaborative initiative that develops monitoring tools for physical stability and potential impact on water resources, providing information to authorities, mining companies, and communities. It supports emergency response through a global monitoring system operated by SERNAGEOMIN, the National Observatory of Tailings Deposits. It is funded by the Chilean economic development agency (CORFO) and the Chilean mining sector.
South and Central America
The Association of Ibero-American Geology and Mining Services (ASGMI) is an international association of 22 national geological and mining agencies from Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries in South America, Central America, and Western Europe. In 2020, the ASGMI published a technical glossary on managing mining environmental liabilities and a manual for the inventory of abandoned and inactive mines. A common methodology was developed with a decision tree and four stages: 1) identification, inventory and characterisation of abandoned and inactive mine sites and/or mining environmental liabilities; 2) risk assessment and
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
Table 1
Summary of approaches to abandoned mines in mining countries
Country Institutions
USA Federal government, EPA, OSMAR
Canada National and provincial response, industry partnerships
Australia National framework, province-level programmes; Advisory panel gives oversight
Portugal State-owned company EDM
Chile SERNAGEOMIN agency, public-private partnership
Funding
National treasury and coal mining companies
National treasury, Ontario aggregate producers fee
Grants from Queensland Financial Provisioning Fund; Western Australia Mining Rehabilitation Fund charges annual industry levy
National government and European Union
Chile-Japan cooperation
classification of mining environmental liabilities; 3) reprocessing and/or reuse of mining environmental liabilities; and 4) prioritisation and proposals for remediation of mines. The ASGMI (2019) found that not all geological surveys and mining directorates of its member countries have direct competence in managing mining environmental liabilities.
The state of Minas Gerais, Brazil, developed a ‘First Registry of Abandoned and Inactive Mines’ that covers sites with no plans to restart operations, without implemented environmental control or monitoring measures, and with characteristics of abandonment and incomplete or absent mine closure processes (Fernandes, De Lima, 2021).
Key insights
While there are differences in approach to managing abandoned mines in different countries, common elements include 1) collecting information on the mine sites to develop an inventory, 2) prioritising sites for rehabilitation based largely on public health and safety and environmental risks, and 3) rehabilitating or managing the sites, generally done by government or a government appointed agency, 4) stakeholder engagement, particularly with community involvement, and 5) identifying appropriate funding models. The countries studied have transparency with regard to their D&O site locations, commodities and risks. Table 1 summarises the key components related to institutional arrangements, funding, data and transparency, and sustainability, in the countries reviewed. An additional element that stands out is the decentralised approach to managing D&O sites, particularly in developed countries. While national governments give strategic direction and funding, states, provinces, or territories have the authority and responsibility to oversee the work.
South Africa’s current approach to D&O mines
Data and transparency
The international review shows that it is common practice to maintain a national and/or state/provincial D&O database and that most countries make this publicly available. Although there is an existing South African D&O database owned by the DMRE and maintained by the CGS, the AGSA audit raised several concerns with it, i.e., missing information, duplicates, incomplete fields, outdated status after rehabilitation, and lack of rehabilitation project documentation (AGSA, 2022). The AGSA noted that as the status
Data and transparency Sustainability
National publicly available database
National and provincial public database and map
Province-level publicly available databases and maps; national Mine Waste Atlas
Economic repurposing supported
Promotion of economic use of mined land
National inventory and map R&D projects on waste reprocessing
Publicly available national database Tailings programme
of mineral deposits changes over time, as new rights are awarded or existing rights expire, the D&O database needs to be regularly updated with input from the DMRE, Mintek, and the CGS. A mining cadastre is essential for this process, however, this is not in place despite calls from the mining industry and foreign investors. As the D&O database is not publicly available (for supposed security reasons), and requests for access to the database have been unsuccessful, it is difficult to assess what information it does and does not contain. The lack of transparency makes it impossible to attract partnerships and investments for potential socio-economic activities. While it would be beneficial to alleviate the burden on the state, this needs to be done using evidence, analysis, and consideration of alternative approaches.
Although the DMRE and AGSA state that there are 6,100 ‘D&O mines’, these include mine site features (such as adits, pits, shafts, dumps, buildings) and quarries and should rather be termed D&O sites. According to the AGSA audit, there are 961 operational sites in the D&O database, 674 sites with mineral right ownership attached, 922 sites on private land, and 276 sites with unknown property ownership. Based on these figures, it seems that there should only be 4,410 unrehabilitated D&O sites in the database. Recent research into operational mines in South Africa shows that there are only 230 operating mines (excluding artisanal and smallscale mines), therefore the majority of the sites must be quarries (Cole, Broadhurst, 2021; Cole, 2024).
Of the 6,100 D&O sites, only 752 have been given a priority rating depending on their potential impact on public health, safety, and the environment, 188 high priority (3%), 184 moderate priority (3%), and 380 low priority (6%), while no rehabilitation necessary is almost half of them (2,908 or 48%). It is unclear why the other 39% (2,385 D&O sites) did not receive a priority rating but it is assumed that they pose very little or no risk. In addition to the priority rating, 2,568 D&O sites are classified as high-risk mining commodities: gold (46%), coal (25%), asbestos (16%), and copper (13%). It appears then that a D&O site can be a high risk commodity but not a priority. The DMRE also identified 1,170 holings (quarries, mine shafts, and trenches) that are located close to residential areas and pose an immediate threat of injury to humans and animals.
By November 2021, only 55 D&O sites (1%) had been rehabilitated (ibid), the majority being asbestos sites, and 507 holings had been sealed and closed (AGSA, 2022). The AGSA estimate that at the current rate, the DMRE would take 100 years to rehabilitate all D&O sites.
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
Another data source that was investigated is the South African Mineral Deposits Database (SAMINDABA) maintained by the Council for Geoscience. A 2012 version of the database was found online, with 8,176 records. The records include mineral deposits (prospect, occurrence, outcrop, seam, reef, vein), quarries, excavations, workings, diggings, pans, trenches, active mines, abandoned mines (shafts and pits), and a few mine dumps and slimes dams. The D&O database maintained by the CGS is therefore a subset of the SAMINDABA database. There are many unnamed sites and many data gaps in the database as well as the scale of the individual sites, and therefore their potential impact and risk vary significantly. The current database is not publicly available and could not be analysed.
Risk and responsibilities
Since 2009, the CGS has been responsible for maintaining the D&O database and Mintek has been responsible for rehabilitating asbestos sites. Mintek developed a secondary asbestos D&O site risk ranking supplementary to the standard protocol and national strategy. Their model uses risk metrics in three categories to measure the potential impact of the site, namely health and safety, environmental, and land utility (including evidence of illegal mine access and the site’s potential to hamper future development by sterilising land) (Cornelissen et al., 2019). The value of each risk type is calculated based on the impact and likelihood of occurrence and these are added to calculate the total site risk. The model also includes a consideration of cost and complexity and this is plotted against the total site risk to determine rehabilitation priorities with ‘high risk low cost’ being the priority followed by ‘high risk high cost’ (Cornelissen, 2017). Individual mine features are typically grouped into single projects that address all pollution/risk points on a wholemine scale.
The government established a Rehabilitation Oversight Committee (ROC) consisting of the DMRE, the CGS, and Mintek in December 2009. The ROC was meant to recommend and oversee an annual and three-year cycle implementation plan for rehabilitation projects but, according to the AGSA, has not done so (AGSA, 2022). The AGSA audit also shows that by September 2021, the DMRE had not completed the planned research into high-risk, large-scale, and complex groups of D&O mines with a combined impact on communities and the environment as envisaged in the national strategy.
Issues related to D&O sites have evolved since 2009 and the focus is now on illegal mining, which involves unauthorised people entering unsafe shafts, adits and pits, and unsealing high risk holings that have been sealed in the DMRE holings programme. While the risk of illegal mining appears to be captured in the current Mintek risk rating, it is not reflected in the national D&O strategy or any official DMRE documents.
Funding
Funding for D&O management currently comes solely from the state, which is unsustainable as the national government is under financial pressure and does not have the required budget to effectively rehabilitate all D&O sites. South African communities live in a context of high unemployment, poverty, and growing crime, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021. The Government is increasingly urging the mining sector to play a role in managing or restoring D&O sites, treating it as a joint responsibility. However, mining companies in South Africa are also under financial pressure and are already carrying the burden of failing state-owned enterprises and local governments. Load shedding, water shortages, and transport failures hinder production and sales (Minerals Council South Africa, 2024). Active mines are facing their own obligations, especially with many nearing the end of their operational lifespan. However, some abandoned mine sites do present an economic opportunity. The combination of valuable commodities, infrastructure, and vacant land has the potential to support remining, waste processing, infrastructure repurposing, or alternative economic activities that create jobs for the local community and remediate the site. There is therefore an opportunity for mining companies to assist the Government with reducing its D&O liabilities for mutual benefit.
Case studies
One of the high-risk commodities in the D&O database is coal. Coal mining has been underway since the 1850s in KwaZulu-Natal and the 1880s in Mpumalanga. Due to the limited legislation, many coal mines were not properly rehabilitated when they closed. Coal mining faces global pressure to reduce CO2 emissions and implement a just transition that involves supporting workers and communities when mines close (Cole, Mthenjane, Van Zyl, 2023). Many of the operating coal mines are located on farms (the basis of the mineral rights) that had previous mining rights and mines that ceased operations, as shown in Figure 2. The steep rise in electricity
Figure 1—Summary of Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) findings on D&O sites, 2021
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
(a) (b)
prices in the last decade (Minerals Council South Africa, 2023) has created demand for domestic coal and the D&O sites may provide a local source of coal for illegal miners.
Another high-risk commodity is gold. The five-fold increase in the gold price in the past two decades, with an all-time high in October 2024, has led to the reopening of old mines, tailings retreatment, and waste dump processing, as evident in the Witwatersrand basin, as well as growth in illegal gold mining. The gold price is linked to global financial uncertainty and inflation and is, therefore, likely to remain high for the foreseeable future (JPMorgan, 2023). This represents an economic opportunity for the D&O gold sites in South Africa, which are rated as high risk in the database. Figure 3 shows the location of 14 operating gold mines and numerous D&O sites in the Far West Rand and West Rand,
where mining has been underway since the early 1900s. There are 26 tailings dams and six gold processing plants and DRDGold’s Far West Gold Recoveries operates a tailings retreatment plant (Cole, Broadhurst, 2022). Most of the mines are part of a mining complex that has been operated by a major mining company for decades. The map shows that there are many D&O sites not located near operating mines or existing mining rights.
A sustainable approach to D&O sites
The ineffectiveness of the current approach, the lessons from international practices, and the new economic opportunities that technology and global demand create, highlight the need for a new approach to D&O mine sites in South Africa. There are five main components that are required, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 2—Operating coal mines, D&O sites and farms in A. western Mpumalanga and B. north-western KwaZulu-Natal. Data sources: Operating mines (Cole, 2024); active/abandoned mines (BGIS, 2022), farms (MDB, 2023)
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
3—Operating gold mines, D&O sites and farms in the Far West Rand and West Rand. Data sources: Operating mines (Cole, 2024); active/abandoned mines (BGIS, 2022), farms (MDB, 2023)
D&O inventory and risk rating system
The first task is to review and update the existing D&O database, ensuring that all the necessary data are captured and accurate figures on D&O sites can be published. Table 2 provides an overview of the information the D&O database should hold so that decisions can be made on when, where, by who, and how to mitigate risk and identify economic opportunities. The data should be stored in a database with a relational database management system (like MS Access), which resides on a web-based server and can be updated and queried at any time by registered and authorised users using a graphical user interface, which limits the user to set dropdown lists and sensible inputs. The development of a spatial tool like the South African Mine Closure Risk and Opportunities Atlas (South African Mine Closure Risk and Opportunity Atlas (arcgis.com) would also be beneficial.
This spatial data will support the determination of responsibility for remediation – an ownerless mine will fall to the state liability, derelict mines on state land also fall to the state. In contrast, derelict sites on existing mining rights will require an assessment of responsibility given asset transfers and remining of previously closed mines. Commodities previously mined and processed must be recorded to identify economic opportunities around reprocessing and remining on D&O sites. Stakeholders need to be identified so
that they can be consulted. These include affected communities, civil society organisations, local and district governments, mining companies, environmental NGOs, and national departments. The priority level must be recorded and reviewed as it should take economic opportunities into account.
The risk rating needs to be reviewed to incorporate all relevant social and environmental factors, which will require both desktop analysis and field inspection. Factors that influence the level of risk to the environment and human health and safety from D&O sites are shown in Table 3 and described in Appendix 2. Each one will require quantification (and possibly assigned a weighting) to facilitate a risk rating system that can be used for prioritising remediation and rehabilitation of D&O sites. This needs to build on the existing Mintek risk rating system and the D&O database. The risk categorisation can be applied to three groups: unrehabilitated D&Os, previously rehabilitated D&Os, and land adjacent to D&Os.
Decision tree categorisation of sites
As indicated earlier, D&O sites are currently categorised based on their risk rating (high, medium, low) and their cost to prioritise rehabilitation and determine what actions need to be taken to manage the site. Here, an additional categorisation is proposed to highlight D&O sites that are of interest to the mining industry and to support engagement between the DMRE and the mining industry. A key aim of this proposed new approach to managing D&O sites is to promote new funding models and public-private partnerships. It is based on a decision tree methodology, which asks a series of questions with yes/no answers that produce four scenarios, as illustrated in Figure 5.
The first question is whether rehabilitation is required. The AGSA report indicates that most D&O sites do not need rehabilitation. If rehabilitation is not required, the main action is for the DMRE to monitor the site (scenario A). However, it could also seek partnerships to improve the value of the land or pursue other socio-economic activities. The second question is whether the D&O site is on an existing mining right. If not, the DMRE must rehabilitate the sites and close the holdings (scenario B). If yes, then the third question is whether economic opportunities are possible at the site. If not, the DMRE should explore partnerships with
Figure
Figure 4—Framework for D&O mine site management
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
Table 2
Criteria for characterisation of D&O sites to be included in the database
Criteria
Details
C1 Type of mine site feature Vertical shaft, decline shaft, adit, open pit, quarry, trench, tailings dam, waste rock dump, heap, infrastructure.
C2 Associated mine site features All options above – this will be used for possible integration of rehabilitation.
C3 Geometry Length, depth, radius.
C4 Location Latitude/longitude, boundary polygon, local municipality, district municipality, province, farm name.
C5 Neighbouring communities Names of communities, distance to communities, community population, demographics, and vulnerability.
C6 Proximity to sensitive environmental areas Distances to SWSA, water bodies, protected areas, conservation areas, endangered ecosystems.
C7 Economic activities Mines, processing plants, manufacturing, urban centres.
C8 Accessibility Road access, terrain.
C9 Commodities mined Primary and secondary metal and mineral products of mining in the past.
C10 Duration of mining Start and end dates of mining, with reference to key dates in legislation.
C11 Ownership and rights Ownerless (state liability), derelict on state land (state liability), derelict on mining right.
C12 Stakeholders
C13 Risk rating
C14 Rehabilitation status
C15 Priority level
Table 3
DMRE regional office, mining companies, local government, community representatives, civil society.
High, medium, low (after Mintek).
Unrehabilitated, unrehabilitated but planned, rehabilitation underway, rehabilitated, rehabilitated but not safe.
Priority 1 – High, Priority 2 – Moderate, Priority 3 – Low.
Factors affecting risk of D&O sites and indicative risk ratings*
Factor
Size
High Risk Medium Risk
Large Medium
Low risk
Data Sources
Small Field measurements
Type Shaft, adit, TSF Open pit, quarry Heap, dump Site visit
Mineral risk to water
Distance to strategic water source areas
Waste stability
Dust toxicity
High Medium
Near Medium
Low Medium
High Medium
Low Mine Water Atlas
Far SWSA shapefiles BGIS
High
Combined factors
Low Sampling of site
Distance to protected area/ conservation area Near Medium Far GIS calculations, PACA shapefile (BGIS, 2024)
Agricultural potential – land capability
Distance to communities
Community vulnerability
Illegal mining potential
Government capacity
Arable land
Marginal arable land
Near Medium
High Medium
Non-arable land Land capability shapefile
Far GIS calculations
Low Census data, Cole (2024)
High potential Medium potential Low potential Commodity, site visit
Good Average
*more in-depth research is required to quantify the factors.
interested mining companies to rehabilitate the site (scenario C). It should not be mandatory for existing right holders to assume such responsibility. This scenario could also involve grouping the D&O sites to improve efficiencies. If economic opportunities are possible, then the DMRE and interested parties, including mining companies and investors, need to engage in a process to develop options for economic opportunities (scenario D).
