Imagine a world where the echoes of the past are seamlessly woven into the future of mining. This article, reveals how mining companies can honor and protect cultural heritage during mine closures.

Cultural heritage can be tangible, such as archaeological material or an historic building and it can be intangible, including cultural practices like song, dance, language and traditions. Protecting it can be tricky, especially during mine closures. Incorporating cultural heritage into closure planning from the very first stages is the best way to allocate adequate resources and deliver an integrated approach, considering all closure objectives. Continuous engagement with traditional knowledge holders and the local community helps maintain cultural information intact and meet community cultural needs, even as they evolve throughout the mine’s lifetime. 

Cultural heritage consists of more than just the sites and buildings of historic or symbolic significance, it also includes intangible heritage associated with those sites and structures, like language, rituals, and community bonds and traditions. The multi-faceted nature of cultural heritage makes protecting it a complex endeavour, but its intrinsic value makes that protection necessary. 

Mining operators use social and environmental impact assessments to evaluate the effects of proposed developments on the surroundings. Those assessments become the foundation of mine closure plans, plans which must be established even before development begins. 

Navigating the impact the development will have on local cultural heritage is a vital part of these impact assessments which should also consider future closure implications. Cultural heritage must be considered as part of the larger mining sustainability mandate. At WSP, we have established mine closure teams operating in several jurisdictions across the globe. Our teams have considerable experience in closure planning and draw on subject matter experts from a broad range of disciplines, including social transition, cultural heritage and environmental management and landform design.
The broad spectrum of specialties means closure objectives can be established to address diverse environmental, engineering, socio-economic and cultural heritage perspectives.

Cultural heritage deserves full consideration 

Gavin Martin, Technical Executive – Communities and Social Performance at WSP in Australia, has considerable experience balancing the many competing imperatives involved in mine closure. “When closing a mine, rehabilitating or restoring the land is a prime consideration. It is critical the local environment is restored as much as possible. But it is equally important to consider whether the closure work might lead to previously unconsidered impacts on cultural heritage.” 

The earthworks and demolition involved in removing mining infrastructure can have a deleterious effect on local cultural heritage by disturbing either tangible monuments or the social practices associated with them. “Even though the result might be positive in terms of long-term restoration,” Gavin says, “Mining companies must promote full consideration of the wider area and put strong management plans in place to protect any sites of cultural heritage during that demolition work, in a manner that enables local communities to continue to use the land for cultural activities.” 

How to protect cultural heritage 

Mine closures involve social as well as physical transitions. Many mining areas contain or are located near cultural relics: some mines are themselves considered sites of cultural heritage. This makes managing cultural heritage while planning for mine closure complicated. Gavin has several suggestions to improve the process: 

Make it a priority:

The first, most important imperative is to integrate cultural heritage assessment into long-term closure planning from the very beginning. When planning mine development, mine closure is a remote future objective. Regulators, communities, and miners themselves are usually more concerned about their immediate requirements. Thinking 10, 20, 30 years into the future takes a distant second place. But cultural heritage can be lost during those decades, unless preservation measures are put in place.  The understanding and essence of the cultural heritage itself can be lost or diminished, if entire generations grow up without access. 

Designing a new mine with full consideration of the closure implications for cultural heritage management reduces future closure liabilities and lessens the impact on communities and cultural heritage. When community access measures and ongoing active protection of significant cultural heritage occurs over the life of a mine operation, less work is required to reinstate these during closure phases. 

Improve information storage:

The long lifetime of mine development and operation means it is easy to lose information. Stakeholders change over the course of a mine’s working life, and whatever agreements were made at the beginning of the project might dissolve without them. Mining companies have an obligation to maintain good information management practices and regularly review and validate their information regarding cultural heritage through active engagement with knowledge holders. 

Balance social and environmental imperatives:

Much effort is dedicated to environmental rehabilitation and restoration after mine closure. However, cultural heritage criteria are as important as other closure objectives. If an area of significant cultural heritage is noted at the last minute, the adjustments needed to provide the community with access will disrupt previous environmental plans.  

Mine closure planning: an integrated approach 

Cultural heritage impact assessment and planning should be integrated into mine closure planning at the very start of the process. If cultural heritage has been actively managed during mining operations, then cultural values and community sentiment will be well understood when it comes to closure. Integrating these cultural heritage considerations into closure planning should be a clear process.  

This approach allows for an assessment of post-mining land use that considers ongoing cultural heritage management alongside economic and environmental objectives.  

Hear community voices  

Previously, mine closure plan requirements have been written with an emphasis on engineering and environmental imperatives. Recently, changing government and public expectations have grown, calling for the social aspects of mine closure to be considered earlier. Integrating community voices into the closure process has become equally important. Put simply, the community will remain when the miners leave. Local community needs and aspirations must be considered when it comes to post-mining land use. Ongoing protection of cultural heritage is often of key importance for local communities.  

Community views can change over time and mines are long-term projects. They run for multiple decades and several community generations could be impacted by their operation. Gavin urges mining companies to make regular community check-ins. Not just in the planning stages or when development begins, discussion must be part of the ongoing operational process. Ongoing communication allows for reexamination and adaptation of the closure plan as new considerations arise. The exact nature of the process will vary according to the place and community preferences, but the need to remain in contact does not change. 

Lay the foundation for future success 

When planning the transition from mine operations to closure, the primary goal is to retain both economic and social value at the site. Environmental protection is often paramount; rehabilitation efforts have made huge advancements in recent years and environmental restoration outcomes are more successful than ever before.   

But cultural heritage must also be taken into account. If there is a culturally significant location in the mine’s area, the community may require access to it, even after mine closure. Rehabilitation efforts must work with local cultural heritage. 

In the original consultation phase, a broader spectrum of questions must be asked to keep community needs and interests balanced. Gavin posits a hypothetical mine that wants to erect solar panels upon closure. “A solar farm is a smart choice for renewable energy, but the impact on cultural heritage must also be assessed. Will it detract from the way that community used the area pre-development? Will it interfere with traditional water crossings or hunting areas? Are there other sites of important cultural heritage within the area?” 

It’s equally important to consider that after 50, 60, or possibly even 100 years of operations, the mine itself will be culturally important. Tourists can now visit former mine sites in the mountains of the Trentino-South Tyrol in the Italian Alps. (Mining Museum - Location Predoi, Monteneve Mine and Villandro Silver Mine) Similarly, Virginia City in Nevada offers visitors a silver mine tour and mining museums. Cultural heritage and tourism may co-exist, and the potential for future social and economic benefits cannot be discounted. Of course, not all sites of cultural heritage will be future tourist attractions due to their social histories and importance to contemporary communities. This highlights the importance of integrated post-mining land use assessments which are place-based and informed by the individual site and its local context. 

Gavin, whose background in archaeology informs his work with mine closure planning, understands this. “There aren’t many places without any regulations designed to manage and protect culture.” Each community has unique views and values associated with land use and may have imperatives that go beyond the merely economic. They might prefer the site be left alone due to sacred or religious importance, for instance, rather than transitioned into a new industry. Even well-intentioned post-mining land use must be integrated with local cultural values.