Who decides what successful mine closure looks like? This paper explores Indigenous influence over closure and post-mining governance.
Environmental impact assessment (IA) has become increasingly effective at addressing Indigenous rights, cultural heritage and social impacts during project approval. However, far less attention is given to mine closure, when decisions about the future condition and governance of Country are realised.
This paper examines whether Australian mine closure frameworks adequately support Indigenous participation in defining post-mining outcomes. Drawing on a review of regulatory requirements, environmental assessment processes and Indigenous agreement-making practices, it explores a governance paradox: impact assessment is often strongest at approval but weakest at closure.
The paper argues that while Indigenous agreements commonly address employment, benefit-sharing and consultation during operations, they often provide limited influence over closure objectives, final landforms, cultural rehabilitation, relinquishment and post-closure governance. Closure planning therefore remains centred on technical and environmental outcomes, with limited recognition of Indigenous aspirations for cultural continuity, future land use and stewardship of Country.
The paper proposes a rights-based closure framework that reframes mine closure as a continuation of impact assessment rather than its endpoint, arguing that Indigenous-defined cultural, governance and Country-based outcomes should become core closure criteria.
Siobhán Walker is a cultural heritage leader and PhD researcher exploring Indigenous rights, mine closure and post-mining futures