Applying this decision tree categorisation to all the D&O sites in the database will produce a list of sites that the mining industry can focus on either for rehabilitation or economic opportunity. This will facilitate discussions with national and local government departments and other organisations that may be interested in partnerships to protect the environment, protect the health and safety of affected communities, and/or develop new economic
Poor AGSA municipal audits
activities. This will also support assessments of funding models and sources beyond the National Treasury. A good example to learn from is The Impact Catalyst, a collaborative partnership to create mechanisms that drive large-scale, socio-economic development initiatives in mining areas in South Africa through public-private partnerships.
Rehabilitation and remediation
Rehabilitation involves restoring land impacted by mining activities to a sustainable, usable condition and includes minimising loss of land capability and benefiting society (Tanner, Beukes, MöhrSwart, 2007). Internationally, rehabilitation can be referred to as decommissioning and restoration or remediation and can have different priorities, ranging from community benefits to
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
Table 4
Factors to be considered for economic opportunities of D&O sites
Factor Details
Land suitability
Water availability
Biodiversity and tourism
Energy potential
Skills and education levels
Existing public infrastructure
Economic activities
Fitness of a given type of land for a defined use in its present condition or after improvements - incorporates land capability, the extent of rehabilitation, and multiple social and economic factors that need to be considered.
Consider water requirements, water demand from other users, current and future water supply, water use licenses and water quality required for the intended economic activity.
Protected areas and conservation areas (nature reserves, national parks and heritage sites) are potential tourism sites and home to endangered ecosystems.
Renewable energy is a good option for degraded mine land. The energy and transport infrastructure associated with mine sites can support this.
Skills and education levels of community members affect the ability to source local employment and procurement for alternative land uses. Low educational attainment is a barrier to local economic development and skills training may be required.
Proximity, density and capacity of roads, railways, ports, airports, and the electricity grid will affect the access to markets and the feasibility of different economic opportunities.
Current local and regional economic activities indicate what is possible and affect viability of new initiatives. Economic diversification accommodates a wider range.
Land zoning and ownership State land, private land, and communal/traditional land may need rezoning for alternative land uses - will require support from concerned stakeholders.
District spatial planning
Spatial development frameworks describe goals and plans for economic development and inform budgets and programmes at district and local levels.
original land use, and no net loss of biodiversity. In South Africa, the MPRDA refers to restoring the mine area to its natural or predetermined state but this is qualified by the requirement that rehabilitation must be practicable. Rehabilitation objectives must be aligned with the Environmental Management Plan and Closure Plan objectives and commitments, must provide for sustainable postmining land use, and should involve a public participation process to define ‘end use’.
Rehabilitation should prevent pollution or ecological degradation in the long-term and thus make the environment safe for people to live or undertake other activities. It is, therefore, important to consider both the mine site and the wider area beyond
the original mine boundary. This leads to identifying a set of D&O sites that are related or interconnected, and rehabilitating them together. Where there are operating mines working on old mining rights, independent experts may be required to determine whether rehabilitation is required and if so, what the DMRE and the former right holder need to do. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are required to ensure that the rehabilitation of D&O sites meets international good practices.
There are four environmental elements to consider for rehabilitation and remediation of D&O mine sites – soil, water, waste, and vegetation – while holings can be treated separately. Soil management is a key process in determining rehabilitation
Figure 5—Decision tree for categorising and managing D&O mine sites
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
effectiveness and soil stripping guidelines should be followed. Water management is very important for areas affected by acid mine drainage, and for mines with hydraulic interconnectedness and must align with the NWA and relevant guidelines. The disposal of waste must consider long-term impacts or future uses and be strategically placed and managed based on the potential hazard of the material, as per regulations. Vegetation used in rehabilitation will be determined by the planned land use for the site and biodiversity objectives. Revegetation can simply be used to protect against soil erosion or can land the foundation for agriculture and will then take soil, climate and terrain into account.
Progress on rehabilitation should be monitored and reported on an annual basis and included in the D&O database. Reporting should include the commodity, the type of site, the risk level, the implementing agent responsible for rehabilitation, the cost per site, and the source of the funding. The DMRE’s Rehabilitation Oversight Committee should include industry representation to ensure there is transparent discussion on planning and to enable collaborative partnerships for rehabilitation.
Funding models
The current funding model for the rehabilitation of D&O sites in South Africa is that the national government covers all costs from general revenues. This is unsustainable and alternative approaches must be considered carefully. Government funding could use existing revenue streams generated by mining (e.g., mining tax/ royalties). The government could set up cost-sharing arrangements with provinces, though South African provinces face significant financial constraints. Government-industry partnerships need to be investigated, particularly for D&O sites near operating mines, but could also be developed by commodity for areas without operating mines. The advantages of government-industry partnerships are that more money can be generated, it promotes a sense of partnership and collaboration, and by providing some liability relief companies are more likely to get involved. The disadvantages are that a minor contributor may end up paying for all the rehabilitation costs if other parties lack funds to pay their share. Another option is private sector adoption programmes where companies ‘adopt’ specific D&O sites and rehabilitate them. Finally, international donors such as multilateral development banks could support rehabilitation and economic opportunity programmes that can benefit local communities significantly. For example, rehabilitating and repurposing coal sites to benefit the coal mining communities in Mpumalanga would fit into the current focus on the just transition being funded by donors.
It would also be helpful to explore capitalising on existing environmental management policies and incentives for business participation in D&O site management. There are four policy instruments that may provide funding: 1) forest carbon offsets/ credits, 2) tax breaks for private entities engaging in rehabilitation, particularly in cases where the rehabilitation would yield economic gains, 3) consolidation of biodiversity offsetting projects to yield tangible results, and 4) DMRE conducting a large-scale strategic environmental assessment with strong public participation engagement to attract and fast–track investment and implementation of projects.
Identifying economic opportunities
It is clear from lessons learned from international practices, and the growth in illegal mining, that there are economic opportunities related to D&O mine sites. Illegal mining needs to be addressed to ensure it is stopped or becomes legal and beneficial to communities,
industry, and the government. Of particular interest for D&O sites in South Africa is copper, which was once mined in the Northern Cape, and is rated as high risk in the D&O database. Recent exploration has indicated significant potential for opening up old mines, most notably at Rietberg copper mine near Concordia, which was abandoned in the 1980s (SAHRA, 2020), and the Prieska copper-zinc mine, which closed in the 1990s (Orion Minerals, 2023).
There are four potential avenues to explore for economic opportunities, as shown in the framework in Figure 4. Remining minerals and metals involves reviewing old mine sites and assessing their economic potential for mining at different scales. Waste processing involves mineral processing of old rock waste dumps and tailings dams that contain economically valuable minerals and metals. Infrastructure repurposing involves finding new uses for abandoned buildings, water reservoirs, electricity networks, rail and roads. Alternative land use applies where the mine site cannot be remined, processed or repurposed. There are a wide range of possible land uses (Cole et al., 2024) and their economic viability will be informed by a range of environmental, social, and economic factors described in the following, including land suitability, water availability, renewable energy potential, local economic activities, and district spatial planning. These factors need to be considered within local and regional contexts, current and longterm requirements, and quantified where possible. It is important to assess and consider the social and economic aspects related to land use opportunities at the site location. Social factors include community skills and education levels, economic factors include public infrastructure, local and regional economic complexity, land ownership, and financial provisions.
Risk-opportunity matrix
Once a risk assessment has been completed for each site and an assessment of economic opportunities has been done, the two can be combined, and all D&O sites can be plotted on a 2-by-2 matrix, as shown in Figure 6. The four quadrants of the matrix show a combination of risk and opportunity. High-risk, highopportunity sites will require immediate attention, with economic opportunities assessed before rehabilitation is done, as it may not be necessary. High-risk low-opportunity sites will require immediate rehabilitation to minimise risk to the environment and people. Lowrisk high-opportunity sites should be collated, and feasibility studies performed to assess the economic opportunity in more detail. Lowrisk low-opportunity sites can be monitored until the high-risk and high-opportunity sites have been addressed. This is similar to the current priority matrix used by Mintek, which looks at risk and cost but instead highlights the economic opportunities that could turn the costs into profitable investments.
Figure 6—Risk versus opportunity matrix for D&O sites
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
Stakeholders and partnerships
In South Africa, public participation meetings and consultations are held to inform stakeholders on developments to obtain their perspectives and involve them in the decision-making process. Various provisions of the MPRDA require the holder of a mining right to notify or consult with the affected landowners or communities. Stakeholder mapping is required to ensure all affected parties are included in rehabilitation and to identify economic opportunities. It also helps analyse power dynamics and the relationships between stakeholders to anticipate how that may affect the decision-making process. An open and transparent approach that involves stakeholders in the management and planning of a rehabilitation project can give stakeholders a sense of ownership of the rehabilitation and help improve awareness about issues requiring management (MCMPR, MCA, 2010). Stakeholder participatory processes are increasingly being incorporated into post-closure land use decision-making and selection approaches (Rosa et al., 2018; Everingham et al., 2018, 2020; Measham et al., 2022). Setting ‘joint’ rehabilitation goals and including key matters such as defining the future beneficial uses for a site, builds trust and improves stakeholder support for abandoned mine site projects. Determining economic opportunities is a difficult task as different stakeholders have different needs and values. Understanding these differences is important and will improve the chances of success. A participatory process is essential to support more inclusive decision-making in South Africa. It can achieve the following aims: identify the objectives and priorities of each stakeholder group, reach a consensus on shared shareholder objectives and values, and determine the most viable options for rehabilitation and economic opportunities. Stakeholders are shown in Table 6.
Discussion
Lessons learned from international practice
South Africa currently has a draft National Mine Closure Strategy (NMCS) to address rehabilitation issues, plan for a diverse postmining economy, and promote closure planning. It also has a National Strategy on Management of D&O Mines (2009) that was never gazetted for public comment. The AGSA has highlighted many issues with the current management of D&O sites, and the international review in this article has shown several ways South Africa is lagging. Most counties reviewed make their data available to the public in a map or downloadable database, and some even
Table 6
have a system for including public comment and identification of D&O sites. The developed countries generally take a decentralised approach to managing D&O sites, giving authority and responsibility to sub-national levels of government. Other countries have a range of funding models that take the burden off the national treasury and build partnerships with the private sector. A fairly recent development is the attention paid to the economic value of the D&O sites, which can bring jobs back to old mining regions and reduce the financial liability of these sites.
Testing the framework
This article has described the development of a new sustainable approach to D&O sites in South Africa. The D&O management framework proposed is based on international best practices and what was publicly available at the time (early 2024). It is important that the D&O database is examined in more detail and that two or three case studies are used to test the framework. Ideally, the case studies would be located in copper, gold, and coal areas where the risks are highest, there is potential for economic opportunities and funding, and there are operating mines or mining right holders and, therefore, potential for collaboration between government and industry. Conducting a detailed assessment at a site level is crucial to determine the status of Mining Rights regarding the rehabilitation of existing liabilities and the availability of financial provisions. The D&O database is not publicly available due to concerns over illegal mining. However, the DMRE has stated that it would provide sections of data for specific objectives. Therefore, an application can be made for the parts of the database related to the defined case studies. Combining the spatial and tabular D&O site data with data on operating mines and mineral rights, as indicated in the examples in this article, as well as data on closed/inactive mines and mining companies that operated in the past will enable a more in-depth analysis of the challenges, risks, and economic opportunities.
Application of the framework
The South African Government is increasingly calling on the mining industry to participate or contribute to the management and/or rehabilitation of D&O sites as though this is a shared responsibility. The financial provisions of the MPRDA should cover the mine sites since 2002, while sites abandoned prior to
Stakeholders involved in D&O site management and development
Stakeholders Role
DMRE national Implementation of regulations.
DMRE regional offices Oversight of D&O management in region.
CGS Management of the D&O database.
Mintek Rehabilitation of D&O sites.
National DWS Water management regulations authority.
National DFFE Financial provisions regulations authority.
Minerals Council Advocacy and convening mining industry.
Mining companies Financial support and/or management of specific D&O sites.
Commodity associations Public-private partnerships.
SAPS Management of illegal mining.
Investors Funding for economic opportunities.
Communities Input into rehabilitation goals and economic opportunities.
Civil society Input into rehabilitation goals and economic opportunities.
Academia Input into suitable economic opportunities.
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
2002 are the responsibility of the state. There are many old mining areas, which have been abandoned for decades and do not have any operational mines or mining rights in their area. The lack of transparency regarding the D&O database makes it impossible to attract partnerships and investments for potential socio-economic activities. While it would be beneficial to alleviate the burden on the state, this needs to be done using evidence, analysis, and consideration of alternative approaches. The framework proposed in this article addresses both the needs of the private sector and the government. It aims to bring clarity and fairness to the decisionmaking process and responsibilities regarding D&O sites through a comprehensive and transparent database risk rating and an easyto-follow decision tree. It also seeks to expand the narrow view of risk to consider economic opportunities, which can significantly reduce the financial burden of rehabilitation, create jobs for local communities, and respond to the growing demand for critical minerals for clean energy transition.
Funding Information
This work was funded by the Minerals Council South Africa.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the staff at the Minerals Council who supported the work in particular Nikisi Lesufi and Ursula Brown.
Author Contributions
MC: conceptualisation, data collection, analysis, visualisations, writing the paper.
SM and PM: conceptualisation, review of drafts, funding.
Conflict of Interest
None to declare.
References
AGSA. 2009. Report of the Auditor-General to Parliament on a performance audit of the rehabiliation of abandoned mines at the Department of Minerals and Energy. Pretoria: Auditor-General South Africa.
AGSA. 2022. Follow-up Performance Audit at the department of Mineral Resources and Energy on the rehabilitation of derelict and ownerless mines. Pretoria. Available at: http://sawic.environment.gov.za/documents/10656.pdf
AGSA. 2023. Consolidated General Report on local government audit outcomes MFMA 2020-21, AG Consolidated General Report on the Local Government Audit Outcomes FY 2021/22. Pretoria: Auditor-General of South Africa.
BGIS. 2022. Active and Abandoned Mines 2012. SANBI Biodiversity-GIS.
Bian, Z. 2010. Environmental issues from coal mining and their solutions. Mining Science and Technology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 215–223. doi: 10.1016/S1674-5264(09)60187-3
Broadhurst, J. 2019. Resource Efficient and Socially Responsible Approaches for the Integrated Management of Mine Waste: Understanding the Risks , Opportunities , Enablers and Barriers. Water Research Commission. Available at: https://wrc.org.za/?mdocs-file=59098
Cairncross, B. 2004. The Okiep copper district Namaqualand, Northern Cape Province South Africa. The Mineralogical Record, vol. 35 (July-August), pp. 289–317.
Carvalho, E., Diamantino, C., Pinto, R. 2016. Environmental Remediation of Abandoned Mines in Portugal – Balance of 15 Years of Activity and New Perspectives, Mining Meets WaterConflicts and Solutions, (1995), pp. 554–561.
Cole, M. J. 2024. A Mine Closure Risk Rating System for South Africa. Mining, vol. 4, pp. 58–78. doi: 10.3390/mining4010005
Cole, M. J. 2024. Developing Mine Closure Risk Ratings and a Postclosure Opportunity Framework for South Africa. Final Report to the Water Research Commission of South Africa. Water Research Commission.
Cole, M. J., Broadhurst, J. L. 2020. Mapping and classification of mining host communities: a case study of South Africa. The Extractive Industries and Society, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 954–964. doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2020.06.007
Cole, M. J., Broadhurst, J. L. 2021. Measuring the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in mining host communities: A South African case study. The Extractive Industries and Society, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 233–243. doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2020.11.012
Cole, M. J., Broadhurst, J. L. 2022. Sustainable Development in Mining Communities: The Case of South Africa’s West Wits Goldfield. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, vol. 4, (June), pp. 1–15. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2022.895760
Cole, M. J., Mthenjane, M., Van Zyl, A.T. 2023. Assessing coal mine closures and mining community profiles for the ‘just transition’ in South Africa. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 123, no. 6, pp. 329–342. doi: 10.17159/2411-9717/2689/2023
Collett, A. 2013. The impact of effective (geo-spatial) planning on the agricultural sector. South African Surveying and Geomatics Indaba. 22-24 July 2013. Kempton Park, South Africa.
