The definition of the future use of mined lands should be considered early in the life cycle of a mine. Well-established concepts, such as “Begin with the end in mind” or “Design for closure,” have at their core the idea of having in mind the intended use of the mined area before the cessation of operational activities. However, closure is complex and the optimal future use of a mined area involves evaluation of environmental, social, and economic aspects, all of which change through the life of a mine. Closure is also a dynamic and iterative process that needs to be integrated into operations, while accounting for the possibility of temporary or sudden closure (ICMM, 2019).

Traditionally understood in technical, environmental and (to a lesser extent) socio-economic terms, mine closure and transition is increasingly recognized as a significant governance challenge. Governance, in this context, refers not merely to the legal aspects of mine reclamation or closure regulation but rather the broader suite of actors, institutions, processes, methods, rules and practices that guide and oversee mine site transitions. Governance structures, interactions and practices are shaped by power relations as well as reflecting embedded norms and values. Since the 1980s, mine closure governance has expanded from a preoccupation by industry and governments with hazard mitigation, environmental reclamation and, in some cases, economic and social ‘adjustment,’ to encompass a wider set of social, economic and environmental aspects of closure (Kendall 1992; Laurence 2006). These issues may affect workers, local and regional development agencies, Indigenous rightsholders, fenceline communities and environmental advocates, among others (Bainton and Holcombe 2018; Everingham et al. 2020). This broad range of actors and issues, in turn, has generated reactions and responses from individual companies, industry associations and governments at all levels seeking to mitigate closure and transition impacts (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2016; Owen and Kemp 2018; Hodge and Brehaut 2023).

The ability to close and relinquish a mine is becoming increasingly important. Over the past few decades the mining sector has been promoting sustainable practices (Lohdia, 2018). But mine closure challenges the industry’s sustainability intentions. The mining industry’s peak body has made available a set of mine closure guidelines (e.g. ICMM, 2019). However, mining companies avoid closure by putting a mine under care and maintenance or selling the assets to smaller firms (Owen & Kemp, 2018). Abandonment of mines is common worldwide and is still occurring. The global problem of abandoned or improperly closed mines makes it clear that “it’s not over, when it’s over” (World Bank, 2002).

Mining activity can have small geographic footprints compared to the significant economic, employment, and environmental impacts that are experienced at a much larger scale. Likewise, the closure of these mines can lead to regional-scale transformations in economic and sociodemographic structure that exhibit cumulative or interactive effects with regional trends (Haggerty et al., 2018; Syahrir et al., 2021). Yet regional- or meso-level planning and regulation of mining activity and mine closure is often overlooked as extractive industries are typically regulated at state, provincial or national levels, with local oversight typically limited to where the mine is located (Lobao et al., 2009). Regional-level analysis also must include a diversity of rightsholders and stakeholders that may be impacted differently and with varying levels of influence or agency over how economic futures are defined (Monosky and Keeling 2021; Roemer and Haggerty, 2021).

Over the life of a mining project, infrastructure is built, and mining activities alter the landscape. These activities create risks that may remain even with the implementation of rehabilitation and control measures during and after mining (Measham et al., 2024). The goal for many mining operations is to relinquish the site to a clearly defined next landowner or manager who will take over responsibility for the site, including any known or unknown residual risks and liabilities (IGF, 2023).