Cornelissen, H. 2017. The development of a qualitative ranking tool for the preliminary selection of abandoned asbestos mine sites for rehabilitation. Proceedings of the World Congress on New Technologies, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.11159/icepr17.145
Cornelissen, H. 2019. Challenges and strategies of abandoned mine rehabilitation in South Africa: The case of asbestos mine rehabilitation. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 205 (August), p. 106354. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2019.106354
DMR. 2009. The National Strategy for the Management of Derelict and Ownerless Mines in South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Mineral Resources.
DMRE. 2021. Publication of the Draft Mine Closure Strategy 2021 for Public Comments. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Mineral Resources and Energy.
Elshkaki, A. 2016. Copper demand, supply, and associated energy use to 2050. Global Environmental Change, vol. 39, pp. 305–315. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.006
Elshkaki, A. 2018. Resource Demand Scenarios for the Major Metals. Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 2491–2497. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05154
EPA. 2024. EPA Superfund, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/superfund (Accessed: 20 February 2024).
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
Falcon, L.M. 1985. Tin in South Africa. Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 85, no. 10, pp. 333–345. FAO. 1981. A framework for land evaluation. Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Fernandes, P.R.M., De Lima, H.M. 2021. A framework for ranking the environmental risk of abandoned mines in the state of minas gerais/Brazil. Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 13, no. 24. doi: 10.3390/su132413874
Geoscience Australia. 2023. Atlas for Australian Mine Waste. Available at: https://portal.ga.gov.au/persona/minewaste (Accessed: 26 July 2023).
Godsell, S. 2011. Rooiberg: The little town that lived. South African Historical Journal, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 61–77. doi: 10.1080/02582473.2011.549374
Government of Canada. 2024. NOAMI. Available at: https://abandoned-mines.org/en/ (Accessed: 20 February 2024).
Gule, N. 2021. Factors contributing to unsuccessful rehabilitation: a case study investigating the rehabilitation practices in Opencast Coal Mines in the Mpumalanga Province, South …. University of Cape Town. Available at: https://open.uct.ac.za/ handle/11427/33709%0Ahttps://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/ handle/11427/33709/thesis_ebe_2021_gule nontobeko. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Hart, H.P. 1988. Asbestos in South Africa. Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 88, no. 6, pp. 185–198.
Hattingh, R. 2018. Framework to guide mine-related land use planning towards optimisation of the coal mining rehabilitated landscape. University of Pretoria. Available at: https:// repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/65312%0Ahttps://repository. up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/65312/Hattingh_Land_2018. pdf?sequence=1
ICMM. 2019. Integrated Mine Closure Good Practice Guide, 2nd edition. London: International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM). doi: 10.2298/theo1704091s.
IEA. 2023. Critical Minerals Market Review 2023. Critical Minerals Market Review 2023. International Energy Agency. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/critical-minerals-marketreview-2023/introduction
Kane-Berman, J. 2017. Mining in SA: Then, now and into the future. Politicsweb. Available at: https://www.politicsweb.co.za/archive/ mining-in-sa-then-now-and-into-the-future--irr
Lèbre, É. 2020. The social and environmental complexities of extracting energy transition metals. Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–8. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18661-9
Le Maitre, D. 2018. Identification, Delineation and Importance of the Strategic Water Source Areas of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland for Surface Water and Groundwater. Pretoria: Water Research Commission.
MCMPR and MCA. 2010. Strategic Framework for Managing Abandoned Mines in the Minerals Industry. Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources, Minerals Council of Australia.
MDB. 2023. Municipal Demarcation Board boundary data main files. Available at: http://www.demarcation.org.za/index.php/ downloads/boundary-data/boundary-data-main-files
Mhlongo, S.E., Amponsah-Dacosta, F. 2016. A review of problems and solutions of abandoned mines in South Africa. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 279–294. doi: 10.1080/17480930.2015.1044046.
Minerals Council South Africa. 2023. Facts & Figures Pocketbook 2022. Johannesburg: Minerals Council South Africa.
Minerals Council South Africa. 2024. Facts and figures Pocketbook 2023. Minerals Council South Africa. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62217-9_13
NOAMI. 2004. NOAMI Interactive Maps, National Inventory. Available at: http://noami.org/InteractiveMaps (Accessed: 4 March 2024).
NOAMI. 2006. Orphaned and Abandoned Mines: A Workshop to Explore Best Practice Winnipeg, Manitoba Oct 26-27 2006. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: NOAMI.
Orion Minerals. 2023. Prieska Copper Zinc Mine. Available at: https://www.orionminerals.com.au/projects/prieska-copperzinc-project/ (Accessed: 28 February 2023).
OSMRE. 2023. Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization (AMLER) Program, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Available at: https://www.osmre.gov/programs/ reclaiming-abandoned-mine-lands/amler
OSMRE. 2024. Reclaiming Abandoned Mine Lands. Available at: https://www.osmre.gov/programs/reclaiming-abandoned-minelands (Accessed: 10 April 2024).
Owen, J.R. 2020. Catastrophic tailings dam failures and disaster risk disclosure. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101361
SAHRA. 2020. HIA Copper Mines Namaqualand. South African Heritage Resources Agency.
Schoeman, J. L. 2002. Development and application of a land capability classification system for South Africa. Pretoria.
Simate, G. S., Ndlovu, S. 2014. Acid mine drainage: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1785–1803. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2014.07.021
Skowno, A.L. 2019. National Biodiversity Assessment 2018: The status of South Africa’s ecosystems and biodiversity - Synthesis Report. Available at: http://opus.sanbi.org/handle /20.500.12143/6362
State of Queensland. 2021. Risk and prioritisation framework for abandoned mine management and remediation. Available at: https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/management/ abandoned-mines/management
State of Western Australia. 2024. Abandoned Mines Program, Abadoned Mines Program. Available at: https://www. dmp.wa.gov.au/Geological-Survey/Abandoned-MinesProgram-29296.aspx (Accessed: 20 February 2024).
Swart, E. 2003. The South African legislative framework for mine closure. Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 103, no. 8, pp. 489–492.
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
Tanner, P., Beukes, J. and Möhr-Swart, M. 2007. Guidelines for rehabilitation of mined land. Chamber of Mines of South Africa. Available at: http://www.chamberofmines.org.za/work/ environment/environmental-resources/send/26-environmentalresources/349-rehabilitation-guidelines-29november
Tremblay, G.A., Hogan, C.M. 2016. Managing Orphaned and Abandoned Mines – A Canadian Perspective. Dealing with Derelict Mines Summit, pp. 1–25. Available at: https://www.crccare.com/knowledge-sharing/derelictminessummit/%0Apresentations
Unger, C. 2012. Mapping impacts and prioritising rehabilitation of Abandoned Mines at a national level in Australia. Life of Mine Conference, (December 2014).
Unger, C. J. 2015. A jurisdictional maturity model for risk management, accountability and continual improvement of abandoned mine remediation programs. Resources Policy, vol. 43, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.10.008
US Geological Survey. 2024. Mineral commodity summaries 2024 United States Geological Survey. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2024
Wilson, F. 2011. Historical roots of inequality in South Africa. Economic History of Developing Regions, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–15. doi: 10.1080/20780389.2011
Worrall, R. 2009. Towards a sustainability criteria and indicators framework for legacy mine land. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 17, no. 16, pp. 1426–1434. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.013
WRC. 2018. The South African Mine Water Atlas. Pretoria: Water Research Commission
Van Druten, E.S., Bekker, M.C. 2017. Towards an inclusive model to address unsuccessful mine closures in South Africa. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 117, no. 5, pp. 485–490. doi: 10.17159/2411-9717/2017/ v117n5a10 u
Appendix 1
Factors influencing risk from D&O sites
Mineralogy and water
The mineralogy and geochemistry of the site influence the risk posed to groundwater and surface water resources and human health. The South African Mine Water Atlas presents mineral risk ratings in key thematic maps regarding ‘mineral provinces’, ‘mineral risk’, ‘mining activity risk’, ‘groundwater vulnerability’, ‘surface water threat’, and ‘mine water threat’ (WRC, 2018). Mineral provinces are regarded as mineralised zones that are similar in terms of their host rock geology and mineralogy. Mineral risk maps indicate the assessed risk of acid production and/or leaching of constituents. Mining activity risk maps indicate the assessed relative risks against the dominant mining methods associated with mineral extraction. Groundwater vulnerability and surface water threat maps reflect the vulnerability of those water sources to mining activities. The groundwater vulnerability rating is based on the type of mining activity as the mining depth is considered to have varying impacts on aquifer systems. The threat to surface water resources is reported for the quaternary catchments within the assessed mineral provinces. Each of the component risk profiles can be mapped and understood individually or combined as ‘mine water threat’ mapping.
A major concern in gold and coal mining areas is the formation and dispersion of acid mine drainage (AMD) due to weathering of the sulphide mineral pyrite. The formation of AMD can continue to be dispersed into the surrounding environment for hundreds of years, with the acidity, salts, and metals impacting the quality of water sources and soils, the growth of local vegetation, and the health of living organisms and ecosystems (Simate, Ndlovu, 2014). Another primary concern of gold mining is the radioactive element uranium. Uranium can bio-accumulate in food chains and endanger ecosystems and people who may experience genetic and nongenetic changes.
An additional consideration are sites that negatively impact South Africa’s surface and groundwater strategic water source areas (SWSA), which produce a disproportionate amount of the country’s water (Le Maitre et al., 2018). Many D&O sites are located within or close to an SWSA, which needs to be factored into the risk rating.
Dust
If mine sites are not rehabilitated, they can release potentially toxic elements into the air through dust, which is transported by wind and can travel long distances. Exposure to dust is associated with respiratory infections, heart diseases and lung diseases, and people with existing respiratory diseases are at higher risk. Dust from mine waste can contaminate soil and hinder agriculture. Discarded coal dumps may contain low-quality fine coal, making them susceptible to spontaneous combustion, which creates air pollution and affects human health.
Waste stability
Mining generates waste rock dumps and mine tailings, a slurry of rock, water and chemicals, which are stored yearly in dams or tailings storage facilities (TSFs) and are a source of disaster risk and pollution (Owen et al., 2020). Climatic, topographic and tectonic factors play a role in the stability of TSFs, including exposure to earthquakes, tropical cyclones, high winds, heavy rainfall, and steep terrain; these five factors can be quantified and combined to form a TSF failure risk rating (Lèbre et al., 2020).
Biodiversity
Pollution from D&O sites can have a negative impact on local biodiversity in terrestrial and aquatic environments. All critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, and least threatened ecosystems have been identified and mapped in the 2018 National Biodiversity Assessment, the primary tool for monitoring and reporting on the state of biodiversity in South Africa (Skowno et al., 2019) and spatial files are available on the BGIS website. Sites located at or near critically endangered ecosystems are a higher risk than those of the other ecosystem threat categories. Sites in or near nature reserves and parks also need to be considered higher risk. The DFFE maintains a spatial database on protected areas and conservation areas (PACA) – protected areas are set aside primarily for nature and biodiversity, and conservation areas permit other land uses, as defined in the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act of 2003.
Agriculture and land capability
Agriculture can be significantly hindered by mining, through water and air pollution and land degradation. Land capability refers to its agricultural potential, while land suitability depends on economic and social factors in addition to environmental factors. Hence, an area of land can be capable of crop production but deemed suitable
A sustainable approach to derelict and ownerless mines in South Africa
for urban development or mining. South Africa’s national land capability classification uses soil, climate, and terrain to differentiate between arable land suitable for cultivation (classifications I, II, and III), marginal land suitable for light cultivation (classification IV), grazing land (classification V, VI, and VII) and wilderness (classification VIII) (Schoeman et al., 2002). South Africa is largely a semi-arid country with limited land capable of supporting sustainable crop production (Collett, 2013), and high potential arable land overlaps with mineral resource rich regions, particularly in Mpumalanga and Gauteng. Failure to manage topsoil during rehabilitation reduces the capability of the land beyond mining (Hattingh, 2018).
Affected communities and socio-economic vulnerability
Communities located close to D&O sites are at risk in terms of health and safety. It is important to know how many people are exposed and how close they live to the site, as there can be significant differences in impact over a few kilometres. Their living conditions (access to basic services, household goods, access to the internet), education and health can be determined from household surveys like the census and the Community Survey undertaken by Statistics South Africa. These can be combined to create a vulnerability index that is comparable across communities. Of particular interest is the main water source used (water scheme, river, water tanker, borehole, etc.) and informal housing, as people using untreated water and living in informal settlements are at higher risk.
Potential for illegal mining
Disused and unrehabilitated mines and dumps can become a target for illegal mining activities. Whilst in many cases these activities are driven by poverty and unemployment, in South Africa, illegal miners known as ‘Zama Zamas’ are often heavily armed and associated with significant criminal gang activity and illicit trade. Despite calls for assistance from communities and industry, illegal mining continues unchecked in the country. Apart from the direct safety and security risks posed by such activities, illegal mining can also adversely affect the physical stability of mine shafts and workings. Gold, coal, diamond, and chrome mines are known for illegal mining in South Africa.
Government capacity
While the national DMRE is responsible for the management of D&O sites, the provinces are responsible for health care, education and social development, whilst district municipalities are responsible for capacity building in local municipalities, initiating economic development and planning of land-use. In contrast, local municipalities are responsible for the provision of basic services such as water, wastewater, and electricity. As each of these plays a part in managing D&O sites, it is necessary for sub-national governments to be able to mitigate risks related to these sites. Each year, the AGSA assesses the financial state and performance management of all the country’s municipalities and provides an overall rating for each municipality, ranging from a clean audit result to an adverse or disclaimed audit result (AGSA, 2023).
Affiliation:
1Agreenco Environmental Projects, Potchefstroom, South Africa
2Agreenco Environmental Projects, Pretoria, South Africa
Correspondence to:
S.J. Van Wyk
Email: fanus.vanwyk@agreencogroup.com
Dates:
Received: 15 Oct. 2025
Published: April 2025
How to cite: Van Wyk, S.J., Haagner, A.S.H. 2025. A review of mine land rehabilitation outcomes: Culture, procurement and practice. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 209–216
DOI ID:
https://doi.org/10.17159/2411-9717/MC13/2025
ORCiD:
S.J. van Wyk
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7679-5546
This paper is based on a presentation given at the Mine Closure Conference 2025 19-20 February 2025, Maslow Hotel, Sandton, Johannesburg
A review of mine land rehabilitation outcomes: Culture, procurement and practice
by S.J. van Wyk1, A.S.H. Haagner2
Abstract
Land rehabilitation transcends the mere establishment of vegetation across disturbed landscapes; it should be conceptualised as a specialised ecological reconstruction process. This process necessitates a long-term perspective on the success of land repurposing. It requires a continuum of inputs specified and managed by a dedicated and qualified custodian to ensure the sustained economic viability and ecological sustainability of the land.
Based on the authors’ combined experience and field observations over more than five decades, they advocate for an urgent shift away from traditional land rehabilitation practices toward a paradigm centred on land capability reconstruction and active stewardship. The prevailing rehabilitation culture has overly simplified the process to a mere revegetation exercise, which is fundamentally incompatible with the comprehensive requirements for sustainable land capability. While the regulatory framework provides valuable guidance for obtaining a mine’s social license to operate, a paradigm reset is essential. Mining companies must prioritise rehabilitation quality, set achievable sustainability goals, and establish clear pathways and milestones to meet relinquishment criteria.
Currently, the status quo view—a model reliant on outsourced contracting and agricultural approaches—is that mine rehabilitation is a one-time intervention rather than a complex, systemic, and long-term process. This perspective presents significant challenges, as the success of ecological interventions can only be accurately assessed over extended timeframes, often spanning decades. Shortsighted rehabilitation specifications, coupled with practitioners operating within agricultural decision frameworks, frequently overlook the necessity for integrated rehabilitation expertise and the scientific foundation essential for designing and implementing effective ecological outcomes. A lack of long-term monitoring information impedes the required adaptive management of rehabilitated systems and, therefore, delays the transition towards final land use. This short approach costs the mining industry millions annually, often without recognising the inadequacies in long-term liability mitigation and the substandard ecological success achieved. The disconnect between procurement processes, the qualifications of service providers, and the unclear pathways to relinquishment can impede successful rehabilitation outcomes, frequently undermining progress toward sustainability milestones. Unless there is a fundamental reset of the land rehabilitation culture, pursuing sustainability will remain an elusive and perhaps impossible objective. Consequently, mining companies may hesitate to fully commit to sustainable land rehabilitation practices, as the prospects for relinquishment and final closure remain uncertain at best.
Keywords
rehabilitation practice, closure outcomes, environmental procurement, unsuccessful relinquishment
Introduction
The extensive mining operations in South Africa began in the 1880s with the diamond and gold rush and have significantly shaped the country’s economy. As a result, South Africa has become a global leader in mining, contributing notably to economic development, local, and international business services, and employment opportunities. However, these mining activities have historically prioritised immediate economic gains over environmental sustainability, leading to well-documented adverse impacts on land and water over the past 150 years.
The late 20th century marked a turning point, with increasing environmental awareness spurred by the Brundtland Report on sustainability (Bruntland, 1987). This shift prompted both governmental and industrial policy responses aimed at environmental responsibility, resulting in the establishment
A review of mine land rehabilitation outcomes: Culture, procurement and practice
of legal frameworks and guidelines focused on environmental protection and rehabilitation. The evolution of mine rehabilitation in South Africa thus reflects a transition from reactive measures to proactive sustainability strategies aimed at ecosystem restoration and community benefit.
The timeline of mine rehabilitation in South Africa can be summarised as follows:
➤ 2002: The government prioritised environmental sustainability in the Constitution Article 24, leading to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), which required mining companies to prepare Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) for rehabilitation. Relevant legislation includes the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of 1998, the National Environmental Management: Waste Act of 2008, and the National Water Act of 1998, all of which provide guidelines for environmental protection and rehabilitation in mining.
➤ 2004: The Mining Charter was introduced under Article 2 of the MPRDA to accelerate Black Economic Empowerment and economic transformation within the mining sector. This Charter has undergone amendments in 2010 and 2018 to facilitate the participation of black-owned small, medium, and micro enterprises (SMMEs) in the mining economy, often through corporate social esponsibility (CSR) initiatives focused on environmental sustainability.
➤ 2007: The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) developed rehabilitation guidelines in collaboration with stakeholders, emphasising best practices and sustainable outcomes. Earlier documents, such as the Chamber of Mines Guidelines for Coal Mines (1981) and Aide Memoire (1996), served as precursors to these guidelines.
➤ 2008: Financial provisions were implemented, requiring mining companies to allocate financial resources for rehabilitation to ensure funds remain available for these efforts, even in cases of corporate insolvency.
➤ 2010s: A heightened emphasis on sustainable development led to the integration of biodiversity conservation, community engagement, and post-mining land use planning into rehabilitation strategies, reflecting a more comprehensive approach to sustainability.
➤ 2020s: Recent advancements in mine rehabilitation have focused on addressing historical mining legacies, internal improvement of compliance and self-governance, and enhancing stakeholder participation. Regulatory enforcement of quality rehabilitation is largely absent in South African mines. There is, however, a growing emphasis on innovative techniques and technologies in rehabilitation practices through university research programmes.
Globally recognised as a leader for its robust environmental legislation and regulatory frameworks, South Africa underscores the importance of integrating environmental considerations into mining operations. The government promotes sustainable practices and innovative approaches, yet incentives for sustainability outcomes remain limited. Achieving effective land rehabilitation and realising "walk-away" closure scenarios remain uncertain outcomes for the mining industry.
Understanding the scientific requirements and outcome standards necessary for these concepts, alongside the priorities of regulators, is crucial for empowering the mining sector to ensure the sustainability of post-mining landscapes.
Rehabilitation objectives
Internationally, the Land Rehabilitation Guideline (Tanner et al., 2007) outlines three primary schools of thought regarding rehabilitation objectives:
1. Community commitments: This approach focuses on delivering end-products that meet the needs of affected communities rather than merely restoring previous conditions.
2. Restoration of previous land use capability: Historically prominent in South Africa, this perspective recognises that mining often occurs on land with high agricultural potential.
3. No net loss of biodiversity: This principle is emphasised in guidelines sponsored by the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and in many corporate mining policies.
In South Africa, rehabilitation objectives typically incorporate elements from all three approaches. The obligations of mine permit holders are clearly outlined in the MPRDA and its accompanying regulations, which stipulate that "as far as reasonably practicable," the land affected by mining operations must be rehabilitated to its natural or predetermined state or to a land use conforming to sustainable development principles (Section 38 (1) (d) of MPRDA, 2002).
The MPRDA regulations require the submission of closure objectives as part of the draft Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPR), which must outline key objectives for mine closure to guide project design and management of environmental impacts. These objectives should specify future land use goals for the site and associated closure costs (Reg 61 (1) of the MPRDA Regulations, 2004). Applicants for mineral rights must also submit a closure plan, translating these objectives into an implementable strategy (Reg 62 of the MPRDA Regulations, 2004). Key components of this plan include closure objectives, summaries of regulatory requirements, results from environmental risk assessments, rehabilitation efforts, methods for decommissioning mining components, long-term management expectations, proposed closure costs, and records of consultations with interested parties.
From the mining industry’s perspective, rehabilitation practices aim to rehabilitate impacted land to a sustainable condition. The question remains what this requires, and who is ultimately accountable. Recognising that complete restoration is often unattainable, this approach emphasises minimising the loss of land use capability and promoting net societal benefits. Historically, restoration of land capability has been the primary focus, enabling cost estimation for rehabilitation processes and facilitating feasible scopes of work. Common rehabilitation projects involve soil placement, water control measures, soil amelioration, and revegetation of commercial pastures, often accompanied by maintenance phases.
A significant complication in closure and sustainability decisions is that rehabilitation objectives must align with national and regional integrated development plans (IDPs), which necessitate municipal involvement. The committed end land use may not necessarily reflect local community desires. Ultimately, rehabilitation objectives approved in the EMP and Closure Plan are costed and executed by the mine, based on corporate commitments and the mine’s understanding of sustainable post-mining land use. While Section 38 (1) of the MPRDA emphasises restoring the
A review of mine land rehabilitation outcomes: Culture, procurement and practice
mine area to its natural or predetermined state, it also stipulates that rehabilitation must be practicable and involves a public participation process to define the ‘end use’.
Predicting viable land use at the end of a mine’s life is challenging, leading to frequent amendments of the EMP during operations to review closure commitments. Most mines engage in low-cost revegetation to create stable, aesthetically pleasing surfaces that can benefit adjacent commercial or subsistence farmers. However, rehabilitated land often remains unmanaged, and insufficient soil amelioration, incomplete maintenance programmes, and variable land use hinder ecosystem reconstruction.
The notion that initial revegetation efforts will naturally develop into fully productive landscapes within the life-of-mine through succession processes, is proven wanting. Due to underamelioration of soil carbon sources, most rehabilitated systems lack essential soil chemical and microbial properties necessary for sustaining productive land use. Thus, investment in the drivers of soil and ecological health must be reconsidered in rehabilitation specifications and cost structures to achieve quality outcomes. A key limitation of self-sustaining substrates is the lack of soil nutrient cycling. These cycles are dependent on soil organic matter and adequate soil moisture, which sustain microbial activity and regulate soil nutrition, i.e., the minimum requirements for healthy soils.
Mine rehabilitation best practices
To enhance the rehabilitation process, best practice guidelines and rehabilitation and closure toolboxes have been established globally by government agencies and mining companies. These frameworks assist in regulatory compliance, accelerate planning, and guide decision-making for land rehabilitation by establishing key performance indicators (KPIs) critical to a mine’s rehabilitation strategy.
A summary of widely adopted best practices (Barter, 2024) includes:
➤ Early and continuous engagement: Actively involve stakeholders—including local communities, government agencies, and environmental organisations—in mine closure planning to incorporate their perspectives.
➤ Comprehensive mine closure plans: Develop scientifically grounded closure plans tailored to the unique environmental and social conditions of each site.
➤ Sufficient financial provision: Ensure financial resources for mine closure are adequate and reviewed regularly to cover rehabilitation costs, including ongoing monitoring and maintenance.
➤ Progressive rehabilitation measures: Implement rehabilitation strategies during the operational phase, such as soil stabilisation, revegetation, and water management, to minimise erosion, protect water quality, and foster natural ecosystem recovery.
➤ Effective erosion control measures: Use techniques like terracing, mulching, and sedimentation ponds to prevent erosion and safeguard water quality during and after closure.
➤ Sustainable plant species: Focus on native plant species for revegetation and employ innovative techniques like bioremediation and ecological engineering to restore ecological functionality.
➤ Monitoring and evaluation: Establish regular monitoring programmes to evaluate rehabilitation effectiveness and adjust activities based on findings.
➤ Training and awareness programmes: Provide comprehensive training for mine workers on rehabilitation best practices to ensure their commitment to the process. ➤ Collaboration with research institutions: Partner with research organisations to share knowledge of and innovate mine rehabilitation practices.
However, a critical shortcoming of these guidelines is the assumption that they will yield land capable of sustainable end uses within the lifespan and business cycles of the mine. Many practices focus on mere revegetation rather than the comprehensive restoration of ecosystems, which requires years of assessment to evaluate biodiversity recovery effectively. The end objectives of many rehabilitation commitments are also quite confusing as the aim of alignment with industry guidelines is simply to revegetate the land and not to deliver a reconstructed ecosystem with the minimum required criteria of structure, function, and composition. The notion of successfully returning biodiversity to a rehabilitated mine site can only be evaluated after many years, as the eventual survival of recreated habitat should be evaluated and not merely the initiation of the process. Adequate provisions for mine closure commitments depend on thorough land capability designs that inform potential end-use scenarios. This consideration should precede commitments about rehabilitation, biodiversity outcomes, and permit issuance.
From the mining operator’s perspective, these elaborate unquantified or unclear rehabilitation KPIs are often considered impractical, unaffordable, and difficult to supervise. Furthermore, it is often challenging to identify the individual responsible for ensuring that the works are adequately scoped, professionally executed, scientifically quantified according to the correct sustainability metrics, and reported correctly to the company executive and the competent authority. The timeline over which these KPIs need to be evaluated also often creates an accountability vacuum as individuals move around or are rapidly reassigned throughout the mining industry, and corporate knowledge about the projects dwindles over time. The lack of continuity and incomplete process management often necessitate rework, which is not budgeted for. With the compounding effect of regulatory absence and lack of enforcement capability, rehabilitated land is reactively managed. Furthermore, the mining industry and the public need to understand that living (rehabilitating) systems cannot be managed according to fixed timelines and inflexible administrative processes, which render the thought process and the qualification of success virtually impossible.
The reactive management of rehabilitated land is exacerbated by regulatory inadequacies and enforcement challenges. There is a pressing need for a paradigm shift in land rehabilitation to emphasise sustainability and the associated costs, especially considering rapid resource depletion. A reset regarding the thought processes about land rehabilitation is urgently needed in the interest of sustainability and the actual cost of sustainability. Considering the rapid deterioration of natural resources, time is not on the side of the industry.
Review of mine rehabilitation quality criteria
Over the past 30 years, several methodologies for assessing mine rehabilitation efforts have evolved, yet published data on rehabilitation quality remains limited, primarily confined to academic studies and internal reports. While the extent of rehabilitation (in hectares) is documented in annual reports, qualitative assessments of rehabilitated land’s conversion back to productive use are scarce.
A review of mine land rehabilitation outcomes: Culture, procurement and practice
Mine rehabilitation quality also means different things to different mining operations, when the simple execution of rehabilitation is regarded as being successful, the reintegration of rehabilitated land back into natural systems or reaching biodiversity targets may be the benchmark for others. The definition of rehabilitation quality varies widely among mining operations. For some, simply executing rehabilitation activities marks success, while others seek to reintegrate rehabilitated land into natural systems or meet specific biodiversity targets. Consequently, rehabilitation outcomes can differ significantly based on mining type, regulatory compliance, and specific practices employed.
The most prevalent quality criteria or relinquishment criteria are also selected based on edaphic and ecological bases rather than the productivity value of revegetated systems. Since the objectives of the monitoring programmes are not aligned, sustainability outcomes may be delayed. Key observations regarding rehabilitation quality criteria include:
1. Variable regulatory and social adherence: Companies often prioritise short-term environmental compliance over long-term land use integration, hindering the viability of end land uses.
2. Variable ecological success rates: Rehabilitation success is inconsistent; some sites recover ecosystems effectively, while others remain degraded. Critical factors include soil type, climate, and disturbance extent.
• Innovative practices: Adoption of innovative techniques, like using native plants and bioremediation, is increasing. However, attention must focus on substrate design and landscape-level sustainability to avoid project delays.
• Soil and water quality: Challenges persist in reconstructing soil profiles and restoring hydrological functions. Some rehabilitated areas show improvement, while others suffer from contamination and erosion.
• Biodiversity recovery: Many sites struggle to restore premining biodiversity levels, especially where invasive species thrive. Clear definitions and timelines for biodiversity targets remain elusive, impacting the overall value of reinstatement efforts.
3. Long-term monitoring: Robust long-term monitoring programmes are lacking, which is essential for evaluating rehabilitation effectiveness and ensuring ecosystem resilience over time.
Despite increased awareness among mining organisations of their rehabilitation responsibilities, a comprehensive framework or database for assessing rehabilitation quality remains absent, leading to significant decision-support challenges in reintegrating and transitioning mined land back to productive use.
Land rehabilitation in action
The authors have collectively spent more than 50 years studying and assessing land rehabilitation quality across the South African mining industry, conducting rehabilitation implementation works and scientific assessments on all the types of mine waste facilities, mine impacted land, residue stockpiles and backfilled open pits. They argue that the in-field philosophy, methodology, and quality of mine rehabilitation have barely progressed since the advent of the industry in the late 1950s. Although there is evidence of intensive revegetation efforts since the 1990s, and despite excellent legislation, the plethora of guidelines and toolboxes, the rapid advancement in land rehabilitation knowledge and quality assessment frameworks, and amelioration and survey technology, simple revegetation
programmes are still the benchmark for “sustainability” projects. In light of their on-site experience, they wish to reflect on what they observe regarding land rehabilitation decision-making throughout the industry and what the outcomes of the processes have delivered through the lens of run-of-the-mill mining operations. It is clear that operational pressures and priorities, procurement oversight and priorities, financial cycles, and compliance modes still largely dictate decisions about land rehabilitation implementation and specifications, even though environmental pressure has now become sustainability and stewardship pressure.
On-site rehabilitation observations: A non-linear process, multiphase process
Engaging with mine personnel about land rehabilitation outcomes often reveals several misconceptions based on the expectation that singular interventions with associated short-term maintenance constitute a successful rehabilitation activity. The following summary presents the ideas behind misconstrued rehabilitation decision-making that underlie the South African rehabilitation culture:
1. Hectares levelled: Success is measured by the number of hectares levelled, based on the expectations of the Department of Mineral Resources. This fosters a belief that flattening land completes rehabilitation, and this intervention will allow nature to take over, minimising costs.
2. Landscaping and grass planting: Some entities equate rehabilitation with merely spreading a mix of grass seeds, assuming they can disengage from the process afterward.
3. Sufficiency of rehabilitation schedules: Submitting a rehabilitation schedule is often seen as enough to appease regulators, with plans to execute rehabilitation in subsequent years.
4. Timing misconceptions: There is a belief that rehabilitation can begin after the December break, often leading to delays.
5. Confusion surrounding land capability: Rehabilitation is frequently misunderstood as synonymous with land capability.
6. Assumptions about end-use: There are expectations that rehabilitated land can be utilised as carbon offsets, natural sinks, fulfil biodiversity commitments, return to its original state, or support similar activities as before mining, such as farming.
7. Yield expectations: A misconception exists that rehabilitated land will produce the same commercial outputs as its premining capability.
8. Short-term solutions: The expectation for a “walk-away solution” within two years post-rehabilitation persists.
9. Community transfer: There is a belief that rehabilitated land will be handed over to communities for agricultural use.
10. Natural rehabilitation: Some assume that land will naturally rehabilitate without active vegetation establishment.
These misconceptions underscore significant confusion within mining operations regarding the drivers, expectations, timelines, and specialised focus necessary for effective land rehabilitation. Current specifications reflect a limited cost blueprint, often failing to support long-term rehabilitation success.
The authors argue that this culture of inaccurate costing— rooted in substandard specifications—arises from reliance on generic guidelines and closure cost estimates, which overlook the true long-term expenses associated with land rehabilitation.
Despite substantial investments in rehabilitation efforts in South Africa over the past 50 years, many rehabilitated mine sites continue to face significant challenges, such as:
A review of mine land rehabilitation outcomes: Culture, procurement and practice
• Evidence of substrate instability (geotechnical and surface instability);
• High erosion rates, gullies and spills across the rehabilitated land;
• Soil void and depleted of nutrients;
• Soil hard setting year-on-year;
• Poor vegetation cover and biomass year-on year;
• Limited species diversity, no progression of species diversity, low or no succession rates;
• Non-functional soil microbial activity;
• Rapid decrease in soil organic matter in rehabilitated soils;
• Precipitates of chemical compounds;
• Low/no water holding capability;
• Water ponding on surface;
• Water decant and seepage of different volume and qualities;
• Alien invasive plants rapidly increasing;
• Limited end land use reintegration;
• Lack of site security with either overgrazing, loitering or annual fire risks;
• Absence of designed surface water management infrastructure;
• Substantial contribution to poor air quality in the form of dust episodes or spontaneous combustion smog.
From a specifications and closure perspective, further challenges include:
• Lack of a project vision or plan;
• Absence of specific closure objectives;
• No documentation of initial site assessments and analysis reports;
• Missing water management and treatment programmes;
• Lack of monitoring data and accountability;
• No record of materials used in rehabilitation;
• Absence of a sustainability progress charter. These challenges indicate that existing rehabilitation methodologies fail to meet sustainability criteria, prompting a critical need to examine why current processes do not achieve desired medium- to long-term outcomes. This leads to wasted resources and time, exposing mines to non-compliance and increased costs while stalling sustainability progress.
Mining NPV culture and rehabilitation implementation thought process
Mining operations and land rehabilitation do not share aligned KPIs, complicating effective rehabilitation execution. Mining managers must balance profitability with the necessity of environmental rehabilitation, which is often seen as a begrudged expense that could diminish profit margins. Different managerial approaches and incentive structures further complicate decisionmaking regarding rehabilitation. The mining manager needs to balance the operation’s profitability on the one hand (as per the business plan and budget requirements), whilst on the other hand make provisions for environmental rehabilitation, which can potentially erode management’s profit share. The project ownership and acumen of process and systems managers also differ in approach, and the different incentive mindsets will drive different decisions. However, the rehabilitation activity will always be acutely managed for a fixed-cost margin, or allowable cost per tonne mined, whilst environmental systems cannot be approached as a fixed-cost allowable in the same budget.
Mining companies may prioritise immediate financial returns over long-term liabilities, resulting in insufficient budgeting for rehabilitation efforts. Confusion and underestimation of mine rehabilitation operational costs and final liability costs can arise from several factors related to discounting practices and project value calculations. One of the origins of this culture is that financial models applied for mining projects consider operational rehabilitation cost as part of the net present value (NPV), where environmental cost is often planned and viewed as a once-off expense and may be underestimated before and during the mining operation as different cost scenarios.
Discounted rates may present a profitable project, but it is well known that rehabilitation costs escalate at a higher rate than the average inflation rate (linked to rises in agricultural and equipment costs), and risk-free rates increase the cost of capital and hence, increase the required shareholder returns from the project over time. Thus, rehabilitation costs are almost always underestimated due to the incorporation of inaccurate discount rates into NPV calculations. Furthermore, NPV calculations may not adequately account for uncertainties and risks associated with rehabilitation, such as regulation changes, environmental conditions, or unexpected remediation needs.
The requirement for financial provisions for rehabilitation has been implemented to mitigate this risk further. While financial provisions for rehabilitation have been mandated to mitigate these risks, many companies still employ inadequate financial strategies that do not fully capture rehabilitation costs. Closure costs included in liability provisions are frequently conflated with costs allowable for rehabilitation works. The closure cost allowed for in the liability provision is also often used in the cost allowable for rehabilitation works. Since rehabilitation is an operational cost, it should not be confused with the closure liability cost provision, and the works need to be carried out concurrently during operations, which has also become the exception at many mines. It is, therefore, evident that the cost available for land rehabilitation will always be subject to a minimum allowable to establish vegetation. Therefore, the aim of the specification will be completely different from a specification that needs to be implemented and maintained over 10 years.
As a result, funding for land rehabilitation is limited to the minimum funds necessary for establishing vegetation, leading to specifications that differ significantly from those needed for projects requiring long-term maintenance. This dynamic typically results in low-cost projects and ultimately yields subpar results. Since the lowest cost contractor would then come into contention, a seed cocktail and simplified amelioration programme would always focus on project completion in one growth season. They will deliver a sparse pasture cover – often not resilient to South African climate variation. This practice cannot deliver sustainably productive endland-use.
This is the status quo interface between rehabilitation finance decisions and lack of clarity regarding the outcomes process summarised, and it will continue if the existing decision-making culture and project ownership (lack-of-ownership) model persist. To address these challenges, mining companies should adopt more accurate discounting methods, implement comprehensive lifecycle assessments, and ensure that financial provisions reflect the true scope of future liabilities.
Adopting a Land Custodian Model, whereby sustainabilityaccountability is managed by professional land management agencies, could facilitate the delivery of sustainable land covers
A review of mine land rehabilitation outcomes: Culture, procurement and practice
over time, aligning with the KPIs of sustainable mining strategies. This necessitates a re-evaluation of cost, implementation, liability management, and ownership models to ensure long-term rehabilitation outcomes.
Land rehabilitation procurement processes
Standard procurement processes typically appoint service providers based solely on competitive bids, significantly influencing the outcomes of rehabilitation efforts. While selecting cost-effective and competent contractors is crucial from a governance perspective, the assumption that a robust procurement process will yield optimal value for mining companies is fundamentally flawed.
The current procurement paradigm fails to foster savings or sustainable development for small, medium, and micro enterprises (SMMEs), exacerbating the opportunity costs associated with expedited environmental improvements and undermining the interests of mining operations. A constructive procurement approach, conducive to enhanced sustainability outcomes, would involve evaluating the total cost of ownership of rehabilitation projects over five years. This strategy entails appointing professional contractors as accountable partners and designating specialist contractors as custodians during the maintenance phase to ensure a well-monitored and maintained landscape, ultimately supporting effective and sustainable end land use projects.
Key insights for enhancing procurement policy in the context of long-term sustainability projects include:
• Proactive planning: Professional land rehabilitation contractors engage in advance planning, procure materials early to pass savings onto the mining company, and incorporate follow-up maintenance in service delivery.
• Expert involvement: The inclusion of rehabilitation specialists, such as engineers and scientists, within the contractor’s delivery team is essential for problem-solving, monitoring, and rapid intervention, which are critical to the long-term success of rehabilitation projects.
• Timely engagement: The success of initial rehabilitation efforts is heavily contingent on seasonality – late contractor appointments can substantially diminish establishment success, often leading to project failure without accountability for sustainability outcomes. In many cases, late initiation of projects results in dismal failure of the project and procurement is not held accountable for sustainability project failures.
• Economies of scale: To achieve cost reductions and relay these benefits to clients, professional contracting firms require predictability in purchase orders to enable bulk procurement, particularly if a specification-based approach is adopted.
• Equipment reliability: For a professional contractor to deliver quality rehabilitation works, it is extremely important to work with reliable, precision-enabled equipment in a harsh environment, considering that the contractor is subjected to high capital layout and continuous maintenance costs. To provide a viable long-term service, longer term contracts (no less than 5 years) would contribute substantially to the mine and the contractor’s cause.
• Neighbour engagement: While appointing local farmers for rehabilitation projects can foster goodwill, their primary focus on low-cost solutions and personal farming
priorities often results in inadequate service delivery and diminished accountability. Although competent, a farmer’s personal farming interests usually dictate the assignment of equipment and resources, and the mine’s project will always be a second priority, whilst the mine has limited leverage to keep the farmer accountable.
• Inexperienced contractor risks: An emerging pattern of land rehabilitation failure is noticed where corporate social responsibility programmes under the auspices of the Mining Charter to empower local and often inexperienced doorstep companies. Mine procurement may often substitute a professional rehabilitation contractor for an inexperienced SMME landscaping company. The local community rehabilitation contractors have become part of the competitive landscape, often sub-contracting the local farmer or specialist contractor at a considerable cost to the mine, with low-cost delivery in mind. This process increases costs and subpar service quality due to reliance on subcontracting arrangements.
• Rework implications: Adopting a low-cost approach to land rehabilitation and specification-based projects invariably leads to rework over time, further inflating costs.
The misalignment of procurement processes, coupled with insufficient synergy among rehabilitation contractors, technical support, and effective equipment and material management, incurs substantial financial costs for mining companies. Moreover, the ecological benefits that could accrue during the time lost to ineffective rehabilitation efforts are critical and irreplaceable.
An alternative technical approach to successful land rehabilitation
Successful land rehabilitation begins with a vision of establishing a minimum viable ecosystem capable of delivering ecosystem services and functioning benignly within the landscape. The overarching objective remains compliance with the "best practicable" option as outlined in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) Section 38.1, which mandates the return of land to a state consistent with sustainable development principles.
A three-step framework is proposed to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of rehabilitated land status, enabling mining companies to categorise their progress effectively. This framework can be readily communicated to regulators and local communities to manage expectations regarding land use readiness:
1. Land rehabilitation initiation (0–5 years): Establish the foundational elements of the rehabilitation process.
2. Land maintenance (5–10 years): Implement ongoing management strategies to foster ecological recovery and stability.
3. Land relinquishment (10+ years): Transition stewardship of the rehabilitated land to ensure long-term ecological integrity and land use viability.
Management of this phased approach should be entrusted to experienced land rehabilitation specialists and project managers, emphasising liability management and compliance.
The objective of this phased process is to oversee the reconstruction of natural processes towards the establishment of a selfsustaining resource base. This approach necessitates the development of a customised design document that delineates project architecture, including timelines, resource allocations, developmental criteria, and success metrics.
A review of mine land rehabilitation outcomes: Culture, procurement and practice
Essential components of the phased process include:
• Soil management: Ensuring the availability and quality of soil close to the final placement destination, considering adequate volume and appropriate characteristics.
• Soil profiling: Implementing precise soil profiling for sustainable surface preparation.
• Organic content management: Designing, costing, and modelling soil organic content accumulation to meet specifications.
• Moisture and soil chemistry modelling: Integrating soil moisture, alkalinity, acidity, and sodicity management into project specifications.
• Professional practices: Employing professional amelioration and biodiversity management strategies.
• Ongoing management: Conducting monthly land management practices, including weeding, fire management, and defoliation.
• Specialised custodianship: Designating specialised land custodians focused on end land use development.
• Monitoring programmes: Establishing frequent and detailed monitoring protocols to provide insights aligned with specific end land use objectives.
Adopting this alternative approach is strongly recommended to achieve viable end land use outcomes and ensure committed stewardship at optimal costs.
Land custodianship – assign the land rehabilitation process to someone who cares
Adopting a land custodianship model signifies a transformative approach to land rehabilitation, promoting sustainable management practices that emphasise long-term stewardship. This model integrates community involvement with specialist oversight and management by professional rehabilitation contractors, ultimately fostering enhanced ecological resilience, reduced management costs, and improved community relations. By engaging local communities, companies can ensure that rehabilitation initiatives align with local needs and ecological contexts, maximising effectiveness.
The long-term custodianship model offers several advantages over traditional short-term rehabilitation strategies:
1. Long-term planning and integrated land use: The custodianship model encourages comprehensive land use planning that prioritises the long-term viability of ecosystems and associated services. This proactive approach enables more sustainable land use decisions compared to reactive, short-term management strategies.
2. Community engagement and stewardship: Involving local communities fosters stewardship and shared responsibility for the land. This engagement often results in sustainable practices that reflect local ecological knowledge and cultural values, potentially reducing the need for costly oversight. Moreover, sustainable land use initiatives, such as ecotourism and sustainable agriculture, can create economic opportunities, providing ongoing revenue streams for communities.
3. Ecosystem focus: The custodianship model emphasises the long-term restoration and maintenance of ecosystems, fostering biodiversity and enhancing ecological resilience. Allowing natural processes to facilitate ecosystem recovery can improve biodiversity and ecosystem services (e.g., water filtration, carbon sequestration), leading to economic benefits that surpass
initial rehabilitation costs. Healthy ecosystems exhibit greater resilience to disturbances, potentially mitigating the need for costly interventions in the future.
4. Lower long-term liabilities: Prioritising custodianship can result in lower long-term financial liabilities associated with land management. Sustainable practices diminish the necessity for intensive inputs and interventions over time, allowing organisations to anticipate and mitigate future environmental challenges. This proactive stance can reduce costs linked to unforeseen remediation efforts.
5. Reduced intensive inputs: Long-term custodianship requires less intensive management, as natural recovery processes can prevail. This approach enables the implementation of adaptive management strategies that evolve based on monitoring outcomes and changing conditions, ultimately reducing the necessity for costly interventions. In contrast, intensive management models often require ongoing inputs, such as labour and resources, to maintain rehabilitated areas.
Transitioning to a long-term land custodianship model emphasises sustainability, community involvement, and integrated planning, rendering it a more effective and cost-efficient alternative to short-term, intensive management approaches. This shift benefits not only environmental integrity but also enhances economic and social outcomes for local communities. By committing to sustainable land stewardship, companies may face fewer regulatory hurdles and associated costs, fostering a more stable operational environment.
Conclusion
This review elucidates the complexities surrounding mine land rehabilitation in South Africa, highlighting that, while existing policies and guidelines support rehabilitation efforts, challenges persist in their implementation. These challenges arise from ineffective specifications, unrealistic expectations regarding minimalistic rehabilitation interventions, procurement inefficiencies, and financial shortsightedness.
The authors argue that the current rehabilitation practices are disjointed and misdirected, as ongoing rehabilitation efforts will require substantial additional work to achieve satisfactory outcomes. A lack of monitoring data, optimisation of specifications, and insufficient resources, combined with unclear end objectives, render rehabilitated areas unsuitable for their intended commercial use as outlined in environmental management plans (EMPs) and closure plans.
The prevailing culture within mining companies, which emphasises immediate financial returns while viewing environmental rehabilitation as a costly burden, is unsustainable. This approach leads to the misalignment of key performance indicators (KPIs) between mining and rehabilitation, resulting in inadequate budgeting for long-term efforts and frequent underestimation of operational costs due to flawed financial practices. Although financial provisions for rehabilitation are mandated, many companies conflate closure costs with rehabilitation expenses, often restricting funding to basic vegetation establishment rather than comprehensive, sustainable solutions. The reliance on low-cost contractors further undermines the quality and effectiveness of rehabilitation efforts.
To address these issues, a paradigm shift towards a structured approach that formalises realistic three-phased timelines for the rehabilitation process is essential. For effective land rehabilitation,
A review of mine land rehabilitation outcomes: Culture, procurement and practice
contractors should aim to achieve specific outcomes over a 10–15year period, ensuring that substrate must be 1) geotechnically stable, 2) devoid of pollutants or pathways for pollution, and 3) ecologically reconstructed to a degree that facilitates functional ecosystem services. Rehabilitation specifications that effectively support long-term soil carbon and moisture cycling are crucial components for selfsustaining and productive substrates. Rehabilitation specifications must emphasise and account for longterm soil carbon and moisture cycling, which are critical for creating selfsustaining and productive substrates. Only when substrates demonstrate ecological functionality—evidenced by active nutrient and moisture cycling—should considerations for productive land use be initiated. Furthermore, if long-term data fails to confirm landscape function across various seasons, the rehabilitated system should be deemed unstable, requiring continued management until stability is achieved.
Thus, the rehabilitation execution process must not be perceived merely as a transactional commercial endeavour where the lowest bidder is selected to achieve sustainability outcomes. Restoring natural systems requires specialised partnerships, and embracing a long-term land custodianship model could provide a more sustainable and effective framework for successful rehabilitation outcomes.
It is imperative for the mining industry to uphold its reputation by delivering sustainable end land use. Addressing existing inefficiencies in land rehabilitation approaches is essential to enhance overall effectiveness and accountability in the sector.
References
Barter, H. 2024. Mine Rehabilitation Law in South Africa: A Comprehensive Guide to Environmental Sustainability in Mining Operations. Available at: https://www.bartermckellar.law/ mining-law-explained/mine-rehabilitation-law-in-south-africaa-comprehensive-guide-to-environmental-sustainability-inmining-operations (Accessed: [October 2024]).
Bruntland Report for the World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Wit, M.G.J.D., Van Der Merwe, M.J.M. 2018. The role of mining in the South African economy. Journal of Southern African Studies, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 465–482.
Department of Mineral Resources and Energy. 2019. MPRDA: A Guide to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act. Available at: DMRE (Accessed: [October 2024]).
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). 2006. Biodiversity and Mining: Guidance for the Mining and Metals Sector. [online] Available at: [URL] [Accessed: October 2024].
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). 2008. Planning for Integrated Mine Closure: Toolkit. International Council on Mining and Metals, London, UK.
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). 2019. Integrated Mine Closure Good Practice Guide, 2nd ed. International Council on Mining and Metals, London, UK. doi: 10.2298/theo1704091s.
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). 2023. Mining Principles. International Council on Mining and Metals, London, UK.
Reichardt, M. 2013. The wasted years: a history of mine waste rehabilitation methodology in the South African mining industry from its origins to 1991. PhD thesis, University of Witwatersrand.
Minerals Council South Africa. 2020. Facts and Figures. Available at: Minerals Council South Africa (Accessed: [October 2024]).
South Africa. 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.za/documents/ constitution/constitution-republic-south-africa-1996-1 [Accessed October 2024].
South Africa. 2002. Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002. Available at: Government of South Africa (Accessed: [October 2024]).
South Africa. 1998. National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998. Available at: Government of South Africa (Accessed: [date]).
Shongwe, B.N. 2018. The impact of coal mining on the environment and community quality of life: a case study investigation of the impacts and conflicts associated with coal mining in the Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. Master’s thesis, University of Cape Town.
Tanner, P. 2007. Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Mined Land Handbook. Chamber of Mines of South Africa and Coaltech Research Association, p. 167.
Van der Merwe, M., Coetzee, H. 2019. Best practices in mine rehabilitation: A South African perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 235, pp. 1245–1256.
Weyer, V.D., Truter, W.F., Lechner, A.M., Unger, C. J. 2017. Surfacestrip coal mine land rehabilitation planning in South Africa and Australia: Maturity and opportunities for improvement. Resources Policy, vol. 54, pp. 117–129.
Zvarivadza, T. 2018. Sustainability in the mining industry: An evaluation of the National Planning Commission’s diagnostic overview. Resources Policy, vol. 56, pp. 70–77. u
Affiliation:
Centre for Development Support, University of the Free State, South Africa
Correspondence to: L. Marais
Email: MaraisJGL@ufs.ac.za
Dates:
Received: 15 Oct. 2025
Published: April 2025
How to cite: Marais, L. 2025. Planning for post-mining economies: Misconceptions and opportunities. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 217–224
DOI ID:
https://doi.org/10.17159/2411-9717/MC22/2025
ORCiD:
L. Marais
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0299-3435
This paper is based on a presentation given at the Mine Closure Conference 2025 19-20 February 2025, Maslow Hotel, Sandton, Johannesburg
Planning for post-mining economies: Misconceptions and opportunities
by L. Marais
Abstract
The development of a post-mining economy is generally framed as accessible and desirable and something that mining companies, consultants, and the government can, and should, plan for. It is indeed possible. Yet, most mining regions, other than the big metropolitan municipalities, find economic diversification after mining challenging, despite their grand plans, consultant reports, and company intentions. Their efforts blind them to other ideas that are often prerequisites to diversification. This paper highlights some economic and social misconceptions about economic diversification and explains where planning goes wrong. Mistakes typically stem from ignorance and misunderstandings. Planners and policy makers fail to grasp the essential requirements for economic diversification. They underestimate the structural constraints created by mining. They do not see how mine rehabilitation is linked to economic diversification. They generally do not understand the South African space economy or the nature of new economies. The paper also proposes a more careful consideration of those economic aspects that mining cities have control over, such as land use management and infrastructure. The paper further explains how understanding long-term dependencies can help prevent governance failures. The social disruption that accompanies mine decline and closure must be recognised and dealt with. The mines must plan for decline as a way to resuscitate the economy. It concludes with a framework for assessing and developing a post-mining economy.
Keywords
mine closure, post-mining economies, mining regions, opportunities, misconceptions
Introduction
Mine closure holds risks for mining economies worldwide. Success stories of diversification away from mining are few. Johannesburg, Manchester, and the Ruhr valley are exceptions. In the Global North, government subsidies have supported post-mining economies, but such subsidies are less likely to materialise in the Global South. Yet, despite the difficulty of building a post-mining economy, mining companies, local governments and consultants typically assume that planning can fix the problem. They argue that early planning for economic diversification is vital. But planning is not a sure-fire technical solution and post-mining economy planning has met with few successes in South Africa.
Although the literature on mine closure has grown, five shortcomings should be noted: a large portion of this work focuses on the environmental aspects of closure (Zine et al., 2023), the work is mainly in the domain of mining companies (Bainton, Holcombe, 2018), the social aspects receive much less attention (Bainton, Holcombe, 2018), the assumption is that policies integrate the social aspects into the environmental aspects (Vivoda et al., 2019), and the work on economic diversification away from mining seldom reflects on the global literature on economic change and diversification – Bruel and Atienza, (2022), can be viewed as one of a few exceptions. Consequently, an understanding of how to integrate the environmental, social, and economic aspects of mine closure is poor. Post-mining plans seldom take proper cognisance of the economic constraints associated with mine closure.
The literature often cites international examples of successful post-mining economies to motivate for early planning. However, the value of these case studies should not be overstated. Weller et al. (2020) question whether such examples exist, and Beer et al. (2022) note that, despite some successes, failures dominate the scene. One often-cited example of good practice is the rehabilitation and economic diversification of the Ruhr valley. However, there are limitations to transposing this example (Measham
Planning for post-mining economies: Misconceptions and opportunities
et al., 2024). Most obviously, the estimated 38 billion euros spent by the German government is unlikely to be replicated elsewhere (Oei et al., 2020). Other factors inhibiting transferability are remote locations with low population densities and limited market access, governance structure and capacity concerns, low skills, and lack of infrastructure and non-mining employment opportunities (Measham et al., 2024). Despite these constraints, Measham et al. (2024) have identified three ingredients for success to be learnt from the examples: delegated decision-making, a long-term time frame, and large-scale investment.
Many post-mining plans make wrong assumptions about how to achieve economic diversification and fail to consider the structural constraints that hinder a move away from mining. This paper brings together the international and the South African literature on mine closure and planning post-mining economies. In the process, there is a critical assessment of the existing attempts, the identification of several misconceptions, and provision of a framework to support the planning for a post-mining economy.
The literature
This paper reviews the global and then the South African literature and follows this with a conceptual overview of planning-related issues in South Africa.
Global literature
This section looks first at the literature on the economic diversification of mining regions and then at a new set of literature originating from Australia. Only a small body of work links economic diversification in mining areas with the literature on evolutionary economic geography or economics. The more significant debates have often taken place only at country level, with subregions being ignored (Bruel, Atienza, 2022). It is insufficiently recognised that economic diversification is more complex in mining areas than in non-mining areas (Harding, Venables, 2016).
Research has identified several factors that make it difficult to diversify a mining economy: resource price volatility (Van der Ploeg, 2012), higher wages in mining areas (Shoo, 2020), production linkages that benefit only the larger urban areas (Scholwin, 2021), and mining-related institutions eroding regional agency (Hayter, 1990). Over the past two decades, evolutionary economic geography has added the notions of relatedness (Boschma, 2016) and regional branching (Boschma, Frencken, 2011; Kogler et al., 2023). ‘Relatedness’ refers to the way new economic sectors depend on the skills and knowledge of existing financial sectors. Although relatedness has been studied mostly at a national level, when applied to regions it becomes clear how important the regions are as a foundation for expansion into other economic sectors (Boschma, Frencken, 2011). Another set of research has argued for a broader understanding of assets to assist economic diversification, beyond just relatedness. MacKinnon (2019) adds natural, infrastructure and material, industrial, human and institutional assets while Haslam McKenzie and Eyles (2024) emphasise the assets that local authorities have. Hassink et al. (2019) argue that the assets of other regions are also important, and Isaksen and Trippl (2019) emphasise local leadership, political actors, and the role of the state. Finally, the concept of ‘inter-path relations’ explains the relationship between existing industry and new industries (a form of regional branching), which has been difficult to achieve in the case of mining because it is often a very dominant sector (Hassink et al., 2019).
In the context of the above research, Bruel and Atienza (2022) identify three issues related to the economic diversification of
mining regions: regional context conditions, understanding the multi-scalar implications of mining, and the relevance of mining’s impermanence, its temporary nature. ‘Regional context’ refers to the regional structure and the way mining influences its economic structure. This context must be taken into account in the case of peripherally located mining regions, which have limited endogenous capabilities, in other words, only a small range of skills. For Bruel and Atienza (2022), this implies that “diversification in agglomerated areas that host extractive industries will be less challenging than in resource peripheries characterised by small human settlements, extremely high levels of specialisation in extractive industries and a lack of non-extractive industries.”
Because the mining economy affects the structure of an existing region, it is vital to understand the relationship between mining and non-mining economic structures (inter-path relations). Studies emphasising inter-path relations often highlight regional assets. Regional development also depends on institutions and the region’s agency, in other words its ability to do things by itself rather than being subject to control. Mining inhibits entrepreneurial culture. Being employed on the mine feels secure and deadens the drive to diversify. Bruel and Atienza (2022) say mining regions and countries should be analysed in a multi-scalar way, rather than focusing too narrowly. Links between mining and the economy can be found at several scales. For example, mines that use the fly-in-fly-out method for their workforce benefit the host cities more than the mining towns. Large mining cities, being home to the services industries, such as law and engineering, often draw more benefit from mining than the smaller ones. Bruel and Atienza (2022) also note that mining and its link to other sectors should be understood in terms of mining’s temporary nature, and they emphasise the implications of booms and busts.
Australia has set up the Cooperative Research Centre for Transformations in Mining Economies. The Centre frames the problem as a shift from thinking about mine closure to thinking about transforming the mining estate (CRC TiME, 2024). The term ‘mining estate’ means the area where the authorities provide legal clearance for mining operations. In talking of ‘estate transformation’, however, the Centre refers not only to the mining site, but also to the re-use of infrastructure and the community implications of transitioning away from mining. Conceptually, this idea of estate transformation is essential for economic diversification, as it emphasises life beyond the mining activity and outside the mining sites. Following here, the paper lists five main ideas from the Australian research.
First and foremost, the Australians remind us that mining is temporary, that mine closure could mean the end of mine community life. They thus call for a more careful consideration of life beyond the mine and the uncertainty that closure brings. Secondly, and following on from the first point, they call for a shared understanding of what mine closure means and what a post-mining economy might look like (Measham et al., 2024). Such a shared understanding should influence closure plans and rehabilitation initiatives.
Thirdly, they say that to think clearly about mine closure and the development of post-mining economies one needs to incorporate “a wider range of values and perspectives into analysis, planning, decision-making, and actions about closure and transitions” (Measham et al., 2024). Earlier thinking about mine closure narrowly valued land and ecological rehabilitation and finding alternative jobs for miners (usually redirecting staff to other operations within the company). Land rehabilitation often uses a
Planning for post-mining economies: Misconceptions and opportunities
narrow set of indicators like climate, soil type, and water access. With the rise of the concept of sustainability, ‘ values’ have become essential in thinking about mine closure (Foran et al., 2024). In a comparative case study in Australia, Foran et al. (2024) found two overarching values: net-positive outcomes and the equitable distribution of responsibility, risk, and opportunity during mine closure processes.
Fourthly, the Australians note the need to integrate social and economic considerations with the technical, engineering, and environmental aspects. The fifth idea draws attention to the regional scale of mine closure activities and the need to look beyond single closures to the accompanying long-term regional concerns (Everingham et al., 2018). They note that companies often do land rehabilitation on their mined land but disregard regional issues and ignore the more comprehensive range of issues that are at stake. They advise that mine closure plans could benefit more closely from understanding the details of regional transitions (Measham et al., 2024).
South African literature
The South African literature falls into three categories of concerns relevant to developing post-mining economic diversification: 1) The impact of mine closure on communities, 2) the dependencies mining creates that hinder this development, and 3) the difficulties involved and the plans that organisations make in the hope of achieving it.
A growing body of work reflects on case studies of mine closure and the social consequences (Marais, 2013a; 2013b; Ackerman, 2018; Marais et al., 2022; Marais, Cloete, Lenka, 2022). This work shows how dependent mine communities become on mining (Marais, 2023; Matebesi et al., 2024) and how closure brings new forms of social disruption. Marais et al. (2022) show, for example, that the declining gold mining areas have some of the highest crime rates in South Africa. This consequence of badly managed mine closure makes it hard for people and their organisations to counter the effects of mine closure. The evidence of social disruption at closure contradicts the findings of similar work in the Global North, where migration flows away from mining so that social disruption does not occur at the mining sites.
The second body of work investigates goal dependency in mining policy and its negative effect on mine closure plans. Historically, migrant labour systems and compound living prevented the black workforce from settling permanently near the mines. By the mid-1980s this had started to change as urban landownership became available to the black workforce. Since the end of apartheid, homeownership and permanent settlements have become the goal (Marais, 2018). This determined pursuit of permanence in housing and settlement is an example of a goal dependency. By not acknowledging the temporary nature of mining and the reality of mine closure, policy makers and planners risk locking people into areas in decline (Cloete, Marais, 2021). The evidence points to the importance of considering the impermanence of mining when planning and designing mining and community infrastructure.
The third body of work reflects on the inability of planning to develop appropriate post-mining economies (Matebesi et al., 2024; Sesele, Kuzambisa-Kiingi, 2024). Many grand plans are made, but they are seldom implemented. They often depend on extensive projects that would need external funding. The focus on grand plans blinds the role players to economic change that is occurring. It distracts them from taking control of matters that are within their capability, such as local infrastructure and land use regulations.
Conceptual issues associated with planning
Good leadership, governance and planning are essential for economic diversification (Hayter, 1990). It is hard to argue that one should not plan for a post-mining economy. So, often, the industry suggests that the answer lies in early planning. Of course, it does. What is less clear is the nature of that planning and how it should be done. In this paper, the word ‘planning’ implies both leadership and governance. Two common problems of planning are its tendency to become theatrical and its dependence on steering.
Governance and planning as theatre are not new (Meyer, Towan, 1977; Ding, 2020). The state often resorts to theatricality when citizens’ expectations exceed what it can deliver. It needs to create the impression of good governance. Public participation then becomes a performative ritual (Futrell, 1999). Harrison and Todes (2024), in their book “The Promise of Planning: Global Aspirations and South African Experience Since 2008”, describe how this performative type of planning has become common in South Africa.
The overreliance on ‘steering’ is another problem. The term ‘steering’ refers to how authorities guide, coordinate, and influence actors’ actions in governance decision-making (Beunen, Van Assche, 2021). A distinction is made between planning (steering) and plan implementation (rowing). When steering overemphasises the planning component, it can lead to rigidities in governance systems. Steering began to be overemphasised with the advent of the ‘new public management’ paradigm of the late 1970s and early 1980s (Stoker, 2006). The idea was to delink the governance structure (the councils) from those who implement the plans (the bureaucrats). Prominent concepts in this paradigm are outcomesbased performance, goal setting, customer satisfaction, and businesslike governance. It has been substantially criticised for being unable to achieve many of its original objectives of greater efficiency and savings (Kuhlmann et al., 2008). This criticism led to the rise of network governance where governance leans more towards relationships and partnerships than being dependent on steering. Harrison (2001) argued more than twenty years ago that South African strategic planning in the form of integrated development plans was closely linked to the new public management paradigm. Marais et al. (2021) point out that high levels of steering are a concern in places that experience mine closure and are unable to build an alternative post-mining economy. In Newcastle, KwaZuluNatal, substantial progress has been made because a more hands-on approach has been followed (Marais et al., 2021).
Delinking the plan-making and implementation phases encourages the performative nature of planning. Plan-making becomes theatre. The focus is a visionary or imaginary future, regardless of the possibility of achieving it.
Mine closure and post-mining economies: Planning misconceptions in South Africa
Closure planning usually occurs in two distinct areas: the mine and the community. This paper acknowledges both, but base the analysis on the community perspective, the public domain. Ideally the two would be integrated, but in practice researchers seldom manage to do this. There are four misconceptions about planning post-mining economies in South Africa.
Misconception 1: We simply need more early planning
Early planning is often seen as the solution to the problems of mine closure. The message is to start as early as possible with economic diversification. Such a response ignores several structural constraints (Bruel, Atienza, 2022) and planning capacity
Planning for post-mining economies: Misconceptions and opportunities
constraints. Harrison and Todes (2024) show how institutional and organisational decay have affected planning in South Africa. This is particularly concerning, as planning has been associated with government responsibility. The state’s inability to be an agent of change (and to plan), coupled with significant budgetary constraints, is a problem for planning a post-mining economy. The problem is evident in the inability to dovetail social and labour plans with integrated development plans (Van der Watt, Marais, 2021). Implementation is affected by high levels of steering (planning) and limited attention to implementation. As the institutional problems have increased, steering has become even more dominant.
The collection by Matebesi et al. (2024) offers several examples of unrealistic plans and the inability to implement them. These include plans generated by mining companies (Mabele, Nel, 2024) and by local government – sometimes funded by mining companies (Ntema, 2019; Kuzambisa-Kiingi, 2024; Sesele, Kuzambisa-Kiingi, 2024). Several factors make these plans unimplementable: they are unrealistic, they do not understand the local context, they do not understand the national space economy, they divert agency to the next sphere of government, and they ignore structural constraints associated with the impacts of mining.
For example, Matjhabeng (the Free State Goldfields) has made several plans for developing a post-mining economy since the late 1980s (Marais, 2013b; Sesele, Kuzambisa-Kiingi, 2024). These plans have often assumed there would be extensive infrastructure investment by the provincial or national government and extensive funding would be needed from private investors. There are three concerns about the assumption that massive external financing is required to develop a post-mining economy, despite the lesson learnt from international experience. Firstly, the excessive focus on creating a grand plan results from the steering approach to planning that delinks planning and implementation. A visionary plan that requires extensive investment has far less chance of success than finding simple mechanisms for change. Plan-making has become the indicator of success, while implementation is not a concern. Secondly, it negates the idea of simple incremental planning. With a grand plan, no one needs to look for existing assets and build on them. In practice, a grand plan ignores what people do to adapt to mine closure, in other words, it ignores their agency. Understanding livelihood strategies (rather than needs) should help build a post-mining economy. Thirdly, as highlighted in the aforementioned literature, grand plans ignore several structural economic and planning concerns associated with mining. They assume that a transition from mining does not need to take into account concepts like relatedness or to deal with the long-term consequences of mining for value chains. The problems caused by this shortsightedness are compounded by structural and planning constraints in many mining settlements that inhibit the development of a post-mining economy. Marais and Nel (2016) show, for example, how expansive infrastructure created in response to mining growth becomes a stumbling block at closure. Broad roads, neighbourhood shopping centres and large green spaces are no longer maintainable. They become a drain on municipal finances and the environment decays. Mukumba (2024) has found that in Zambia the urban densities of Copperbelt mining cities are nearly three times lower those of the non-mining cities. These low urban densities affect economic threshold levels, such as the level of economic viability needed for small business to prosper, and the ability to develop post-mining economies.
Another problem is that these plans are often for imaginary large-scale projects. The concern here is not that large projects are
necessarily an inappropriate response, but rather that the onedimensional focus on this type of project limits the possibilities. Some of these large-scale projects lack a regional focus, and they are often not integrated into market value chains, and do not build on existing knowledge and skills.
Added to this, the changing status of the mining estate is seldom integrated into these plans, though there has been some progress in this regard. The question is how this land and infrastructure can be repurposed. A common problem is the inability to consider mine land rehabilitation as a foundation for economic activity. When this link is recognised, the planners often focus on an economic activity of a predetermined single type. A broader conceptualisation linked to what people and communities would value at closure could help in this process.
Grand plans also ignore those things over which planning systems have control, such as land use. Land use regulations need to be suited to the current economic climate. Generally, booms require control. Busts, however, require less power and simpler ways of changing land use (Marais et al., 2016). These simple mechanisms are often overlooked in planning post-mining economies.
Planners tend to think that the rest of the economy functions like the mining industry. Their simple assumption is that one significant investment upfront will change a city’s or a community’s economic landscape. Other industries, however, often function with incremental and slow change and a life-long adaptation process. Grand planners usually focus on a single alternative (which requires extensive funding) as opposed to incremental and multi-faceted approaches.
This paper is not arguing here that planning is, per se, a misguided response. Rather, the concern is about the overemphasis on plan-making at the expense of implementation, and the grandiosity of the plans. In many cases, the results thereof are failure to integrate the various mine closure processes, negative implications for mining communities, disregard for what people do to adapt to closure, blindness to the structural constraints, and neglect of the simple planning responses that are available to support closure.
Misconception 2: Competitive advantage will help economic diversification
Plans are often the result of much effort to demonstrate competitive advantage (Porter, 2008). Planners who focus on competitive advantage tend to ignore structural constraints in the economy. The international literature shows that economic diversification requires an understanding of how mining affects mining regions, how it relates to other industries, and how it negates local agency. This is why Bruel and Atienza (2022) place the emphasis on the local context, and why others, such as Boschma (2016), argue for relatedness, drawing attention to the complexities that go beyond an analysis of competitive advantage.
In South Africa, however, planners commonly focus on competitive advantage (Porter, 2008) and overlook the complexities. They typically envisage only one element of advantage, for example an advantage in chemical manufacturing, forgetting that skills, knowledge, and institutions are essential to drive economic change. The formal and informal rules associated with mine closure often negate closure plans. Kuzambisa-Kiingi (2024), noting the failure to find systematic approaches in post-mining regions, shows how the inability to enforce mine closure institutions for land rehabilitation in the West Rand has contributed to social disruption and high crime levels.
Planning for post-mining economies: Misconceptions and opportunities
Closely linked to the problems associated with competitive advantage is disregard for the South African space economy. This has been noted by Bruel and Atienza (2022), who stress the importance of understanding post-mining economies from a multi-scalar perspective. The spatial structure of the South African economy today is essentially fixed, and finding alternative products or services is difficult. But many planners assume it is easy to disrupt existing value chains by focusing on the region’s agricultural or manufacturing sector. They do not reflect on the business case, and they tend to assume that economic diversification will materialise simply because they say it will. Many companies are investing in high-value and alternative crops as part of the land rehabilitation processes. But despite some small successes, the overall concerns remain as these innovations compete with existing production and only succeed if they find a niche.
As was learned from the international literature, a multiscalar approach to economic diversification is crucial. Too often, the competitive advantage approach does not see that regional economic diversification requires a careful understanding of economics and governance at scales other than the regional.
Misconception 3: Decline should lead to growth
Most grand plans simply assume that mine closure will lead to further growth and one should not pay much attention to the associated decline. However, a global literature has developed around planning for decline (Gans, 1975). It suggests that regions experiencing economic decline should accept this reality and redo their spatial and financial planning on the basis of the decline. Such an approach could lay the foundation for renewed growth in future. Planning for decline would include spatial planning and restructuring engineering services.
Mine decline can bring population decline in its wake. Two examples from South Africa are Matjhabeng (the Free State Goldfields) and Merafong (the West Rand). The current plans for these places all focus on finding new growth paths. Yet these places could benefit from extensive changes to land use regulations and rightsizing land use (reducing service land) and infrastructure.
The more critical question in this respect is how to develop settlements and public infrastructure in a context of decline and uncertainty. Marais (2023) contends that dependence on the goal of generating homeownership and opening towns near mines have been a major stumbling block during the decline. Matebesi et al. (2024) note that planning for a ghost town could be a reasonable response and that policy makers’ aversion to ghost towns is misplaced. In planning settlements where mine decline is likely, much more attention should be devoted to the concepts of modular infrastructure (Marais, Nel, 2016) and ‘tactical urbanism’ (Mould, 2014). These approaches take into account the impermanence of mining. Mine closure planning and planning for post-mining economies need to plan deliberately for decline, rather than pretending it is not happening.
Misconception 4: Closing the mining estate is the most important aspect
The Australian literature emphasises three essential considerations in mine closure: extending beyond the mining estate, integrating technical closure thinking with post-mining ideals, and taking a regional approach. The authors of this paper already stated the importance of obtaining mine closure, although this is mostly not happening in South Africa. Mine closure could also have diversification value. The fact that there is very little progress with
closing mines hampers economic diversification. Mechanical closure could have economic value. And a more active link between closure and a post-mining economy could further assist, as explained in the following.
South Africa offers very few examples of mine closure planning on the mining estate being linked to post-mining economic thinking outside of the mining operations. One problem is that mine closure regulations have technical site-specific requirements on which they focus and seldom require mining companies to consider social and economic issues. Another is the uncertainty associated with mine closure: a mine may close and reopen, and the date of final closure may be unclear even to the company, and the mine may be partly reopened by another company. Placing mines in care and maintenance further increases uncertainty, which does not help with planning. Lack of transparency about closure is also a big problem; companies often withhold information to ensure that productivity remains high (Marais et al., 2005).
A further problem is the way in which the mining industry operates with a mostly front-end approach. Sinking a shaft requires a large investment. As a result, despite early closure planning, the closure cost is often unknown at the start of the process and usually underestimated (Dunow, Kalisch, 2022). A front-end approach on the social side is the social licence to operate that mines are required to have. Getting this licence requires a concerted effort to convince local communities that they will benefit. It is seldom realised how the investments at the start associated with the social licence can impede the development of a post-mining economy (Marais et al., 2024). The rationale for the social licence is to provide social services and ensure that the community sees improvements. Thinking about a post-mining economy many years in the future would not help a mining company to obtain its social licence.
Towards a framework for developing a post-mining economy
The foregoing may have given the impression that there is no place for planning in developing a post-mining economy. The proposed conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1 may seem to contradict this. This framework is indeed a plan of a kind, but a plan on a broader scale, one that takes into account the problems and constraints, and institutional and organisational concerns that are currently being overlooked, and one that keeps in mind the feasibility of implementation.
The framework shows the factors to consider when planning for economic diversification. The mining site and the region where mining occurs are the starting points. The framework then identifies a set of process requirements: integrating technical and social aspects, sharing closure information, developing postmining values, negotiating closure, understanding the importance of a regional approach, using an incremental planning process to evaluate progress and being flexible in implementation rather than taking a steering approach that presets a plan without any feedback mechanism being available.
The framework insists on careful consideration of economic aspects. It has been argued in the aforementioned that current plans are inadequate. The framework shows the importance of understanding the broad range of issues involved in economic diversification and not making simplistic assumptions about it. Issues that require attention in planning a post-mining economy are: the local context; the location and the existing economic structure; the national space economy and a multi-scalar assessment of the economic impacts; the adverse effects of mining on the
Planning for post-mining economies: Misconceptions and opportunities
region (social and economic considerations must be integrated); understanding the wide range of assets available, such as infrastructure and skills (but also the dependencies created by those assets and the feasibility of repurposing them); an assessment of labour issues in terms of wages, skills, knowledge and relatedness; the agency of local people; the capacity of the state; informal and formal institutions or rules; avoiding social disruption that impedes economic stability; and understanding the potential role of land use regulations.
The overall aim of planning is to develop and design postmining economies that consider the inherent complexities, value temporariness, and try to avoid long-term dependency (and harm) from the start of the mining process. This can be done without clearly articulating what the end product needs to be, and it should allow for experimentation while the mine is still operating.
Understanding mining regions and their economic structures and managing the planning and implementation will go a long way towards addressing the many concerns with current plans. The availability of funding for the repurposing, or building of new infrastructure, together with state capacity problems, will remain a concern. But an alternative agreement-making process and working with civil society could be a solution.
Conclusion
Creating post-mining societies and economies is a global concern. Successes are few. This paper reviewed some of the most recent literature to help explain why diversifying a post-mining economy is difficult. It also pointed out two conceptual problems that cause mistakes in planning and governance: planning as theatre and the role of steering in planning. A review of the South African literature brought to light some little-recognised issues: the social disruption that accompanies mine decline, the goal dependencies in policies that make mine closure difficult, and the almost complete absence of successful planned post-mining economies in this country.
In reviewing both the local and global literature, four misconceptions about planning post-mining economies in South Africa were identified: the need for more planning, the misplaced emphasis on competitive advantage, thinking that new growth paths are the only appropriate response to mine closure, and the exclusive focus on the closure of the mining estate.
The paper concludes with a draft framework of issues to consider in developing a post-mining economy. In essence, the planning process should be orientated less to steering and more to implementation, especially of tangible things like land use change that are immediately within a mining city’s capabilities. The principles on which the framework is based are: integrating technical and social factors, sharing closure information, developing post-mining values, negotiating closure, understanding the importance of a regional approach, using an incremental planning process to evaluate progress, and being flexible in implementation. Overall, post-mining planning must recognise and account for the structural problems of mining economies. Too often, South Africa’s plans for post-mining economies are mere theatre.
References
Ackerman, M., Van der Waldt, G., Botha, D. 2018. Mitigating the socio-economic consequences of mine closure. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 118, no. 4, pp. 437–449.
Bainton, N., Holcombe, S. 2018. A critical review of the social aspects of mine closure. Resources Policy, vol. 59, pp. 368–478.
Beer, A., Haslam McKenzie, F., Weller, S, Davies, A., Ziemski, M., Holmes, K., Keenan, J. 2022. Post-mining land uses. CRC TiME Ltd, Brisbane.
Beunen, R., Van Assche, K. 2021. Steering in governance: evolutionary perspectives. Politics and Governance, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 365-368.
Boschma, R. 2016. Relatedness as driver of regional diversification: A research agenda. Regional Studies, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 351–364.
Boschma, R., Frencken, K. 2011. Technological relatedness and regional branching. Beyond Territory: Dynamic Geographies of Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Innovation.
Bathelt, H., Feldman, M., Kogler, D. (eds.). Routledge, London. pp. 64–81.
Bruel, M., Atienza, M. 2022. Extractive industries and regional diversification: A multidimensional framework for diversification in mining regions. The Extractive Industries and Society, 11, 101125.
Figure 1—A framework for thinking about mine closure and the development of a post-mining economy
Planning for post-mining economies: Misconceptions and opportunities
Cloete, J., Marais, L. 2021. Mine housing in the South African coalfields: The unforeseen consequences of post-apartheid policy. Housing Studies, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1388–1406.
CRC TiME. 2024. Transformations and Mining Economies. University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Ding, I. 2020. Performative Governance. World Politics, vol. 72, pp. 525–556.
Dunow, T., Kalisch, H. 2022. The high cost of poor closure estimates. Fourie, A., Tibbett, M. and Boggs, G. (eds.). Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics. pp. 1193–1200.
Everingham, J., Rolfe, J., Lechner, A., Kinnear, S., Akbar, D. 2018. A proposal for engaging a stakeholder panel in planning postmining land uses in Australia’s coal-rich tropical savannahs. Land Use Policy, vol. 79, pp. 397–406.
Foran, T., Ackerman, F., Barber, M. 2024. Values in post-mining regional transition: A political–economic regime approach, with insights from Australia. The Extractive Industries and Society, vol. 20, 101523.
Futrell, R. 1999. Performative governance: Impression management, teamwork and conflict containment in city commission proceedings. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 494–529.
Gans, H. 1975. Planning for declining and poor cities. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 305–307.
Harding, T., Venables, A. 2016. The implications of natural resource exports for nonresource trade. IMF Economic Review, vol. 64, pp. 268–302.
Harrison, P. 2001. The genealogy of South Africa’s integrated development plan. Third World Planning Review, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 175–193.
Harrison, P., Todes, A. 2024. The Promise of Planning: Global Aspirations and South African Experience Since 2008. Routledge. New York.
Haslam McKenzie, F., Eyles, S. 2024. Future-proofing a local government authority for a post-mining future. Geographical Research, https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12634
Hassink, R., Isaksen, A., Trippl, M. 2019. Towards a comprehensive understanding of new regional industrial path development. Regional Studies, vol. 53, pp. 1636–1645.
Hayter, R. 1990. Innis’ staple theory, exports, and recession: British Columbia, 1981–86. Economic Geography, vol. 66, p. 156.
Isaksen, A., Trippl, M. 2019. Exogenously led and policy-supported new path development in peripheral regions: Analytical and synthetic routes. Regional Studies, vol. 93, pp. 436–457.
Kogler, D., Whittle, A., Kim, K., Lengyel, B. 2023. Understanding regional branching: Knowledge diversification via inventor and firm collaboration networks. Economic Geography, vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 471–498.
Kuhlmann, S., Bohumill, J., Grohs, S. 2008. Evaluating administrative modernization in German local governments: Success or failure of the ‘new steering model’. Public Administration Review, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 851–863.
Kuzambisa-Kiingi, M. 2024. Institutional responses to mine closure in the West Rand. PhD thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.
Mabele, D., Nel, V. 2024. Tshikondeni: Mine closure in a deeply rural area. Matebesi, S., Marais, L. and Nel, V. (eds.). Local Responses to Mine Closure in South Africa: Dependencies and Social Disruption. Routledge, London. pp. 121–129.
MacKinnon, D., Dawley, S., Pike, A., Cumbers, A. 2019. Rethinking path creation: A geographical political economy approach. Economic Geography, vol. 95, pp. 113–135.
Marais, L. 2013a. The impact of mine downscaling in the Free State Goldfields. Urban Forum, 24, 503–521.
Marais, L. 2013b. Resources policy and mine closure in South Africa: The case of the Free State Goldfields. Resources Policy, vol. 38, pp. 363–372.
Marais, L. 2018. Housing policy in mining towns: Issues of race and risk in South Africa. International Journal of Housing Policy, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 335–345.
Marais, L. 2023. The Social Impacts of Mine Closure in South Africa: Housing Policy and Place Attachment. Routledge, London.
Marais, L., Cloete, J., Lenka, M. 2022. The plight of mining cities in South Africa: Planning for growth and closure. Cities, 130, 103965.
Marais, L., Lenka, M., Cloete, J., Grobler, W. 2016. Emfuleni. Marais, L., Nel., E and Donaldson, R. (eds.). Secondary Cities and Development. Routledge, London. pp. 63–82.
Marais, L., Ndaguba, E., Mbadi, E., Cloete, J., Lenka, M. 2022. Mine closure, social disruption and crime in South Africa. The Geographical Journal, vol. 188, no. 3, pp. 383–400.
Marais, L., Nel, E. 2016. The dangers of growing on gold: Lessons from the history of the Free State Goldfields, South Africa. Local Economy, vol. 31, nos 1–2, pp. 282–298.
Marais, L., Nel, V., Rani, K., Van Rooyen, D., Sesele, K., Van der Watt, P., Du Plessis, L. 2021. Economic transitions in South Africa’s secondary cities: Governing mine closures. Politics and Governance, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 381–392.
Marais, L. Pelser, A., Botes, L., Benseler, A. 2005. Public finances, service delivery and mine closure in Koffiefontein (Free State, South Africa): From stepping stone to stumbling block. Town and Regional Planning, vol. 48, pp. 5–16.
Marais, L., Matebesi, S., Van der Watt, P. 2024. Social licensing and dependencies: implications for mine closure in South Africa. Resources Policy, vol. 95, 105120.
Matebesi, S., Marais, L., Nel, V. (eds.). 2024. Local Responses to Mine Closure in South Africa: Dependencies and Social Disruption. Routledge, London.
Measham, T., Walker, J., Haslam MacKenzie, F., Kirby, J., Williams, C., D’Urso, J., Littleboy, A., Samper, A., Rey, R., Maybee, B., Brereton, D., Boggs, G. 2024. Beyond closure: A literature review and research agenda for post-mining transitions. Resources Policy, vol. 90, 104859.
Planning for post-mining economies: Misconceptions and opportunities
Meyer, J., Towan, R. 1977. Institutionalised organisations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, 2, pp. 340–363.
Mould, A. 2014. Tactical urbanism: The new vernacular of the creative city. Geography Compass, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 529–539.
Mukumba, C. 2024. Urban Densities in Mining Cities in Zambia. Paper presented at Mining, Community and Closure in Africa Symposium, Centre for Development Support, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, 21–23 August.
Ntema, L. 2019. Rustenburg: Boom and bust in a mining town. Marais, L. and Nel, V. (eds.). Space and Planning in Secondary Cities: Reflections from South Africa. SUN Media, Bloemfontein. pp. 203–218.
Oei, P., Brauers, H., Herpich, P. 2020. Beyond closure: A literature review and research agenda for post-mining transitions. Resources Policy, vol. 90, 104859.
Porter, M. 2008. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. The Free Press, New York.
Scholwin, T. 2021. World cities and peripheral development: The interplay of gateways and subordinate places in Argentina and Ghana’s upstream oil and gas sector. Growth and Change, vol. 52, pp. 111–129.
Sesele, K., Kuzambisa-Kiingi, M. 2024. Matjhabeng: Decline in the urban periphery. Matebesi, S., Marais, L. and Nel, V. (eds.).
Local Responses to Mine Closure in South Africa: Dependencies and Social Disruption. Routledge, London. pp. 67–79.
Shoo, S. 2020. The regional Dutch disease effect within China: A spatial econometric investigation. Energy Economics, 88, 104766.
Stoker, G. 2006. Public value management: A new paradigm for networked governance. American Review of Public Administration, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 41–57.
Van der Ploeg, F. 2012. Natural resources: Curse or blessing? Journal of Economic Literacy, vol. 49, pp. 366–420.
Van der Watt, P., Marais, L. 2021. Implementing social and labour plans in South Africa: Reflections on collaborative planning in the mining industry. Resources Policy, vol. 71, 101984.
Vivoda, V., Kemp, D., Owen, J. 2019. Regulating the social aspects of mine closure in three Australian states. Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 405–424.
Weller, S., Beer, A., Porter, J., Veitch, W. 2020. Identifying measures of success for a global best-practice thermal coal mine and thermal coal-fired power plant closure. Final report for Muswellbrook Shire Council, UniSA Business, Adelaide.
Zine, H., El Mansour, A., Hakkou, R., Papazoglou, E., Benzaazoua, M. 2023. Advancements in mine closure and ecological reclamation: A comprehensive bibliometric overview (1980–2023). Mining, 4, 798–813. u
NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
19-22 May 2025 — ALTA Innovation in Mining and Metallurgical Processing
Pan Pacific Hotel, Perth, Western Australia
Website: https://www.altamet.com.au/
26-29 May 2025 — 9TH Sulphur and Sulphuric Acid Conference 2025
Protea Hotel Stellenbosch and Conference Centre, Stellenbosch
Contact: Gugu Charlie Tel: 011 538-0238
E-mail: gugu@saimm.co.za
Website: http://www.saimm.co.za
3-5 June 2025 — Introduction to Mining Hydrology and Mine Dewatering Design Workshop
Indaba Hotel, Spa and Conference Centre, Fourways
Contact: Gugu Charlie Tel: 011 538-0238
E-mail: gugu@saimm.co.za
Website: http://www.saimm.co.za
22-25 June 2025 — European Metallurgical Conference 2025 (EMC)
Hamburg, Germany
Website: https://gdmb.de/home/
25-26 June 2025 — 4TH Digital Transformation in Mining Conference 2025
Putting digital technologies to work Glenburn Lodge and Spa, Muldersdrift
Contact: Gugu Charlie Tel: 011 538-0238
E-mail: gugu@saimm.co.za
Website: http://www.saimm.co.za
21-25 July 2025 — AfriRock 2025 Pioneering Progress: The Future of Rock Engineering
Sun City, South Africa
Contact: Camielah Jardine
Tel: 011 538-0237
E-mail: camielah@saimm.co.za
Website: http://www.saimm.co.za
18-19 August 2025 — 13TH International Heavy Minerals Conference 2025
Sun City Resort, Rustenburg, South Africa
Contact: Gugu Charlie Tel: 011 538-0238
E-mail: gugu@saimm.co.za
Website: http://www.saimm.co.za
1-3 October 2025 — International Mineral Asset Valuation Conference 2025
Navigating Mineral Asset Valuations in an Uncertain Future
The Maslow Hotel, Sandton
Contact: Gugu Charlie Tel: 011 538-0238
E-mail: gugu@saimm.co.za
Website: http://www.saimm.co.za
13-16 October 2025 — Geometallurgy Conference 2025 Future-Ready Geometallurgy: Trusted Data, Advanced Tools, Smarter Decisions
Glenburn Lodge and Spa, Muldersdrift
Contact: Gugu Charlie Tel: 011 538-0238
E-mail: gugu@saimm.co.za
Website: http://www.saimm.co.za
27-29 October 2025 — 9TH International PGM Conference 2025
PGM - Enabling a cleaner world
Sun City, Rustenburg, South Africa
Contact: Gugu Charlie Tel: 011 538-0238
E-mail: gugu@saimm.co.za
Website: http://www.saimm.co.za
16-22 November 2025 — The 12TH International Copper Conference (Copper 2025) Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Website: https://www.extractionmeeting.org/ Extraction2025/Extraction2025/Copper2025/default.aspx
19-21 November 2025 — MineSafe Hybrid Conference 2025
Safe Mines, Healthy Lives, and Sustainable Futures
Emperors Palace Convention Centre
Contact: Camielah Jardine
Tel: 011 538-0237
E-mail: camielah@saimm.co.za
Website: http://www.saimm.co.za
Company affiliates
The following organizations have been admitted to the Institute as Company Affiliates
acQuire Technology Solutions
AECI Mining Chemicals, a division of AECI Mining Ltd
African Pegmatite
Allied Furnace Consultants
AMIRA International Africa (Pty) Ltd
Anglogold Ashanti Ltd
Anton Paar Southern Africa
Arcus Gibb (Pty) Ltd
Becker Mining (Pty) Ltd
Bluhm Burton Engineering Pty Ltd
Buraaq mining Services (Pty) Ltd
Caledonia Mining South Africa
CARBOCRAFT
Castle Lead Works
CIGroup ACE Pty Ltd
DDP Specialty Products South Africa (Pty) Ltd
De-Tect Unit Inspection (Pty) Ltd
Digby Wells and Associates
EHL Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd
Elbroc Mining Products (Pty) Ltd
EPIROC South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Ex Mente Technologies (Pty) Ltd
Exxaro Resources Limited
FLSmidth Minerals (Pty) Ltd
G H H Mining Machines (Pty) Ltd
Geobrugg Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd
Glencore
Gravitas Minerals (Pty) Ltd
Hatch (Pty) Ltd
Herrenknecht AG
Impala Platinum Holdings Limited
IMS Engineering (Pty) Ltd
Ingwenya Mineral Processing
Ivanhoe Mines SA
Malvern Panalytical (Pty) Ltd
Maptek (Pty) Ltd
Mech-Industries (Pty) Ltd
Micromine Africa (Pty) Ltd
Minearc South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Minerals Council of South Africa
MineRP Holding (Pty) Ltd
Mining Projection Concepts (Pty) Ltd
Mintek
MLB Investments CC
Modular Mining Systems Africa (Pty) Ltd
Murray & Roberts Cementation (Pty) Ltd
Paterson & Cooke Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd
Pump and Abrasion Technologies (PTY) Ltd
Redpath Mining (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd
Rosond (Pty) Ltd
Roytec Global (Pty) Ltd
Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited - Union
Salene Mining (Pty) Ltd
Schauenburg (Pty) Ltd
Sebotka (Pty) Ltd
SENET (Pty) Ltd
Sibanye Gold Limited
Sound Mining Solution (Pty) Ltd
SRK Consulting SA (Pty) Ltd
StageFright Edutainment
Tomra (Pty) Ltd
Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority
Ukwazi Mining Solutions (Pty) Ltd
VBKOM Consulting Engineers
Weir Minerals Africa
ZUTARI (Pty) Ltd
Wits University, Johannesburg
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment
Professor or Associate Professor: Hydrometallurgy (1 position)
Professor or Associate Professor Vacancy
Description
The school has an established reputation for the quality of its graduates and research, runs excellent facilities and hosts a SARChI research chair in hydrometallurgy and sustainable development and offers excellent opportunities for consultation and collaboration with chemical processing industries. The school has also developed an active hydrometallurgy lab which means excellent opportunities exist for consultation/collaboration with the mining industry.
The School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering invites applications from suitably qualified candidates who possess a first degree in Metallurgical Engineering or Chemical Engineering (with a major in extractive metallurgy), as well as a relevant PhD degree, for appointment as Professor or Associate Professor in the field of extractive metallurgical engineering with a focus on hydrometallurgy. The aim of this position is to take over the work and legacy of the DSI/NRF SARChI: Hydrometallurgy and Sustainable Development Chair which is focused on hydrometallurgy and hosted within the school. The successful candidate will be expected to lead research in both fundamental topics, innovation and applications in line with the scope of the Chair. The candidate will also carry out undergraduate and postgraduate teaching in metallurgical engineering with a focus on hydrometallurgy.
Qualifications and requirements
First degree in Metallurgical Engineering or Chemical Engineering (with a major in extractive metallurgy), as well as a relevant PhD degree are a requirement for appointment as Professor / Associate Professor in the field of extractive metallurgical engineering with a focus on hydrometallurgy. A reasonable period of experience in a research capacity will be required with evidence of research output and supervision of postgraduate students to completion. The field of specialization is in hydrometallurgy, and the successful candidate will be encouraged to grow the research group within the school and create links with industry partners. The successful candidate will be encouraged to pursue further training in higher education. Registration as a professional engineer (Pr.Eng.) and NRF-rating will be strongly encouraged particularly for local applicants.
Duties
The successful candidate will be expected to demonstrate expertise in subjects comprising metallurgical engineering and the ability to:
• Teach both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
• Engage in continuous development of the programme, adapting it to the ever-changing challenges facing the university or society.
• Undertake research in the area of hydrometallurgy in a productive manner and publish research papers in accredited journals.
• Expand existing and initiate new research programmes, raise and manage funds from national and international funding agencies and industry.
• Supervise postgraduate students at master’s and doctoral level qualifications in metallurgical engineering.
• Undertake assigned school duties of an administrative nature.
Enquiries: Professor Geoffrey Simate; (Acting) Head of the School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering E-mail: Geoffrey.simate@wits.ac.za, Telephone No. +27 11 717 7570
To Apply: Please submit a letter of motivation specifying the level at which you are applying, a detailed CV with names and current e-mail addresses and contact numbers of (3) three referees, certified copies of qualifications, academic transcripts and South African ID and/or (copy of Passport if not a South African Citizen). External applicants are invited to apply by registering on the Wits i-Recruitment platform located at https://irec.wits.ac.za. Internal employees may apply directly on Oracle Self-Service on the Wits Intranet by selecting ‘‘Apply for a job’’.
Note: Applications that are incomplete and that do not meet job requirements will not be considered.
Closing Date: 2 May 2025
Please Note: Given the thrust of the University’s strategic plan on transformation, preference may be given to appointable applicants from the under-represented designated groups in terms of the relevant employment equity plans and policies of the University. The University reserves the right to verify all information provided by candidates and to verify credit rating. Please note that correspondence will only be entered into with the shortlisted candidates.The University reserves the right to make an appointment or re-advertise.
2025 SAFE MINES,
HEALTHY LIVES, AND SUSTAINABLE
FUTURES
HYBRID CONFERENCE
19-20 NOVEMBER 2025 — CONFERENCE
21 NOVEMBER 2025— INDUSTRY AWARDS DAY EMPERORS PALACE CONVENTION CENTRE
30 JUNE 2025— ABSTRACT SUBMISSION DEADLINE
BACKGROUND
Abstract Submission Deadline –30 June 2025
We are excited to announce the 2025 MineSafe Conference and Industry Awards Day a key event dedicated to enhancing safety, health, and environmental practices within the mining and metallurgical industry. This conference will serve as a vital platform for knowledge-sharing and idea exchange among key stakeholders, including mining companies, the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), the Minerals Council South Africa, labour unions, and health and safety practitioners at all levels in the minerals industry. The Industry Awards Day on 21 November 2025, serves as a platform to recognise individuals and organisations who achieve and portray high standards of safety, health and sustainability practices.
OBJECTIVES
Promoting Learning: Facilitating the exchange of experiences and best practices to enhance safety, health, and environmental standards in the mining and metallurgical sector.
Addressing Safety, Health, and Environment: Discussing critical safety and health concerns for employees, contractors, and local communities while emphasising sustainable environmental practices.
Enhancing Relationships with Local Communities: Addressing the environmental, social, and economic impacts of mining operations to foster stronger community engagement.
Zero Harm Approach: Promoting a commitment to a workplace free from injuries and accidents, reinforcing the industry’s dedication to safety.
Value-Based Approach: Encouraging a culture where health and safety go beyond compliance and become core organisational values.
Tackling Industry Challenges: Exploring solutions to pressing industry issues such as logistics, energy consumption, and workforce safety. By bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders, this conference aims to drive meaningful collaboration
and collective action towards a safer, healthier, and more sustainable future for the mining and metallurgical industry.
Join us as we work together towards Safe Mines, Healthy Lives, and Sustainable Futures!
PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
Sponsorship opportunities are available. Companies wishing To partner on this event should contact the Conference Coordinator.
WHO SHOULD ATTEND
The conference should be of value to:
• Safety practitioners
• Mine management
• Mine health and safety officials
• Engineering managers
• Underground production supervisors
• Surface production supervisors
• Environmental scientists
• Minimizing of waste
• Operations manager
• Processing manager
• Contractors (mining)
• Including mining consultants, suppliers and manufacturers
• Education and training
• Energy solving projects
• Water solving projects
• Unions
• Academics and students
• DMRE
• Occupational health practitioners
CALL FOR PAPERS
Call for papers on the topics of safety, health and environment
Prospective authors are invited to submit titles and abstracts of their presentations in English and not longer than 500 words. Abstracts should be submitted to: Camielah Jardine, Head of Conferencing, E-mail: camielah@saimm.co.za